As an activist in Florida, I’m usually skeptical about the possibility of a sustainable future for my beloved state. But recently, the tide seems to have turned. Florida is historically a VERY pro-development state, which has disregarded the consequences of development on the environment and our quality of life. However, Florida is now moving towards a decidedly anti-coal stance! The first sign of this turn against coal was seen in the fate of the massive Glades coal plant proposal. At almost 2,000 MW, this monstrosity was slated to be built in a pristine area near the Everglades, a Seminole Indian reservation and a low income community of color. We were all gearing up for a fierce battle and had just finished our Energy Justice Summer training around it, when….the Public Service Commission rejected it claiming that it is, “not the most cost-effective alternative available.” To add to that, recently elected Gov. Crist came out and said that he endorsed their decision.
But, there are still a bunch of other coal plants proposed in Florida, so we set our sights on the Taylor Energy Center, an 800 MW coal plant slated for Taylor county, which would provide power to the city of Tallahassee and (ironically) Disney. We’ve been organizing a second Energy Justice Summer training around this plant, when we recently got the news that “The Taylor Energy Center announced plans today to suspend permitting activities while participating in a recently announced state dialogue on Florida’s energy future.” WOW!
To add to that, Gov. Crist is holding a Florida Climate Change Summit, with keynotes from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert E. Kennedy Jr. and Theodore Roosevelt IV. For a state that until very recently had Jeb Bush as Gov, this development has caused an unprecedented wave of hope to sweep the state. Suddently, our new Republican Gov. is the darling of climate activists throughout the state. Drafts of one of the Governor’s executive orders show that Crist wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels over the next 10 years through energy efficiency and push the state’s utilities to get 20 percent of their energy from alternative sources. This would make Florida the first Southern state to commit to carbon emissions reductions!
But is it really that hopeful? At Southern Energy Network, we’ve decided to switch the focus of our EJS training to some nearby nuclear plants, one of which is pending permits, and one which is undergoing expansion. As we ramp up our fight against coal, we need to also be cautious of what will be replacing those coal plants we defeat. On the front page of the Palm Beach Post this Sunday, a quote from Gov. Christ confirmed my suspicion. Discussing the possibility for a clean energy Florida, he said “I am confident that it can be done: Wind, solar and nuclear. If we look at all three for clean, energy-efficient power, I know it can be done.”
Nuclear does not and will not fit the description for a clean, just and renewable source of energy. In addition to being a super expensive energy source (although heavily subsidized with our tax dollars), there’s the extraction of uranium, of which there are huge deposits on native land, and the eventual storing of the wastes, which tends to be either in low income communities of color or on native land. Therefore, nuclear is NOT a “clean or green” source of energy that we want to power our future. I think that the momentum that we have built up in our fight against coal is inspirational, and I fully believe that we can effectively block the construction of new plants and move to a moratorium on all coal plant construction and the end of the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining. But we need to also be aware of the threat of nuclear and other questionable energy sources, and refuse to compromise as we move towards a truly clean, just and sustainable energy future!
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Nuclear is a clean source of energy and it is cost effective. If energy producers that use coal had to pay for the environmental impact that is caused by coal, nuclear power would seem like a bargain in comparison. Also, in comparison, the nuclear power industry ratepayers have been paying for the development of a spent fuel repository for years.
It seems to me that if so called “environmental activists” such as yourself, would work from a position of knowledge rather than unsupported generalizations, there would be increased acceptance of nuclear power by the public. Rather, you would prefer to appear educationally enlightened about something you really know nothing about.
Here are a few facts:
A National Cancer Institute (NCI) survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, March 20, 1991, showed no general increased risk of death from cancer for people living in 107 U.S. counties containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. (this is published on the NCI webpage).
Spent nuclear fuel can be managed and reprocessed safely. If you dispute this, ask yourself how the U.S. Navy has managed to do this since? Have you ever read about a problem with spent fuel shipments made by the Navy? The facts speak for themself, it can be done, it is done, and no one has evidence to the contrary because there is none.
