Don't sign nuclear power initiative

Circulators are gathering signatures for an initiative that seeks to enable construction of more nuclear power plants - the so-called "Power for California" initiative.

Since 1976, California has forbidden new reactors until a way has been found to permanently and safely store high-level radioactive waste. The nuclear lobby has been unable to meet the terms of this law or find a way around it, and so now the industry hopes to vote it out, telling us that nuclear power is the solution to global warming, so let's just get rid of that silly old law and its unpleasant reminder that after 50 years of trying we still don't know what to do with all that ultra-toxic waste.

The Sierra Club, along with virtually every environmental and consumer group in the state, is opposing the initiative. Statewide opposition to the initiative is growing, and signature-gathering appears to be moving at a snail's pace, yet its author, Assemblymember Chuck DeVore (R - Irvine), is so determined to build nuclear reactors in California that on Sep. 26 he introduced a bill to allow the Energy Commission to site new nuclear reactors if 20% of the energy produced is used for desalination.

In fact, building more nukes doesn't help prevent global warming. Even if you're willing to accept the risks - the waste, spills, quakes, meltdowns, proliferation, terrorist strikes, etc. - the plants aren't worth the money. Building nuclear power plants to save us from global warming is like building a pier to save a drowning man. While the pier contractor was arguing their case, you'd be thinking that there must be a better, faster, cheaper way.

The next 10 years are the most critical time for pulling back from the brink of global warming's worst impacts. That's 10 years if we're lucky - 10 years, starting now. The average time to get a nuclear power plant designed, permitted, built, and operational is - 10 years. That's a deal-breaker.

The GRACE Energy Initiative has prepared a report called "False Promises: Debunking Nuclear Industry Propaganda" which effectively summarizes additional reasons for avoiding the nuclear route.

• Global-warming emissions resulting from electrical generation could be cut quickly by 47% through improvements in the efficiency of power generation. A dollar invested in efficiency displaces almost seven times as much carbon as one invested in nuclear power.
• Nuclear power is not a "zero emissions" energy source. The mining, milling, processing, and transport of uranium is fossil-fuel-intensive. More plants would mean more uranium mined, leading to use of lower-grade ore and an even higher level of greenhouse-gas emissions, equivalent to that of natural-gas-fired power plants. The entire output of two coal-fired power plants is required to power the uranium-enrichment facility in Paducah, Kentucky.
• Nuclear advocates say, "Hey, renewables are great, except when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, right?" The International Energy Agency has studied this objection and answered it with a simple solution: mix energy from different sources - on-site solar photovoltaics, plus wind farms, geothermal, etc. Different types of power integrated from different locations overcome any concerns about intermittency.
• The pro-nukers point proudly to France with its oodles of reactors, and its over-70% dependency on nuclear power. Much less mentioned: the summer of 2006, when a heat wave forced power reductions and reactor shutdowns across France. You can't operate your nuclear reactor when the cooling water is too warm, as will happen more often with global warming.
• About 2,000 new reactors would have to be built worldwide to make a dent in carbon emissions. Do you have a trillion dollars you're not using? Do you know of a hundred-plus safe and permanent waste-repository sites you haven't told the Department of Energy about?
• Nuclear energy received 60% of all federal energy research-and-development funding from 1948 to 1998. Renewables got 10%. Energy efficiency got 7%.

California is the linchpin of the nuclear lobby's hoped-for alternative to a truly sustainable and renewable energy future.

WhatYouCanDo

We need to reach out. Tell everyone you know: don't sign it, and don't vote for it.

We have started an informational e-mail listserv to educate people and to bring them together to stop this initiative. Sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonewnukesca

Together we can defeat this initiative.

Rochelle Becker, executive director, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility; and chair, Diablo Canyon Task Force, Santa Lucia Chapter