Save Ice Hockey. Enough with the Nukes, eh!

Last week I had a blast at a Washington Capitol’s ice hockey game in DC. I was just enjoying a nice break from a busy week of climate activism when I see something on the wall behind the goalie-box that almost ruined my night. A billboard advertisement for nuclear energy that read: “Nuclear: The Clean Air Energy” solution. Come on! You would think a sport like ice hockey that will literally not exist if we allow global warming to accelerate wouldn’t be so quick to take money from a false solution like the nuclear industry. *Sigh*

Then on Monday Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Sen. Webb (D-VA) released a new bill that would be a huge give-away of $20 billion taxpayer dollars to the nuclear industry. It’s no surprise that this money will come from the government because Wall Street won’t touch nuclear power with a ten foot pole. Plain and simple: it’s a BAD INVESTMENT. Conservatives are irked about the expansion of federal government spending and yet their brilliant solution to the energy crisis? Sink billions into the expensive, unsafe nuclear power. (Read more at CCAN member, Matt Dernoga’s excellent Letter to Editor).

Every new nuclear power plant built would be a step backwards when it comes to solving global warming. Investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency is a safer, faster and less expensive alternative to nuclear energy. Tapping into Maryland’s abundant renewable energy sources would create far more jobs for far less money than investing in unsafe nuclear energy. That’s why yesterday I was pleased to join our friends at Environment Maryland to release a new report: “Generating Failure: How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming”. You can read the full report here.

Here an excerpt about the press conference that was printed in the Annapolis Capitol:

“Maryland has charted a course to put us on the stage of national leadership” when it comes to combating climate change, said Ethan Nuss, Maryland campaign coordinator with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. And with good reason. Maryland is incredibly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, Nuss said. Sea level rise would affect the state’s natural resources and fishing and tourism economy. “We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act in the most decisive manner to solve the climate crisis,” said Nuss. “Nuclear power is not that solution.”

At the end of the day there is a litany of reasons to oppose nuclear power. But the thing that I can’t get over is the wasteful complexity of the entire nuclear fuel cycle. From when uranium is mined on Native American lands, then refined-processesed, put through a complicated atom-splitting reactor, to heat water, to generate steam, which turns a turbine

Md Utility (Nuke) Deal Still Risky

Two months ago I sat in an uncomfortable folding chair in the aging War Memorial Building in Baltimore. The drab walls had yellowed over the years in the dim lighting and dusty old flags hung in remembrance of past sacrifices for Democracy. But that evening this tired old hall was alive with hundreds of people taking part in a hearty democratic discourse. Dozens of activists occupied the first two rows of the hearing room to give testimony to the Public Service Commission and say “No Deal” to the merger between Constellation/EDF.

Many Maryland citizens spoke up at this hearing and across the state to voice their opposition to this merger that would rip off Maryland ratepayers and move us loser to more unsafe nuclear power in the Free State. CCAN was proud to work with out partners in the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition to represent the public interest in this campaign. Last Friday the PSC announced their decision. They didn’t reject the merger outright but did include some conditions that are more favorable to BG&E ratepayers (full press statement below). The campaign continues for a more comprehensive approach to Maryland’s Clean Energy Future. (Here is a clip of me on WAMU 88.5, the DC area NPR affiliate). Let’s keep fighting!

COALITION WARNS OF UTILITY DEAL’S IMPLICATIONS
Public Service Commission Conditions May Mitigate Some Risk

Press statement of Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition Spokesperson, Johanna Neumann, on the Maryland Public Service Commission’s Conditional Approval of the Deal between Constellation Energy Group and Electricite de France.

“While we are disappointed that the Public Service Commission (PSC) didn’t reject the deal between Constellation Energy and EDF outright, conditions placed on the deal may help safeguard BGE ratepayers from risks associated with the transaction if it moves forward.

In its ruling the PSC largely ignored the fact that the sale would continue to expose Marylanders to the risk associated with the construction of a new nuclear reactor in the state, including higher utility rates if the plant comes online.

The reactor likely would result in rates dramatically higher than current market rates. The California Energy Commission recently issued a report projecting nuclear generating costs in 2018, roughly the time Calvert Cliffs III could come online, at a staggering 34.24 cents/kwh, nearly triple current costs in Maryland. In the same study, the commission found that all renewable sources of energy were cheaper than nuclear power in that timeframe.

Moody’s and other credit rating agencies have indicated their intent to downgrade utilities that build new nuclear reactors because of the high risk involved in the project. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 50 percent of proposals for new nuclear reactors default before completion.

While it is disappointing that the PSC has left the door open for construction of an expensive and unnecessary new nuclear reactor in Maryland that diverts resources from faster, cheaper and safer ways to meet our state’s energy needs, the conditions outlined in their brief would take some steps to protect ratepayers from having to assume the project’s risks.”

Say "NO DEAL!" To an Unsafe Nuke Merger

An alert from our partners at the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition

Breaking News! British nuclear regulators are delaying Electricite de France’s (EdF) attempt to revive the British nuclear industry due to critical safety concerns with the Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR), the same reactor proposed for Calvert Cliffs.