There are no subsidies for nuclear power in the new energy bill. There are no nuclear waste storage facilities located within “low income communities,” the extraction of fuel for nuclear power is environmentally insignificant when compared to coal. Thousands of people die every year from coal mining worldwide and thousands more die from the associated respiratory impact of coal.
Solar power, wind power, and conservation are good but they will never be sufficient to replace the steady state power supplied by coal fired plants and nuclear power. The people that will suffer most from a reduced power supply will be those lower income people that will not be able to afford the higher energy costs that would be associated if coal and nuclear power were removed from the market place.
While I do not see a big resurgence of nuclear yet (except for China, India, and Finland there have been no firm orders, only paper studies), the nuclear question actually raises bigger issues. If the public wants to stop global warming while maintaining current lifestyles, then nuclear will be needed (hence Gov Crist’s endorsement). Without an economic electric storage technology, solar and wind cannot generate the baseload that nuclear can.
If the issue is changing lifestyles, then that case must be made on its own. Much of the rhetoric I have heard against action on global warming is that it is just a smokescreen for those who want to change lifestyles. As both a Florida resident and engineer who is worried about global warming, I know that nuclear has issues, but they are more manageable than the media suggests. The reality for Florida is that, after solar, wind, and conservation, the remainder of the power will have to come from either natural gas, coal with carbon sequestration, nuclear, or lifestyle changes.
We will face tough choices. I would like to suggest that this discussion over choices continue and broaden rather than having more political fights over energy that have gotten us nowhere for decades.
Add Brazil to the interested in nuclear list. Yesterday the President of Brazil was quoted as saying, “Brazil could rank among those few nations in the world with a command of uranium enrichment technology, and I think we will be more highly valued as a nation – as the power we wish to be. If money was lacking, it won’t be lacking now.” Continuing on about nuclear plants, “We will complete Angra III, and if necessary, we’ll go on to build more because it is clean energy and now proven to be safe.”
Angra III and a nuclear sub, projects which were started decades ago, will now be completed. Admittedly, nuclear could help solve the issue of global warming – but there are a wealth of issues which could easily arise in its place if we see widespread adoption. Scary stuff (even without the whole Iran issue).
Nuclear always scares people. What is interesting is how global warming has not really scared the general public. It is not always good to have these debate priorities set by what scares the most versus what can have the most negative impact.
just gotta voice a big no to nuclear here. it takes upward of a decade to get a new nuclear power plant online. the leaders on climate science tell us that we have about a decade to make the shifts we need.
i’m not so articulate at the moment. there’s a reason i haven’t been posting. it’s called burn-out. but nonnethless this conversation needed someone to say no to nuclear.
willie
Hey Willie,
Never met you, but really sorry to hear you’re suffering from burn-out. Look after yourself, take time out, remember your comrades care about you and will love you no matter how much or little activism you do. Burnout is a horrible road to be on and I hope you get through it.
On to the issue of nukes, of course nukes are no solution to climate change. We all know that. It’s too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive, and will be too late to stop this climate crisis anyway.
We thought of a good campaign slogan a while ago that is very relevant to our federal govt here in Australia – “You can’t dig your way out of climate change” – their two main ’solutions’ are clean coal and nukes – both involve digging. They should be looking up – at the sun and wind – not down into the ground (unless they’re looking for geothermal which would be great).
Isn’t it interesting that, here at least, the same mining companies that mine coal also mine uranium? So a shift to nukes away from coal wouldnt really harm them that much anyway.. but it WOULD harm the planet and all its people.
Catchya,
Anna xx
In the US, opposition to wind projects such as Cape Wind and Long Island have slowed this energy source too. Coal and nuclear are over 70% of the US generating capacity and to replace it (even including conservation) with wind and solar would require a very economic electric storage mechanism or a massive switch to LNG (with sequestration?) for baseload power. In addition, both solar and wind require mining and petrochemicals for manufacture of the wind turbines, solar cells (these need toxics like arsenic and cadmium too), or solar thermal collectors and their working fluids. I am not saying you can’t “go solar”, but it is not a silver bullet either.
