Save Ice Hockey. Enough with the Nukes, eh!
Posted by ethan on 18 Nov 2009 | Tagged as: Future Hope Columns, Green Washing, Katrina, Maryland, Muzzling Science, Nuclear Energy, Solutions, climate change, election 08, global warming, renewable energy
Last week I had a blast at a Washington Capitol’s ice hockey game in DC. I was just enjoying a nice break from a busy week of climate activism when I see something on the wall behind the goalie-box that almost ruined my night. A billboard advertisement for nuclear energy that read: “Nuclear: The Clean Air Energy” solution. Come on! You would think a sport like ice hockey that will literally not exist if we allow global warming to accelerate wouldn’t be so quick to take money from a false solution like the nuclear industry. *Sigh*
Then on Monday Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Sen. Webb (D-VA) released a new bill that would be a huge give-away of $20 billion taxpayer dollars to the nuclear industry. It’s no surprise that this money will come from the government because Wall Street won’t touch nuclear power with a ten foot pole. Plain and simple: it’s a BAD INVESTMENT. Conservatives are irked about the expansion of federal government spending and yet their brilliant solution to the energy crisis? Sink billions into the expensive, unsafe nuclear power. (Read more at CCAN member, Matt Dernoga’s excellent Letter to Editor).
Every new nuclear power plant built would be a step backwards when it comes to solving global warming. Investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency is a safer, faster and less expensive alternative to nuclear energy. Tapping into Maryland’s abundant renewable energy sources would create far more jobs for far less money than investing in unsafe nuclear energy. That’s why yesterday I was pleased to join our friends at Environment Maryland to release a new report: “Generating Failure: How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming”. You can read the full report here.
Here an excerpt about the press conference that was printed in the Annapolis Capitol:
“Maryland has charted a course to put us on the stage of national leadership” when it comes to combating climate change, said Ethan Nuss, Maryland campaign coordinator with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. And with good reason. Maryland is incredibly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, Nuss said. Sea level rise would affect the state’s natural resources and fishing and tourism economy. “We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act in the most decisive manner to solve the climate crisis,” said Nuss. “Nuclear power is not that solution.”
At the end of the day there is a litany of reasons to oppose nuclear power. But the thing that I can’t get over is the wasteful complexity of the entire nuclear fuel cycle. From when uranium is mined on Native American lands, then refined-processesed, put through a complicated atom-splitting reactor, to heat water, to generate steam, which turns a turbine…it just seems ludicrous. We have a better way to turn turbines with the huge untapped potential for wind energy off the coasts of Maryland and Virginia. Why are we making this so complicated? We have the solutions in-hand right now. We just need to use them.
Fortunately, our red hot Caps won the game in a stirring over-time shoot off match. With the clock running out I hope we will find the courage to save our global climate from the accelerating hockey stick effect and preserve a great sport at the same time.
Like what you've read? Check out these related posts:
5 Comments »
on 19 Nov 2009 at 8:08 pm 1.ethan said …
Here is a complete list of media for the press conference:
Southern Maryland Online
http://somd.com/news/headlines/2009/10822.shtml
Baltimore Sun
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/green/2009/11/enviros_give_nukes_cold_should.html
Capitol News Service
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/env/2009/11/18-02/Group-calls-nuclear-power-expansion-a-step-backward.html
Delmarva Now
http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20091118/NEWS01/911180407/1002/Calvert-Cliffs-nuclear-expansion-criticized
on 19 Nov 2009 at 10:06 pm 2.Judy said …
While we’re at it why don’t we look at the ridiculous energy consumption of ice hockey itself? Why should there be teams in Miami and San Diego? What is the carbon footprint of ice skating rinks that run during the summer and in warm climates. If we’re serious about getting this country to reduce CO2 output, everything should be on the table.
on 20 Nov 2009 at 11:38 am 3.David Lewis said …
Superfreakonomics authors Levitt and Dubner are busy making money exploiting the obvious foibles of the “movement to stop global warming” as they put it, saying the movement “has the feel of a religion”.
