CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power no image

Published on February 28th, 2010 | by Zachary Shahan

15

Anti-Nuclear Ads by Friends of the Earth

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

February 28th, 2010 by Zachary Shahan 

.

I think it’s commonly known now that Obama is quite supportive of nuclear power. He mentioned it prominently in his State of the Union speech as a form of clean energy (“to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country….”). Now, he has announced over $8 billion in loan guarantees to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia (“scheduled to be the first U.S. nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades”) and has proposed $54 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.

[social_buttons]

Of course, it didn’t take long for environmentalists, economists and others to jump on all of this and call it a bad idea, (see: “Obama’s nuclear error: $54 billion in loan guarantees make little policy or political sense“, “5 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy is Even Worse than Clean Coal“, “Next in Line for a Bailout: The Nuclear Industry?“, “There’s a New Drive for Nuclear Power, But It’s Still a Financial Dead End“, “The loan arranger: Obama triples budget for nuke loan guarantee program… but hasn’t seen a single promising application in two years“).

Energy Secretary Steven Chu decided to respond to some of these concerns on Facebook, explaining the administration’s rationale for supporting nuclear.

Of course, the debate is not over. And now, to try to stop the new nuclear reactors in Georgia and others from being built, Friends of the Earth is running very eerie TV ads on the topic (one above and another one below).

“Even if nuclear reactors weren’t top terrorist targets,” the one above asks, “even if radioactive waste didn’t remain deadly for ten thousand years, even if you wouldn’t mind radioactive waste passing through your town, how would you feel about exposing your family to a potential radiation accident? Tell President Obama: ‘No bailout for new nuclear reactors. They’re just not safe.’“

The ads are running in both South Carolina (where, Treehugger reports, “Friends of the Earth is challenging additional planned new reactors in the state Supreme Court”) and Georgia.

.

This second video focuses heavily on the financial risk of new nuclear reactors, something many of the articles above focused on.

When releasing these videos, Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica said:

“Yesterday’s vote by the Vermont Senate to close a radiation-leaking reactor shows what deep trouble the nuclear industry is in. Nuclear reactors and their radioactive waste are inherently dangerous. They also pose a huge bailout risk for taxpayers. The ads we’re launching today make this case. Most Americans don’t want these reactors in their back yards. The future lies in clean energy sources like wind and solar – not nuclear reactors.“

Where will all of this lead us? Will Obama pull back on the nuclear power push? Will others sign onto his proposals?

If new nuclear reactors are built, will the consequences for the American public be what is talked about in these TV ads? Or is nuclear power clean and safe and reliable these days?

via Treehugger

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.


Related Posts



  • http://www.elrst.com Edouard Stenger, France

    I find this kind of ads not only misleading but also quite dangerous as nuclear is a low-carbon solution that really can help America lower its emissions.

    Nuclear may not be perfect, I grant you that, but no energy source is. Renewables also have their own issues (energy sprawl, intermittency…)

    This is why we need an alternative.

    Nuclear may not be THE solution but I believe it is part of the solution. France and many other nations demonstrate it…

    75 years ago, fission was first achieved. I am ready to bet that within 25 years, we will have found a way to recycle nuclear waste… (cf. TerraPower)

    I recently outlined ten reasons to support nuclear

    ( http://www.elrst.com/2009/10/26/10-reasons-to-support-nuclear-power/ )

    I believe America should get its electricity from 40 % nuclear, 40 % renewables and 20 % thermal. (the latter to solve the intermittency issue)

    I think it can be done with serious efforts on energy conservation and efficiency. Yes, you can !

  • http://www.elrst.com Edouard Stenger, France

    I find this kind of ads not only misleading but also quite dangerous as nuclear is a low-carbon solution that really can help America lower its emissions.

    Nuclear may not be perfect, I grant you that, but no energy source is. Renewables also have their own issues (energy sprawl, intermittency…)

    This is why we need an alternative.