On the global scale, China, India, and the African nations all have rising energy demands. Even with high efficiency appliances, some way has to be found to supply terawatts of electric power 24/7 without affecting global warming. These are real challenges that require difficult solutions. You can oppose nuclear, but the numbers need to work. I hope that the climate movement will at least consider these issues in your upcoming conferences.
Robert
Great post Amy. Plain and simple, nuclear is not a solution.
Although there are barrage of reasons why nukes are no good, the least controversial reason to drop nuclear (the economics) seems to resonate the most with the general public.
The only reason nukes have been used in past is becuase of HEAVY subsidizing and government insurance, corporate welfare at its worst. The nuclear industry could and will never assume the full cost of nuclear power (financing, insuring, inspecting, physically securing, safeguarding, and decommissioning plants as well as disposing of nuclear waste, ect).
Given the direction of this thread, folks might be interested in what Sierra Club Executive Director, Carl Pope had to say at his blog this month on nuclear power and it’s potential (or lack thereof) to contribute meaningfully to solve the climate crisis.
Here’s just one quote from the end (I encourage you to read the whole thing):
“The Oxford Group said that to make a meaningful contribution [to curbing climate change], the world would need to build four nuclear plants a month, every month, for the next 70 years. Under this scenario, by 2075, 4,000 tons of plutonium, which is twenty times the world’s entire military stockpile today, would need to be reprocessed into reactor fuel each year.
As a comparison, even President Bush in his most bullish nuclear moment foresees only three new plants a year in the U.S. — so it’s clear that nuclear is meaningless as a solution to the global warming problem, especially if it can be safely deployed only in the U..S, Europe, and Japan. Just how many nuclear reactors do we want to build in Nigeria, Pakistan, and the Sudan?”
Robert, what do you think of Carl’s post?
Hmmm… it sounds just like those who say solar and wind can’t work because you can’t put that much intermittent power on the grid and you will use too much material and land. One thing I have found (and I catch myself doing this too) is that advocates for the various energy sources assume the best for their source and the worst for the competition. I truly believe we will need ALL the low-carbon sources to make it through the coming decades.
Now to the specifics of Jesse’s post:
1) Yes the expansion of nuclear energy will need to be at a level similar to that of the 1980’s and sustained over 50 years. Current designs such as the ABWR in Japan have been built in as quick as 37 months. I think that we will need more advanced designs such as AP-1000, ESBWR, and perhaps even the pebble bed that can be built more quickly while enhancing safety margins. Just as solar and wind have improved, nuclear has as well.
2) The Erwin accident was not at a commercial nuclear facility, but for a navy fuel plant. Certainly public accountability is required for a nuclear expansion.
3) Production of plutoium is a red herring. It requires an implosion device which is a lot more difficult for terrorists. Governments have either used enrichment or production reactors to get weapons material.
4) Currently, most of the nuclear construction is in China and India. These are the countries with large populations who need huge amounts of energy (even if they only go to 25% of the US per capita electric use, their electric demand would dwarf the US). I can already hear the cat food and toothpaste comparisons.;-) however, I witnessed first hand how South Korea beefed up their regulatory regime and how their operators improved very quickly.
5) The high temperature heat sink (i.e., high water temperature)affects any source that uses thermal conversion without cooling towers (coal, gas, solar thermal, etc). It is not specific to nuclear. If the French had solar thermal plants on the sea, they would have faced the same problem.
If I missed any, please let me know. I am NOT saying that nuclear is the whole answer. I do believe that nuclear should be DISCUSSED as one of the wedges. If we are truly facing a combined issue of carbon emission, global energy demand growth, and at least a plateau (perhaps peak?) in oil recovery, we need to think beyond the old debates and arguments. All of the low-carbon energy sources would need to be increased by dramatic amounts.
Bang up post, Amy! EJS-North FLA is going to kick some butt and get the ball rolling on anti-Nuke stuff in FLA. Great to see the serious dialog going on around this and it seems like everyone’s on the same page – NO NUKES!
EE must be fully exhausted & diminished consumerism MUST take place for us to even begin to realistically address the energy issue from a demand side. For now, we fight dirty energy!