SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
beyond nuclear
88-2: Only Markey, Sanders Oppose 'Expensive, Risky' Nuclear Power Expansion
Calling the vote "disappointing," one campaigner warned: "Nuclear is, at best, a waste of resources. At worst, it's a meltdown."
Jun 19, 2024
Just U.S. Sens. Ed Markey and Bernie Sanders on Tuesday voted against legislation that one scientist warned this week "will only increase the danger to people already living downwind" of nuclear power facilities.
The Fire Grants and Safety Act—which now includes provisions from the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act—passed 88-2, with six Republicans, three Democrats, and one Independent not voting.
Speaking on the upper chamber's floor Tuesday, Markey (D-Mass.)—who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety—stressed his support for the United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance grant programs, and those working to keep U.S. communities safe.
"Unfortunately, the vote today is not just for the lifesaving programs that I am staunchly on record as supporting," he explained. "On the coattails of this noncontroversial bill to protect our heroes, our colleagues in the House tacked on a dangerous additional 90-page package of provisions that merged the Senate's ADVANCE Act and the House's Atomic Energy Advancement Act."
The legislation—now on its way to President Joe Biden's desk—puts "corporate profits over community cleanup," the senator said. "Notably, the provisions from the Senate bill that would have provided a much-needed $225 million for communities affected by nuclear closures and $100 million to clean up contaminated tribal communities are not in the legislation anymore, as it came back from the House of Representatives—but the provisions to prop up the nuclear industry, they remain."
Highlighting that the bill would, among other things, require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rewrite its mission statement to say that its regulation and oversight should "not unnecessarily limit... civilian use of radioactive materials and deployment of nuclear energy," Markey declared that the NRC "shouldn't be the Nuclear Retail Commission."
"We have a duty to set the strongest possible standards for domestic and international nuclear activities, as an example to the rest of the world," he said of the United States. "We also have to clean up our existing messes, particularly in tribal and environmental justice communities, before investing in anything that might make those messes worse. As a result, despite my strong and continued support for the fire safety grants and my respect for my colleagues working on this issue, I must vote no."
"It's disappointing that the Senate chose to promote nuclear power when America is flush with energy options that are better for people and the planet."
Praising Markey and Sanders (I-Vt.), Beyond Nuclear on Wednesday urged the bill's critics to call their offices "to thank them for their courageous, wise, and good NO votes, despite it all," adding that "they spoke truth to power, and have kept some glimmer of hope alive, despite this very dark moment in the cause of anti-nuclear, environmental, and environmental justice activism."
The Senate's approval of the legislation was celebrated by the nuclear industry and its advocates. Environment America noted that in addition to the NRC mission statement rewrite, the bill "promotes nuclear power, including small modular reactors (SMRs) and highly concentrated nuclear fuel, and the export of nuclear materials and technology."
Johanna Neumann, senior director of the group's Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, said after the vote, "It's disappointing that the Senate chose to promote nuclear power when America is flush with energy options that are better for people and the planet."
"Nuclear is, at best, a waste of resources. At worst, it's a meltdown," she continued. "Why are we choosing to split atoms when it's cheaper, faster, and better for the environment to cut energy waste and power our lives with wind and solar?"
"Government officials should embrace energy efficiency and renewables as the best solutions to America's challenges," she added.
Isaac Bowers, federal legislative director of Public Interest Research Group, similarly said that "American consumers have better energy options than nuclear power. It makes no sense to perpetuate this expensive, risky industry when America has an abundance of cleaner, safer, and more affordable renewable energy sources."
Critics also spoke out ahead of the vote. Union of Concerned Scientists director of nuclear power safety Edwin Lyman warned Monday that the aim of this bill is "weakening safety and security oversight across the board, a long-standing industry goal," and "a compromised NRC could lead to a catastrophic reactor meltdown impacting an entire region for a generation."
Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said last week that "every dollar wasted on unproven, enormously expensive nuclear energy schemes is a dollar not invested in truly clean, safe, and increasingly efficient wind and solar power. The Senate and President Biden must quickly come to their senses and reject the dangerous and unaffordable false promises of toxic nuclear energy."
While most senators made their positions on the bill clear on Tuesday, Beyond Nuclear is encouraging voters who still oppose the legislation "to express your displeasure and disagreement" to senators who supported it or didn't bother to vote.
Beyond Nuclear is also urging the bill's opponents to contact the White House, to pressure Biden to block it. "In the unlikely event" that he does so, the group acknowledged, "we would have a very tall mountain to climb to prevent Congress from overriding the presidential veto."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analysis Warns Climate Crisis Threatens US Nuclear Reactors
"Climate change is expected to exacerbate natural hazards—including heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea level rise," the report reads.
