Obama letting Americans down by promoting risky nuclear energy

betting tens and tens of billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a risky technology that’s unlikely to deliver real carbon reductions in the timeline scientists believe is required is a gamble that this country and our planet can’t afford.

Obama Pushes for Risky Energy Options for What in Return? CleanEnergy Footprints 12 Feb 2010 “…Though President Obama mentioned his strong support for advancing clean, renewable energy supplies such as wind, solar, and biodiesel, which we also support, he claims they won’t be able to provide for the country’s “enormous energy needs.”

We disagree and have shown how it can be done right here in the Southeast, a region who’s abundant renewable energy potential is often overlooked, in our report, Yes We Can: Southern Solutions for a National Energy Standard. Nationally, we have tremendous affordable, and job-creating renewable energy resources to tap as outlined in several studies by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Navigant Consulting, Inc. Investing heavily in energy efficiency is also a key requirement, including getting a federal energy efficiency standard in place.

Instead of focusing on energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy, the president talked about how building new nuclear reactors are the “right thing to do if we’re serious about dealing with climate change.” SACE is very serious about dealing with the energy sector’s contribution to climate change – it’s our mission. But betting tens and tens of billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a risky technology that’s unlikely to deliver real carbon reductions in the timeline scientists believe is required is a gamble that this country and our planet can’t afford. As a Presidential candidate,  Obama stated a far different reaction to doling out billions to the nuclear power industry. Many other energy choices exist that will more effectively and affordably tackle climate change without causing the headaches posed by new reactors.

President Obama’s response incorrectly pointed to other countries such as Japan and France having greater reliance on nuclear power without “incidents” or “accidents.” France’s Nuclear Fix, by Dr. Arjun Makhijani at the Institute for Energy & Environmental Research, along with a fact sheet from Beyond Nuclear tells it plainly. The French reliance on nuclear power looks something like this: massive amounts of radioactive waste with no place to go, stockpiles of plutonium longed-for by terrorists, higher electricity costs for ratepayers and extensive radioactive contamination from reprocessing off the Normandy Coast that has angered France’s neighbors. A U.S. tour last September by European expert Yves Marignac on nuclear power explained France’s nuclear woes. As for Japan’s track record, the nuclear industry has suffered numerous setbacks, accidents, including fatalities, and an earthquake that caused the release of radioactive material into the environment.

February 15, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, politics, USA | antinuclear, AREVA, energy efficiency, France, nuclear costs, nuclear spin, nuclear wastes, renewables | Leave a comment