Addressing Global Warming is an Urgent Priority

Nuclear Power, however, is NOT the Answer

At best, nuclear power will divert needed capital and distract from the real solutions: Efficiency and Renewables.

Don’t be Fooled by Bush and the Nuclear Industry. For decades, we environmentalists have pressed our government and industries to face the reality of Global Climate Change and to take action. Most utilities, however, like the tobacco companies before them, have lived in denial of the harm their product has been causing. They have fought tooth and nail to oppose any regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Now, some of these same utilities, the Bush administration and the reactor vendors are trying to sell us a failed technology—nuclear fission power—on the basis that we “need it” to address global warming. The truth is that nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive and does not offer the solution to our climate woes.

Some well-intentioned citizens, while maintaining very real concerns about nuclear waste, safety and security, have accepted the industry line that says “nukes are better than coal, and we need the energy.” Nukes vs. coal is a false choice, however. We urge you to get the facts, rather than falling prey to scare tactics and a pricey PR campaign.

Nuclear Power is not Climate Friendly

• While nuclear reactors do not emit CO2, the mining, transportation and enrichment of uranium, the construction of nuclear power plants and the treatment, storage, transportation and disposal of nuclear waste all require large quantities of fossil fuel energy and lead to significant CO2 emissions.

• CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Uranium enrichment entails considerable emissions of Freon, which has thousands of times more global warming potential per unit weight than CO2. The two enrichment plants in Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, released 818,000 pounds of Freon in 1999, 88 percent of all U.S. industrial sources.

Nuclear:  Too Slow, Too Costly, Too Dangerous

• A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study projected we would need 1500 new 1000-megawatt reactors to displace just 20 percent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. This would require completing a new plant the size of Callaway every two weeks for 60 years. The waste from these plants would require a new waste repository site the size of Yucca Mountain every 3 to 4 years. Besides the unacceptable risks entailed, this would cost trillions of dollars and would crowd out investment in technologies that could address the whole problem, not just a small fraction.

There are Answers

The key to a sustainable energy future is becoming far more efficient in our energy usage and switching as rapidly as we can to renewable sources. These options are not only safe, clean and sustainable, but also are cheaper and quicker than building nuclear plants

• We can improve the efficiency of almost everything we do with electricity, from lighting and refrigeration, to air conditioning and communications. Lighting efficiency improvements alone could eliminate the need for 120 large power plants, saving ratepayers $30 billion per year just on operating costs. Overall, dollars invested in efficiency improvements produce seven times the greenhouse gas reductions of dollars invested in nukes.

• Building windmills and solar collectors requires some fossil fuels. Nuclear power, however, releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy over the entire fuel chain than renewable energy sources. Thus, renewables are a far more effective place to invest.

We Need You to Act

Now is the time to speak out and let our elected officials know that the American people insist that, as a society, we address Global Climate Change. We need to be specific, however, and let them know we want an energy efficient economy and a renewable energy future.

With AmerenUE talking about building a new nuclear plant in nearby Callaway County, this is a time we must also be outspoken as to what we don’t want: expensive, dangerous and waste-producing nuclear plants.