I think the Superfreaks, because what they say changes from day to day, are just stirring up controversy that they were originally surprised to see, so they can sell more books. The only other interpretation I have is they do not understand what they are talking about and forget their line from day to day.
But there is a grain of truth in the “has the feel of a religion” line.
Take the attitude of many in the “movement” to nuclear power. Your post is typical. Nuclear is assumed to be so bad people don’t bother to check if their arguments make sense. They quote people and studies that share their point of view and deny and ignore uncomfortable facts that point to different conclusions. This is why I say there is some truth to the Superfreaks “has the feel of a religion” line.
I looked at the report you link to. It claims the money it would cost to invest in nuclear would be better spent on renewables. Nuclear is proven baseload usable on today’s grid, whereas renewables can’t be used for baseload unless some of the dreams of the new national supergrid are realized. The cost of the new supergrid required to expand the role of renewables to beyond about 20% is never factored into the equation the movement cites when it trumpets the anti nuke pro renewables line.
It is a weak argument to say nukes are therefore not needed or useful and our opponents see this crystal clear. When they see us make weak arguments it reinforces their suspicion that the basic global warming case itself is weak.
One of the most powerful advocates for doing something about global warming is Al Gore. His new book, Our Choice, contains a chapter on nuclear power. Read it. Look up the articles that are the sources for the quotes he uses and you will see another illustration of my point.
Gore argues in his chapter that the problem with nuclear is its “grossly unacceptable economics”, but the articles he cherry picks his supporting quotes from take the completely opposite view.
One article, from Forbes, asks the question why did nuclear become so expensive in the US when it is successful and cheap everywhere (sic) else. The quote Gore cherry picks proclaims nuclear is dead in the US because of high cost, which Gore uses to support his case that all nuclear everywhere is dead because of high cost. A quote from the same Forbes article directly contradicts this:
“It wasn’t the technology that doomed nuclear power in the U.S. As experience everywhere demonstrates, the technology is as sound and productive as its promoters always have claimed it would be”
The article goes on to describe how American designs, built by Americans, elsewhere in the world at the time of writing (1985) cost 1/4 to 1/3 of what the same thing built by the same people cost in the US. This is an argument that there is something wrong in the US, not that there is something wrong with nuclear power, yet Gore goes to this article as an authority to take a quote from to back his case.
The main study Gore refers to, the MIT Future of Nuclear Power study, was written, according to Gore, by “the experts at MIT”. Gore thus legitimizes MIT’s expertise on nuclear, then he cherry picks a quote. But MIT does not agree with Gore that nuclear has become as Gore says in the chapter, the “radioactive white elephant in the room”. MIT cost figures show nuclear as competitive with coal and gas, if a $25 a ton cost is put on CO2 emissions. This would make nuclear the cost competitive baseload generation technology of choice if a price is put on carbon, according to the experts Gore himself selected to call our attention to.
Gore touts Desertec, the proposal to bring Saharan solar power to Europe. The cost figures in the Desertec proposal itself are 12.8 to 16.7 cents a kwhr. Compare to the MIT study Gore sent us to, which states new build nuclear now would cost 8 – 9 cents kwhr. You tell me which is more expensive.
The “movement” just tells me nuclear is prohibitively expensive, no one would want it, and if this is the best argument made by the best advocate, it isn’t good enough.
It has the feel of a religion, and the attitude to nuclear is weakening the case the movement is making.
on 22 Nov 2009 at 12:46 am 4.InMaryland said …
The author should get up to speed on the “hockey stick effect”. Its been totally and utterly been proved false.
Current science is moving away from the AGU, or human caused warming.
Global warmers are resorting to unscrupulous tactics and flagrant lies to perpetuate the myths
Read about the emerging scandle
http://www.climatedepot.com/
on 23 Nov 2009 at 8:31 am 5.Richard Lawson said …
“Desertec proposal itself are 12.8 to 16.7 cents a kwhr. Compare to the MIT study Gore sent us to, which states new build nuclear now would cost 8 – 9 cents kwhr. You tell me which is more expensive.”
NP seems cheap because it is not insured. Unlike wind turbines. And ice hockey players.