When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money. Cree Prophecy
While I support your efforts to address global warming, costly consumer subsidies for old, uneconomic nuclear reactors and new nuclear power must be removed from your climate plan. These reactors can and should be replaced with clean renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Nuclear power is not only ineffective at addressing global warming, by misdirecting money better spent on clean renewable and energy efficiency resources, it is actually counterproductive. But that’s not nuclear’s only drawback in addressing our climate crisis. As NIRS’ new fact sheet on nuclear power and climate indicates,new nuclear power would be too slow, cost too much, create too much radioactive waste, pose too much threat of nuclear disaster, and produce both too much plutonium and even carbon to be useful as a climate strategy. Meanwhile, the costs of clean renewable energy are plummeting and capacity is skyrocketing, making renewables the clear choice to replace both polluting nuclear and fossil fuel plants. Yet the EPA’s carbon reduction proposal released June 2 would encourage ratepayer subsidies to keep uneconomic, aging and dangerous nuclear reactors that otherwise would close operating indefinitely. The proposal also would encourage more construction of extraordinarily expensive new reactors. Both of these steps would have the effect of deterring deployment of 21st century energy technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, advanced energy efficiency, distributed generation, smart grids and other clean energy programs. Tell President Obama that the nuclear provisions in the Administration’s carbon reduction plan must be removed and clean energy must be supported if we are to effectively address global warming.