Apr 03, 2024
The nation's nuclear reactors may be at risk due to the climate emergency, according to a report released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office on Tuesday.
The report claims the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) needs to consider these risks as it regulates nuclear power plants going forward. There are currently 94 nuclear reactors in the United States that could be affected.
"Climate change is expected to exacerbate natural hazards—including heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea-level rise. In addition, climate change may affect extreme cold weather events," the report reads. "Risks to nuclear power plants from these hazards include loss of offsite power, damage to systems and equipment, and diminished cooling capacity, potentially resulting in reduced operations or plant shutdowns."
Extreme weather event like floods can pose safety risks to #NuclearPower plants. #ClimateChange is likely to make these natural hazards more severe.
Our new report looks at how @NRCgov could better address climate risks to nuclear power plants: https://t.co/lZhGAjtNkF pic.twitter.com/MOjambENtG
— U.S. GAO (@USGAO) April 2, 2024
The report notes that many new reactors are currently being developed, which increases the need for the NRC to properly regulate those reactors.
It says that the NRC has mostly used historical data to "identify and assess safety risks," which would not account for the climate risks that are likely to threaten reactors in the future. The report claims most reactors could be negatively impacted by future climate risks.
Beyond Nuclear, which advocates against nuclear power and weapons, said in a statement that that GAO's findings and recommendations confirm what the group has been litigating with the NRC—that "the agency cannot continue to ignore the safety impacts on nuclear power plants from the worsening climate crisis."
"These risks include a worsening of natural hazards and encompass heat and cold, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea-level rise, according to the GAO, all of which could seriously jeopardize the safe operation of the nation's current fleet that is going through extreme license renewals—and any future new... nuclear reactors if not properly safeguarded," the group said.
Plans to triple the amount of nuclear power in 22 countries by 2050 that were announced at the most recent United Nations climate summit have been denounced as "dangerous" and not a realistic solution to address the climate emergency.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tensions in Ukraine Show Why 'Nuclear Power Is the Most Dangerous Way to Boil Water'
"Calling for a no-fire zone around Zaporizhzhia is not enough," said Beyond Nuclear. "We must call for no nuclear power at all."
Jul 06, 2023
With Ukrainian and Russian officials trading accusations about a possible looming attack on Europe's largest nuclear power plant this week, global experts and campaigners are sharing fresh concerns about the facility and the energy source more broadly.
Russian forces invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and took control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) the following month. Since then, fighting near the facility—with six reactors that are currently shut down—has generated fears around the world and controversial references to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the site of which is located in present-day Ukraine.
In recent days, an adviser to Russia's nuclear agency has claimed Ukraine will imminently cause a nuclear disaster at the ZNPP while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned of a potential false flag operation, claiming that "the Russian military has placed objects resembling explosives on the roof of several power units."
While International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts at the facility have so far not observed any visible indications of mines or explosives, the new accusations led the United Nations watchdog on Wednesday to request additional access—specifically to the rooftops of two reactors along with parts of the turbine halls and cooling system.
"With military tension and activities increasing in the region where this major nuclear power plant is located, our experts must be able to verify the facts on the ground," said IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi. "Their independent and objective reporting would help clarify the current situation at the site, which is crucial at a time like this with unconfirmed allegations and counterallegations."
"In a time of national crises in multiple countries, increasing natural disasters, and a worsening climate emergency, nuclear power is demonstrating that it is a liability rather than an asset."
The U.S.-based group Beyond Nuclear noted in a lengthy statement Thursday that "Zaporizhzhia is in the news now almost every day. The propaganda may be deliberately alarmist, but the basis for the alarm is very real or it would not be the subject matter for headline-getting in the first place."
"The reason is simple. Nuclear power is the most dangerous way to boil water. It is unnecessary, expensive, and an obstacle to renewable energy development," the group argued. "It is time to see sense. Calling for a no-fire zone around Zaporizhzhia is not enough. We must call for no nuclear power at all."
Highlighting that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is far from the only threat to the world's nuclear facilities, the group added that "in a time of national crises in multiple countries, increasing natural disasters, and a worsening climate emergency, nuclear power is demonstrating that it is a liability rather than an asset."
Beyond Nuclear also weighed in on the intense debate among activists, Ukrainian and Russian officials, reporters, scientists, and others regarding the dangers of a nuclear disaster at the ZNPP, offering a list of unanswered questions:
- Has the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in fact been wired for detonation and whose interests would be served by blowing up the plant?
- Why is there an exodus of both Russian and Ukrainian plant personnel?