    Nuclear may not be THE solution but I believe it is part of the solution. France and many other nations demonstrate it…

    75 years ago, fission was first achieved. I am ready to bet that within 25 years, we will have found a way to recycle nuclear waste… (cf. TerraPower)

    I recently outlined ten reasons to support nuclear

    ( http://www.elrst.com/2009/10/26/10-reasons-to-support-nuclear-power/ )

    I believe America should get its electricity from 40 % nuclear, 40 % renewables and 20 % thermal. (the latter to solve the intermittency issue)

    I think it can be done with serious efforts on energy conservation and efficiency. Yes, you can !

  • Peter

    Those who are prepared to consider that Nuclear Power just might be “part of the solution” will probably enjoy this read.

    http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/19283

    OK the page can be seen as advertising hype but just consider the implications of widespread use of this emerging technology. Ill bet the French Nuclear power industry will be interested.

    Shame I do not have any cash to invest. Perhaps the Environmental Community should be demanding the adoption of such new metal technology… after they buy their Shares.

  • Peter

    Those who are prepared to consider that Nuclear Power just might be “part of the solution” will probably enjoy this read.

    http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/19283

    OK the page can be seen as advertising hype but just consider the implications of widespread use of this emerging technology. Ill bet the French Nuclear power industry will be interested.

    Shame I do not have any cash to invest. Perhaps the Environmental Community should be demanding the adoption of such new metal technology… after they buy their Shares.

  • John

    Some of the claims made against nuclear power (which as others have said works very well in France) remind me of claims from the opposite end of the American ideological spectrum against a single-payer health care system (which, coincidentally, also works very well in France). The lesson I draw from this is that the French are apparently way better than we are in running their entire country. We suck.

  • John

    Some of the claims made against nuclear power (which as others have said works very well in France) remind me of claims from the opposite end of the American ideological spectrum against a single-payer health care system (which, coincidentally, also works very well in France). The lesson I draw from this is that the French are apparently way better than we are in running their entire country. We suck.

  • Eric Rohrs

    Wow,

    Four comments (including my first) and they’re all pro-nuclear. Pretty interesting.

    The other factor not mentioned by “Friends” of the Earth is that is scarcely relevant what the U.S. does to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, if we don’t also find a clean energy generation technology cheaply available to nations like China and India, each of whom have roughly four times the population of the U.S. China, for example, has an economy only one-third the size of the U.S. economy, but has ALREADY exceeded the U.S. in CO2 emissions!

    I have read glowing reports from solar companies that they have achieved solar power mass-generation at “only” 16 cents a kilowatt hour, but how in the heck is that going to compete with coal-burning plant’s 3 cents a kilowatt hour?

    From all I’ve read, nuclear generates its power at 3-4 cents a kilowatt hour, even with all the costs imposed by the tight regulation of the industry, with which I agree.

    A carbon tax will more than bridge that possible 1 cent per kilowatt hour gap between coal and nuclear, but it would have to be onerous indeed to bridge the 13 cent per kilowatt hour gap between coal and solar, for example!

    Solar, wind and geothermal SHOULD be part of the mix, but so should nuclear, as it’s the only near-term cost-competitive replacement for coal-burning plants that the likes of India and China can rapidly adopt.

    If we insist on a no-nuclear approach, the even worse alternative will be for the fast growing countries of the world to adopt cheap coal power, with disastrous environmental results for us all.

  • Eric Rohrs

    Wow,

    Four comments (including my first) and they’re all pro-nuclear. Pretty interesting.

    The other factor not mentioned by “Friends” of the Earth is that is scarcely relevant what the U.S. does to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, if we don’t also find a clean energy generation technology cheaply available to nations like China and India, each of whom have roughly four times the population of the U.S. China, for example, has an economy only one-third the size of the U.S. economy, but has ALREADY exceeded the U.S. in CO2 emissions!

    I have read glowing reports from solar companies that they have achieved solar power mass-generation at “only” 16 cents a kilowatt hour, but how in the heck is that going to compete with coal-burning plant’s 3 cents a kilowatt hour?

