# Nuclear



Vote No on Nuclear Study Bill

Over the past few months we've asked for your help in achieving federal energy reform. Thank you so much! Unfortunately, powerful interests continue to block any progress in Congress. So, we need to shape our energy future right here in Iowa right now.

The Iowa Senate is considering SF 2314/HF 2399, legislation that would require MidAmerican Energy to conduct a feasibility study on nuclear power using ratepayer money. Though it also provides incentives for utilities to switch existing coal-fired power plants to other fuel sources, it does nothing to increase energy efficiency or renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

The Iowa Senate may debate the bill today.

We've done the research – nuclear is a wasteful, ineffective approach to our energy and climate crises. Iowa needs to prioritize clean, domestic energy sources that will help businesses, farmers, and homeowners now – wind energy, solar energy, energy efficiency. 

Contact your state senator today and tell him or her to vote no on SF 2314/HF 2399 unless it is balanced with policies to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.

You can find your senator and contact info here. If you know your legislator, you can call the Senate switchboard: (515) 281-3371.

Contact:
Eric Nost, Environment Iowa
enost@environmentiowa.org

Nuclear a Step Backwards in Effort Against Global Warming

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, 12/16/09

Eric Nost, Environment Iowa | (515) 243-5835; cell (319) 621-0075 | enost@environmentiowa.org

New Report: Nuclear a Step Backwards in Effort Against Global Warming

Increasing investment in nuclear power will actually set the U.S. back in the effort to reduce global warming pollution, according to a new report released today by Environment Iowa.

“When it comes to global warming, time and money are of the essence and nuclear power will fail the U.S. on both accounts,” said Eric Nost, state associate at Environment Iowa. “With government dollars more precious than ever, nuclear power is a foolish investment.”

“Instead, we support the promotion of research and development of sustainable energy technologies for domestic use and export as well as adopting incentives for the production and use of renewable energy,” added Deborah Fink of the Iowa chapter of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

As world leaders arrive in Copenhagen to negotiate a treaty on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, several U.S. Senators and industry groups have proposed spending hundreds of billions of dollars in nuclear power as a solution to global warming.

The new report, Generating Failure: How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming, analyzes the role, under a best-case scenario, that nuclear power could play in reducing pollution. Key findings of the report include:

  •       To avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming, the U.S. needs to cut power plant emissions roughly in half over the next 10 years.
  •       Nuclear power is too slow to contribute to this effort. No new reactors are now under construction and building a single reactor could take 10 years or longer, while costing billions of dollars.
  •       Even if the nuclear industry somehow managed to build 100 new nuclear reactors by 2030, nuclear power could reduce total U.S. emissions over the next 20 years by only 12 percent.

The U.S. currently operates about 100 active reactors, one of which – NextEra's Duane Arnold Energy Center – is located near Cedar Rapids. Nuclear power accounts for about ten percent of Iowa's electrical supply.

In contrast to building new nuclear plants, efficiency and renewable energy can immediately and significantly reduce electricity consumption and carbon emissions. The report found that:

  •       Efficiency programs are already cutting electricity consumption by 1-2 percent annually in leading states, and the wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per year in wind farms, many of which are in Iowa.
  •       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.
  •       Nuclear power is not necessary to provide carbon-free electricity for the long haul. The need for base-load power is exaggerated and small-scale, local energy solutions can actually enhance the reliability of the electric grid.

“For instance, solar energy is the cleanest, most abundant, renewable energy source available, and is an excellent resource for Iowa. As a mature and proven technology, a solar photovoltaic system is the ideal way for Iowa homes and businesses to lower utility bills and move closer to energy independence,” noted Michelle Wei of GWA International, a Des Moines-based energy and environmental consulting firm.

“Because solar energy can be produced on rooftops or on ground-mounted fixtures close to where the energy is used, GWA International believes the wide spread adoption and support through state rebates, tax credits, and streamlined and consistent approval processes of solar in Iowa can reduce the cost of energy while avoiding the need for future electric generating plants and reduce the need for new transmission lines.”

In order to address global warming, policy makers should focus on improving energy efficiency and generating electricity from clean sources that never run out – like solar, as well as wind, biomass, and geothermal.

“Our Senators should stand up for Iowans' wallets, keeping wasteful subsidies to the nuclear industry out of pending climate legislation and instead advocating for clean energy jobs that will get us on the track to actually solving global warming,” concluded Nost.

###

Environment Iowa is a citizen-funded advocacy organization working for clean air, clean water, and open space. For more information, visit www.environmentiowa.org

Yes, we can meet our baseload needs with clean, renewable energy

I am getting tired of hearing that the U.S. needs to expand our so-called “clean coal” and nuclear power electricity generation in order to meet our baseload needs in the future. Not only does this false choice understate the potential to reduce our electricity consumption through conservation and efficiency measures, it also underestimates how much electricity we could generate through wind and solar power.

Look at what happened in the past year, even as George Bush’s administration did little to promote wind and solar energy:

According to the latest “Monthly Electricity Review” issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (October 3, 2008), net U.S. generation of electricity from renewable energy sources surged by 32 percent in June 2008 compared to June 2007.

Renewable energy (biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind) totaled 41,160,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) in June 2008 up from 31,242,000 MWh in June 2007. Renewables accounted for 11.0 percent of net U.S. electricity generation in June 2008 compared to 8.6 percent in June 2007. Compared to June 2007, wind power grew by 81.6 percent in June 2008 while solar and conventional hydropower experienced increases of 42.6 percent and 34.7 percentrespectively. Geothermal energy also enjoyed a slight increase (0.8percent) while biomass (wood + waste) remained relatively unchanged.

Years ago, some people thought it was a pipe dream to ask Congress to require that 10 percent of U.S. electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2010. Yet even in the absence of a congressional mandate, we exceeded that number two years ahead of schedule.

Just think of what could be done if we had a president and Congress committed to expanding wind and solar power in this country.

To learn more about and support the growth of renewable electricity generation in Iowa, get involved in the Iowa Renewable Energy Association.

Continue Reading...

This is what a leader sounds like

It doesn’t get much more visionary and ambitious than Al Gore’s speech last week on energy and climate change, and this sentence in particular:

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

If you missed it, you can find the full text here or read a helpfully annotated version here.

My only quibble with this fantastic speech was that Gore said little about the transportation sector, which is the second largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

But that’s a minor point. Go read what he said, if you haven’t already. We can meet demand for electricity using clean, renewable sources. We do not need new nuclear reactors or coal-fired power plants.

Gore turned up at the Netroots Nation conference over the weekend, and Mooncat at Left in Alabama posted some videos from his speech.

Andrew Villeneuve of the Northwest Progressive Institute liveblogged Gore’s speech in Austin here for those who don’t have time to watch the video.

Continue Reading...

Nuclear Winter at the Iowa Statehouse

(Expanding nuclear power should not be part of our energy policy. For more info on this, check out the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/ - promoted by desmoinesdem)

Believe it or not, the Iowa House of Representatives is in the process of passing a bill to
“…allow the state's Office of Energy Independence to add nuclear energy to the mix of alternative and renewable energy sources that could apply for millions of dollars in state grant money.” (Todays DM Register – http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080228/NEWS10/802280389/1001/NEWS ).

A crazy plan by a few crackpot tools of the utilities, you say? No – in fact House File 2305  is co-sponsored by 57 representatives, including a bunch of democrats (who should be ashamed of themselves!).  Sponsors include:
 
PAULSEN, STRUYK, KAUFMANN, BAUDLER,DEYOE, RAYHONS, SODERBERG, UPMEYER,HEATON, TJEPKES, TYMESON, FORRISTALL, L. MILLER, GREINER, HOFFMAN, CHAMBERS, ALONS, WORTHAN, MAY, DE BOEF, SANDS, WATTS, LUKAN, DOLECHECK, RANTS, ROBERTS, D. TAYLOR, JACOBS, VAN FOSSEN, BOAL, VAN ENGELENHOVEN, PETTENGILL, TOMENGA, QUIRK, T. TAYLOR, DANDEKAR, KELLEY, SHOMSHOR, BUKTA, BAILEY, ZIRKELBACH, JACOBY, GIPP, RAECKER, DRAKE, FOEGE, HUSEMAN, R. OLSON, CLUTE, ANDERSON, WISE, GRASSLEY, RASMUSSEN, HUSER, SCHICKEL, WINDSCHITL, and BERRY.

If these folks are your reps, please call them up and ask them what the hell they are thinking…. I think we can all agree that Uranium is not a renewable resource, and as far as alternative – after 50 years and 60-80 billion dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies, I don't think it really qualifies as alternative, either.  In fact, it is the most expensive segment of the power industry, and has been from the start.

Please go to http://www.legis.state.ia.us and find the contact info for these people, and ask them to please extract their heads from their hindquarters before they embarrass our entire state.

Rich Dana
rich@gotoplanb.net

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4