- Will the sabotage of the downstream Kakhovka dam that resulted in catastrophic flooding also lead to an equally catastrophic loss of available cooling water supplies for the reactors and fuel pools?
- Will the backup diesel generators, frequently turned to for powering the essential cooling each time the plant has lost connection to the electricity grid, last through each crisis, given their fuel must also be replenished, potentially not possible under war conditions?
"None of these threats would make headlines if Zaporizhzhia was instead home to a wind farm or utility-scale solar array," asserted Beyond Nuclear. "This perhaps explains the rush now to downplay the gravity of the situation, with claims in the press that a major attack on the plant would 'not be as bad as Chernobyl' and that radioactive releases would be minimal and barely travel beyond the fence line. This is an irresponsible dismissal of the real dangers."
As the group detailed:
After the massive explosion at Chernobyl, the graphite moderator used in the reactor fueled the fire, with the smoke further lofting radioactive fallout far and wide. This has led to an assumption that major fires and explosions at Zaporizhzhia would result in less serious consequences since the reactor designs are not the same as Chernobyl's.
However, if the uranium fuel in the Zaporizhzhia reactors or irradiated fuel storage pools overheats and ignites, it could then heat up the zirconium cladding around it, which would ignite and burn fiercely as a flare at temperatures too hot to extinguish with water. The resulting chemical reaction would also generate an explosive environment. The heat of the release and detonation(s) could breach concrete structures, then loft radioactive gas and fallout into the environment to travel on the weather.
Fallout could contaminate crucial agricultural land, potentially indefinitely, and would include Russia, should prevailing winds travel eastward at the time of the disaster.
Some have suggested that an attack on the plant would not seriously threaten surrounding communities. The American Nuclear Society, for example, said Wednesday that "our experts have carefully considered 'worst-case scenarios,' including bombardment and deliberate sabotage of the reactors and spent fuel storage canisters. They cannot foresee a situation that would result in radiation-related health consequences to the public."
"ZNPP's six reactors have been shut down for over 10 months and are no longer making enough heat to cause a prompt radiological release," the society said. "ZNPP is designed to withstand natural and manmade hazards. Thick, steel-reinforced concrete containment buildings protect the reactor cores and are designed to keep any radioactive materials isolated from the environment."
"In the unlikely event that containment structures were breached, any potential release of radiological material would be restricted to the immediate area surrounding the reactors. In this regard, any comparison between ZNPP and 'Chernobyl' or 'Fukushima' is both inaccurate and misleading," the group added, referencing the 2011 disaster in Japan.
Matthew Bunn, the James R. Schlesinger professor of the practice of energy, national security, and foreign policy at Harvard Kennedy School, made the case at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on Thursday that the biggest danger regarding the ZNPP is intentional sabotage.
"How serious is the risk of a major radioactive disaster?" Bunn wrote. "That depends on whether we're talking about an intentional or inadvertent radioactive release. If the Russian forces that control the site want to cause a major radiation release—and are willing to use explosives to do it—they could contaminate a huge area. Although the reactors have been largely shut down and cooling for months, they still contain a huge amount of intensely radioactive material that explosives could disperse."
He continued:
A couple of mines on the roof of a reactor would not be enough. Causing a big release would require some serious demolition with explosives. But that's what was needed to destroy Ukraine's Kakhovka dam—which it appears was done with explosives from within, while Russian forces controlled the site—so a similar operation at Zaporizhzhia can't be ruled out.
No one can accurately evaluate how big an area might be affected; the extent of contamination would depend on how the disaster was caused, how hard the wind was blowing, whether rain brought the radioactive material back to the ground, and more. But one could easily imagine that Russia might hope that such a release would interfere with Ukraine's counteroffensive, forcing some units to focus on evacuating people and cleaning up radioactive fallout rather than battling Russian forces.
By contrast, looking only at inadvertent damage, there are reasons to be optimistic. The Zaporizhzhia reactors are built with thick concrete containment structures, have been cooling for months, and have extra safety features installed after the Fukushima accident in Japan. It is very unlikely that a few stray shells from fighting in the area would cause any serious radioactive release.
Bunn concluded that "over the longer term, there's a need to rethink nuclear safety and security in the context of the possibility that nuclear facilities can be exposed to war, mass civil unrest, or governmental collapse. And there's a need for new agreements to reduce the chance that major civilian nuclear facilities under international inspection will again be targets of military assault."
Meanwhile, Beyond Nuclear charged that "if Zaporizhzhia comes to harm, each side in the conflict will likely hold the other responsible. But ultimately, the responsibility we all share is to reject the continued use of a technology that has the potential to wreak such disastrous consequences on humanity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular