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
environment america
Green Group Sounds Alarm Over Meta's Nuclear Power Plans
"In the blind sprint to win on AI, Meta and the other tech giants have lost their way," said a leader at Environment America.
Dec 05, 2024
Environmental advocates this week responded with concern to Meta looking for nuclear power developers to help the tech giant add 1-4 gigawatts of generation capacity in the United States starting in the early 2030s.
Meta—the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and more—released a request for proposals to identify developers, citing its artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and sustainability objectives. It is "seeking developers with strong community engagement, development, ...permitting, and execution expertise that have development opportunities for new nuclear energy resources—either small modular reactors (SMR) or larger nuclear reactors."
The company isn't alone. As TechCrunchreported: "Microsoft is hoping to restart a reactor at Three Mile Island by 2028. Google is betting that SMR technology can help it deliver on its AI and sustainability goals, signing a deal with startup Kairos Power for 500 megawatts of electricity. Amazon has thrown its weight behind SMR startup X-Energy, investing in the company and inking two development agreements for around 300 megawatts of generating capacity."
In response to Meta's announcement, Johanna Neumann, Environment America Research & Policy Center's senior director of the Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, said: "The long history of overhyped nuclear promises reveals that nuclear energy is expensive and slow to build all while still being inherently dangerous. America already has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that we don’t have a storage solution for."
"Do we really want to create more radioactive waste to power the often dubious and questionable uses of AI?" Neumann asked. "In the blind sprint to win on AI, Meta and the other tech giants have lost their way. Big Tech should recommit to solutions that not only work but pose less risk to our environment and health."
"Data centers should be as energy and water efficient as possible and powered solely with new renewable energy," she added. "Without those guardrails, the tech industry's insatiable thirst for energy risks derailing America's efforts to get off polluting forms of power, including nuclear."
In a May study, the Electric Power Research Institute found that "data centers could consume up to 9% of U.S. electricity generation by 2030—more than double the amount currently used." The group noted that "AI queries require approximately 10 times the electricity of traditional internet searches and the generation of original music, photos, and videos requires much more."
Meta is aiming to get the process started quickly: The intake form is due by January 3 and initial proposals are due February 7. It comes after a rare bee species thwarted Meta's plans to build a data center powered by an existing nuclear plant.
Following the nuclear announcement, Meta and renewable energy firm Invenergy on Thursday announced a deal for 760 megawatts of solar power capacity. Operations for that four-state project are expected to begin no later than 2027.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Groups Applaud 1 Million Public Comments Urging Biden to Protect Old-Growth Forests
"The Forest Service should listen to the public and finalize policies that truly safeguard our oldest forests," a coalition of environmental organizations advised.
Sep 21, 2024
Green groups on Friday pointed to the more than 1 million public comments urging the U.S. Forest Service to protect old-growth forests from logging in urging the Biden administration to increase what critics say are inadequate protections for mature trees in a proposed federal amendment.
The Forest Service (USFS)—a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture—received massive input during four rounds of public comment on the National Old-Growth Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The USFS' proposed national old-growth amendment follows a 2022 executive order by President Joe Biden that directed the agency to draft policies to protect mature trees in national forests, which are imperiled by but also play a critical role in fighting fossil fuel-driven climate change.
"The national old-growth amendment should be a transformative policy that positions the United States as an international leader in harnessing nature to confront the climate emergency and the biodiversity crisis."
Climate campaigners panned Biden's order as "grossly inadequate." Since the executive order, the Biden administration has allocated $50 million for old-growth forest conservation under the Inflation Reduction Act, which the president signed in August 2022.
In June, USFS announced a draft environmental impact statement for a proposed amendment to Biden's directive. Environmentalists called the draft a "step forward" while urging the administration to do more to protect mature forests.
"Since 2022, hundreds of thousands of people have called for an end to logging old-growth and urged that our mature forests also be protected. The Forest Service should listen to the public and finalize policies that truly safeguard our oldest forests," a coalition of green groups including the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Earthjustice, Environment America Research and Policy Center, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and WildEarth Guardians said in a joint statement.
"As the Forest Service reads the comments it has received over the last 90 days, it will find a common theme. The old-growth policy proposed in June fails to meet the central mission of the executive order—it does not protect old-growth trees from logging and allows projects that would log old-growth forests out of existence through numerous loopholes. The policy also does nothing to protect mature forests, which are needed to increase the abundance and distribution of old-growth trees and forests."
As CBD explained:
Mature and old-growth forests are carbon storage powerhouses. With thicker protective bark and higher canopies than younger trees, mature and old-growth trees are more resilient to wildfire. They also provide critical wildlife habitat, filter clean drinking water for communities, provide countless outdoor recreation opportunities, and capture the imaginations of Americans young and old.
Federal forest management prioritizes timber production and routinely sidesteps science to turn big, old trees into lumber and wood chips. Logging releases a significant amount of stored carbon, which can take centuries to be recaptured. It also eliminates older trees' ability to sequester additional carbon and damages the other ecosystem services and biodiversity values these forests provide. Many older stands and trees have no enduring protection, and hundreds of thousands of acres in national forests are at risk of being logged.
"The national old-growth amendment should be a transformative policy that positions the United States as an international leader in harnessing nature to confront the climate emergency and the biodiversity crisis," the groups' statement asserted. "We hope to see the nationwide old-growth amendment strengthened so it can become a centerpiece of our nation's climate and conservation legacies."
In a separate statement, Environment America public lands campaign director Ellen Montgomery said that "the Forest Service should listen to the more than a million people who have commented over the last two years, urging it to end logging of old-growth trees."
"The response from the public to our on-the-ground efforts to build support for a strong national old-growth amendment has shown that people want to see older trees protected," she continued. "These trees and forests are home to wildlife that we love from birds to bears. They are our allies to fight back against climate change, and all we have to do is make sure they stay upright."
"We hope the Forest Service recognizes the truth that the public knows: old-growth trees are worth more standing," Montgomery added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
Most Popular