Nuclear Reactors 184 - Anti-nuclear Groups Oppose Nuclear Support in EPA Clean Energy Plan
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has been soliciting public comments for its proposed Clean Power Plan which is intended to reduce carbon emissions from power plants generating electricity. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has been working to send thousands of public comments to the EPA that criticize the Plan.
The NIRS solicited public comments are generally supportive of the EPA Plan but they are concerned about the lack of support of aggressive pursuit of renewable energy sources. The comments were also very critical of the Plan's support "for aging, uneconomic nuclear reactors already rejected by the marketplace, and which can easily be replaced with cleaner renewables and energy efficiency programs." The NIRS presented the EPA with a wealth of detailed information about the shortcomings of the Plan and also many suggestions about how to fix the problems. They said that they are now focused on what comes next, viewing the proposed Plan as the start of a process and not the culmination.
The NIRS issued a press release about their reaction to the EPA plan. In the press release, they state that one hundred and forty eight organizations representing millions of Americans are joining together to urge the EPA to " reconsider and remove its unwarranted support for nuclear power in the plan." The press release goes on to point out that in their view, nuclear power is counterproductive because of "its excessive cost, its widespread environmental impact not related to climate change and its inhibition of deployment of clean energy technologies." Even though it has a smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuels, it still has a considerably larger carbon footprint than renewable energy sources. In spite of these facts, the EPA Plan calls extending the lifespan of aging reactors and the construction of new reactors.
The NIRS forwarded over twenty thousand comments from individuals critical of the EPA Plan. Some of the comments focused on the “woefully incomplete and alarmingly inadequate” EPA evaluation of the effect of nuclear waste and nuclear power plants on water resources. Some comments pointed out that the EPA failed to address many other environmental problems including the mining of uranium and the possibility of nuclear accidents.
Comments also highlighted what they referred to as the "dangerous fallacy" that closed nuclear power plants would have to be replaced with fossil fuel power plants. They point out that renewable energy has been growing faster than any other type of new power generation. Replacing all of the old nuclear power reactors with wind power could be accomplished in two years at a cost below the current market price of electricity. The commenters were especially upset by the support for subsidizing the rate paid for nuclear power when these low cost alternatives are available.
The executive director of NIRS flatly stated that nuclear power is not going solve global warming or even substantially reduce carbon emissions from power generation. He said that the biased incentives for the nuclear industry must be removed from the EPA Plan. "Nuclear is too costly and unreliable to solve the climate crisis, and it is simply too dirty and dangerous. Solar, wind and other clean energy solutions have arrived, and every dollar wasted promoting nuclear is a dollar that won’t go to solving the climate crisis." He called on the EPA to listen to the millions of citizens of the U.S. who are convinced that nuclear power is a bad idea and not worthy of government or public support.
