I just received a press release from Environment Virginia regarding a "new report on how nuclear power will hurt America’s ability to fight global warming." The main points in the press release are:*"Far from a solution to global warming, nuclear power will actually set America back in the race to reduce pollution."
*Senators Webb and Warner should "focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy instead of nuclear power as the solution to global warming."
*"To avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming, America must cut power plant emissions roughly in half over the next 10 years," and nuclear power is simply "too slow to contribute to this effort."
*For instance, "[e]ven if the nuclear industry somehow managed to build 100 new nuclear reactors by 2030, nuclear power could reduce total U.S. emissions of global warming pollution over the next 20 years by only 12 percent -- far too little, too late."
*"In contrast, energy efficiency and renewable energy can immediately reduce global warming pollution. Energy efficiency programs are already cutting electricity consumption by 1-2 percent annually in leading states, and the U.S. wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per year in wind farms. By tapping into Virginia’s potential for efficiency, offshore wind and solar power we can do more."
*"Building 100 new reactors would require an up-front investment on the order of $600 billion dollars – money which could cut at least twice as much carbon pollution by 2030 if invested in clean energy. Taking into account the ongoing costs of running the nuclear plants, clean energy could deliver 5 times more pollution-cutting progress per dollar."
*“New nuclear power investments would actually worsen climate change because the money spent on nuclear reactors would not be available for solutions that fight it faster and at lower cost."
Now, let me just say that while I strongly agree with all of the points raised by Environment Virginia, I'm not philosophically against nuclear power. To the contrary, I'd love to see nuclear get to the point where it was economical and where the waste disposal issues were dealt with. However, the fact is that right now (and for the foreseeable future) energy efficiency by far and away gives us more "bang for the buck" than nuclear power -- not even close. So, aside from putting nuclear power out there as a possible way to attract support from Republicans and maybe a few Democrats, why spend huge amounts of money on something that: a) is far more costly than the alternatives mentioned above (especially energy efficiency) and b) has no hope whatsoever of solving global warming in the necessary time frame and at the scale required? Got me.
P.S. If you want to read the entire report, "Generating Failure: How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back In the Race Against Global Warming," please click here.
