nuclear-news

Eight Reasons Why Nuclear Power is Not the Answer for Hawaii

by Sherry Pollack, 14 Mar 25

Nuclear power isn’t “zero emission.” The nuclear industry has conducted a propaganda campaign rife with factually inaccurate information, including that nuclear power is “carbon-free electricity.” However, this could not be further from the truth. To be clear, there is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear reactor. Even existing reactors emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the reactor.

Transporting nuclear fuel is a hazard. As an isolated island chain, Hawaii faces unique and significant risks in transporting nuclear fuel over vast ocean distances. Any accidents during transport, be it from bringing fuel here or shipping waste back, could have catastrophic consequences for Hawaii’s pristine marine environment and tourism-dependent economy.

Nuclear waste. The waste generated by nuclear reactors remains radioactive for thousands of years and needs to be kept contained throughout that time. Currently, there are no long-term storage solutions for radioactive waste, and most is stored in temporary, above-ground facilities.

Hawaii’s geological instability, including frequent earthquakes, volcanic activity, and tsunami risks, makes it an unsafe location for storing nuclear waste. There are no viable long-term solutions for safely containing radioactive materials in such a volatile environment.

Accidents. Human error and natural disasters can lead to dangerous and immensely costly accidents. Think Red Hill but multiply that exponentially. Direct costs would include cleanup operations, property damage, and evacuation efforts, as well as significant indirect costs including long-term health consequences, economic disruption due to lost productivity and tourism, and severe psychological impacts on affected populations, often lasting for generations. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the emergency planning zone around a nuclear power plant typically extends to a 10-mile radius for immediate radiation exposure concerns, while a broader “ingestion pathway” zone reaches out to a 50-mile radius where food and water contamination could occur in the event of an incident. This would make safely siting a power plant, particularly on Oahu, impossible.

Impacts on Local Communities and Ecosystems. In addition to the significant risk of cancer associated with fallout from nuclear disasters, studies also show increased risk for those who reside near a nuclear power plant, especially for childhood cancers such as leukemia. Workers in the nuclear industry are also exposed to higher-than-normal levels of radiation, and as a result are at a higher risk of death from cancer.

Nuclear energy is too expensive. To protect the climate, we must reduce the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time. Nuclear power does none of this. A report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found that even small modular reactors (SMRs) are expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning from fossil fuels in the coming 10-15 years.

Integral Fast Reactors, Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, Thorium Fueled Reactors, Molten Salt Reactors, and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not viable. Nuclear power advocates promote small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and other “advanced” nuclear technologies as the only real solution for the climate crisis. However, proponents of SMRs and these other so called “new” types of reactors fail to address their unproven nature, unresolved safety risks, and economic inefficiency. Moreover, SMRs cannot be counted on to provide ‘firm’ power as has been touted. Just like today’s nuclear plants, SMRs will be vulnerable to extreme weather events or other disasters that could cause a loss of offsite power and force them to shut down. Additionally, the push for SMRs often serves the private interests of billionaires looking to power AI data centers rather than benefiting the people of Hawaii. Bottom line, SMRs are wishful thinking rooted in misinformation.

Nuclear power is an expensive distraction undermining our ability to achieve our clean energy goals. Investment in nuclear power, including SMRs, will take resources away from carbon-free and lower-cost renewable technologies that are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming decade. Hawaii is already on the path to achieving 100% renewable energy by 2045. Nuclear power is not renewable, requires costly infrastructure, and pursuing it would divert attention and resources from proven, sustainable solutions like solar, and wind.

Nuclear power has NO place in Hawaii’s clean energy future. Nuclear power is too dirty, too dangerous, and too expensive. It is environmentally harmful and produces waste that will be a burden on future generations. Accordingly, we urge the legislature to commit to uphold Hawaii’s constitution, a sustainable future, prioritize investing our resources in a clean renewable energy future, and honor the voices of its people by opposing the use of nuclear power in Hawaii.

March 15, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, USA