British regulators have discovered problems with the EPR’s automated safety systems. Regulators in Finland–where the EPR is already 3 years behind schedule–recently have voiced similar concerns. We must alert Maryland regulators to our concerns with not only the EPR proposed for Maryland, but with EdF and Areva–the French company peddling the defective reactor.

We need your indispensable help again! If you haven’t yet signed the “No Deal” petition, please do so now. And please send the petition to 5 of your friends and family members in Maryland. We need to raise more voices against the deal to bring unsafe and costly energy to Maryland.

Your activism through the past petition guided the PSC’s decision to regulate the Constellation/EDF deal

Call Senators – loan guarantees for nukes AND "clean coal" in stimulus package!

The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee late on the night of January 27 snuck in a provision to President Obama’s economic stimulus package that would allow as much as $50 BILLION of your dollars to be used as loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear reactors. This would be on top of the $18.5 Billion taxpayer dollars already authorized by Congress during the Bush administration.

Please CALL your Senators today (202-224-3121).

These loan guarantees would mean more nuclear reactors and more radioactive waste piling up in communities across our country. They would also mean less money for safer, cheaper and cleaner energy alternatives like solar and wind power.

The provision is vaguely worded. It would authorize $50 Billion in new loan guarantees for “eligible technologies.” These technologies include nuclear, “clean coal,” renewable energy sources and electric transmission. But the stimulus package is intended to create new jobs and economic activity over the next two years. Not only should new nuclear reactors and the false concept of

Sep 17 – Nat'l Call-in Day on Nukes

National Call-In Day is Wednesday, September 17. The U.S. Senate is planning to consider energy legislation this week; among the bills it will take up is the Gang of 20 bill best known for its “compromise” on offshore oil drilling. Tucked away in the 233 pages of the bill are about 18 pages that would create the biggest giveaway to the nuclear power industry ever.

*Unlimited taxpayer loan guarantees for construction of new atomic reactors

*Construction of a new, dangerous, and unnecessary reprocessing plant

*Billions of dollars in “risk insurance” for new reactors Continue reading

Nukes don't solve warming.

CCAN opposes the construction of a third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs.

There, I said it.

The secret is out. CCAN, a climate group, also opposes the development of new nuclear power. We’ve joined up with the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition to fight this new Maryland reactor.

Why is this? Isn’t nuclear power going to be part of the climate solution? How are we going to shut down all the dirty, carbon-emitting coal plants and have enough electricity to power our laptops and tvs and i-pods and microwaves without nuclear energy?

Here are some answers for you. First of all, nuclear power is going to be a part of the climate solution – existing reactors that are already pumping energy into our grid shouldn’t be shut down as a matter of course. However, investment in new nuclear power as a climate solution is disingenuous, at best.

One commonly-touted claim is that nuclear power is carbon-neutral:

While electricity generated from nuclear reactors does not directly emit global warming pollution, the nuclear fuel chain does produce greenhouse gases. As the world demand for nuclear energy and uranium rises, the quality of uranium that will be available will decline, and require more energy intensive (and more costly) processing. Eventually, global warming pollution from nuclear energy may be higher than that from natural gas plants. (click here for full factsheet)

In addition, investing in energy efficiency is a far more cost-effective way of dealing with both global warming pollution and energy shortages. Other, cleaner forms of energy, such as solar and wind, can compete economically with nuclear power, and cause considerably less environmental degradation.

This brings me to my next point. Cost.

Calvert County already has granted $300 million in tax breaks to Constellation Energy. This is equal to $4,500 per taxpayer in Calvert County. The new plant will add 450 full-time jobs in thecounty, but at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $750,000 per job. Constellation will seek additional subsidies from the federal government and may seek additional financing from the state.Constellation could also potentially seek to have some of the cost of the new plant paid for by electricity ratepayers, by adding the cost of the plant to the rate base that customers pay. (click here for full factsheet and sources)

With all of this tax money getting poured into a nuclear reactor, especially during a budget crisis, do you really think that there will be money left over for the state to invest significantly in renewable energy like home solar tax incentives or offshore wind farms? Yeah, I don’t either.

If you’re starting to get fired up, there are plenty of ways to get involved. The MD Public Service Commission will be holding a series of public hearings in August, so stay tuned for opportunities to submit your comments. Not only that, but I’ll be continuing to post updates on this fight throughout the summer – including more information on this particular plant, resources for you to learn more, and ways to connect with other activists.

PS – If you’re interested in learning more about other worrisome aspects of nuclear power (like terrorism possibilities and waste disposal), CSEC has a some more really informative factsheets. Woo, factsheets

Nuclear energy: What role should it play in tackling global warming?

Here, in very simple terms, is what CCAN thinks:

In terms of greenhouse gas reductions [nuclear energy] is not a deal breaker. Despite the many negatives of nuclear energy, one positive is that it generates almost no carbon dioxide. [CCAN does] not advocate building a single new nuclear power plant, but neither [does it] advocate shutting down existing ones in the face of rapid global warming.

What do you think? What role, if any, should nuclear power play in the face of rapid global warming? Continue reading