Senators Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill Greeenwashes Nuclear Power

[Better Believe It]

Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill Greenwashes Nuclear Power
By Jim Riccio, Nuclear Policy Analyst

Bowing to pressure from the pro-nuclear lobby, Senators Boxer and Kerry have included nuclear power into their bill to address climate change. In their proposed legislation, the Senators claim that "nuclear energy is the largest provider of clean, low-carbon, electricity...." Funny we've heard that before. In fact, the bill's nuclear section reads like it was lifted off the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) website, despite its lack of veracity.

Over a decade ago, environmentalists challenged the nuclear industry's propaganda that they were clean and green. As a result, the Better Business Bureau's ( BBB ) National Advertising Division found that the Nuclear Energy Institute's ads falsely claimed that nuclear reactors make power without polluting the air and water or damaging the environment. The BBB said that, "The nuclear industry should stop calling itself 'environmentally clean' and should stop saying it makes power 'without polluting the environment.'" The director of the division said such claims were "unsupportable." The bureau agreed with environmentalists that nuclear fuel is made using electricity from coal plants and that nuclear waste poses a threat to the public health and safety.

The nuclear industry's brazen disregard for the BBB prompted the environmental groups to bring NEI before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC found that:

Because the discharge of hot water from cooling systems is known to harm the environment, and given the unresolved issues surrounding disposal of radioactive waste, we think that NEI has failed to substantiate its general environmental benefit claim.

Unfortunately those same false claims have now found their way into the legislation offered by Senator's Boxer and Kerry.
If the Senators actually want to abate climate change rather than merely enriching nuclear corporations, we need solutions that are fast, safe and affordable, and that rules out nuclear power. The Congressional Budget Office has already determined that the risk of default on the nuclear loan guarantees congress will supply to the nuclear industry is well above 50%. Is it really the Senator's intent to support the next taxpayer bailout?

Please read the complete article at:

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2009/10/06/boxer_kerry_climate_bill_greenwashes_nuc

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Greenwash = disagrees with Greenpeace

And we're going to blow up the Moon tomorrow, too.

:eyes:

--d!

[Taverner]

2. I'm all for Nuke power if they FIX THE PROBLEMS FIRST!!!

It's not ready for prime time - never was, and at this rate, never will be

I'd be for it if they could find:

- A safe, clean way to dispose of spent rods. I mean other than giving them to Bin Laden to make dirty bombs as Rummy would have them do.

- A containment strategy that protects surrounding communities. Chernobyl could happen here, just as easily as it did there.

- Security and reinforcements that would protect the silos in case of terrorist attack. Right now, Jethro Billybob could plow a plane into any of these silos and wipe out a town in the ultimate dirty bomb.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Silos? What are silos? Do you mean the reactor containment vessels?

"Silos" makes me think of the cooling towers that are often the symbols of nukes, but are not the parts of a plant that, if hit by a plane, would result in the release of anything nasty.

The containment vessels that house the reactors are incredibly overbuilt and it would take significantly more than a Jethro Billybob plane hit to put a dent in one of them.

The BRTs (Big Round Things) in this photo are the containment structures housing reactors One and Two at Diablo Canyon, California.

They're comprised of some seriously thick concrete with massive steel reinforcement, the details of which elude me as I type.