    From all I’ve read, nuclear generates its power at 3-4 cents a kilowatt hour, even with all the costs imposed by the tight regulation of the industry, with which I agree.

    A carbon tax will more than bridge that possible 1 cent per kilowatt hour gap between coal and nuclear, but it would have to be onerous indeed to bridge the 13 cent per kilowatt hour gap between coal and solar, for example!

    Solar, wind and geothermal SHOULD be part of the mix, but so should nuclear, as it’s the only near-term cost-competitive replacement for coal-burning plants that the likes of India and China can rapidly adopt.

    If we insist on a no-nuclear approach, the even worse alternative will be for the fast growing countries of the world to adopt cheap coal power, with disastrous environmental results for us all.

  • Cal T

    These Friends of the Earth folks will not be happy until we’re wearing woolens and “recycled” wooden shoes.

    The French nuclear power plants are based on a common design. Their cost is 10% that of a nuclear reactor here in the U.S….it also helps that Bechtel Corp doesn’t build the French units. Enrichment of spent fuel rods also reduces the waste volume by nearly 90%.

    The Chinese at latest count have 7 nuclear facilities in the design-build pipeline. Even Sweden has admitted that they screwed up by abolishing nuclear power some years ago and are looking to incorporate it in their energy mix.

  • Cal T

    These Friends of the Earth folks will not be happy until we’re wearing woolens and “recycled” wooden shoes.

    The French nuclear power plants are based on a common design. Their cost is 10% that of a nuclear reactor here in the U.S….it also helps that Bechtel Corp doesn’t build the French units. Enrichment of spent fuel rods also reduces the waste volume by nearly 90%.

    The Chinese at latest count have 7 nuclear facilities in the design-build pipeline. Even Sweden has admitted that they screwed up by abolishing nuclear power some years ago and are looking to incorporate it in their energy mix.

  • Nubs Delong

    Ahh, Yer nuts!I work in construction and around nuke plants. If you like mercury tainted fish, then for that dirty filty coal. Nukes are clean,safe and regulated beyond your understanding.I don’t like acid rain either! Sulfuric acid, nitric acid kills the trees and fish! The radio active stuff can be recycled and used over again. I don’t like nuke plants security gaurds either walking around with machine guns and all. But they have them well protected from terrorists in many ways!We need the power and nukes are the future.Get over it!

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    Eric,

    thanks for the extra info.

    i think nuclear is at about 10% (of total energy) in the US now: http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/30/renewable-energy-on-the-rise-fossil-fuels-declining/

  • http://lightngreen.com Zachary Shahan

    Eric,

    thanks for the extra info.

    i think nuclear is at about 10% (of total energy) in the US now: http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/30/renewable-energy-on-the-rise-fossil-fuels-declining/

  • Eric Rohrs

    Some bottom-line facts, as reported in Stewart Brand’s recent book “The Whole Earth Discipline”:

    – France gets 80% of its energy from nuclear power.

    – The U.S. gets roughly 20% of its energy from nuclear.

    – France produces 70% LESS carbon dioxide on a per-capita basis than the U.S. does, and indeed shut its last coal-burning plant in 2004. Coincidence?

    I wish the environmental community of which I am a part would drop this anti-nuclear power obsession. It benefits absolutely no one but the coal industry.

  • Eric Rohrs

    Some bottom-line facts, as reported in Stewart Brand’s recent book “The Whole Earth Discipline”:

    – France gets 80% of its energy from nuclear power.

    – The U.S. gets roughly 20% of its energy from nuclear.

    – France produces 70% LESS carbon dioxide on a per-capita basis than the U.S. does, and indeed shut its last coal-burning plant in 2004. Coincidence?

    I wish the environmental community of which I am a part would drop this anti-nuclear power obsession. It benefits absolutely no one but the coal industry.

Back to Top ↑

© 2014   Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc.



Back to Top ↑