# Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign

TELLEPA: NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT PART OF THE CLIMATE SOLUTION!
On June 2, 2014, the US. EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyannounceditsproposedrulefor reducingcarbon dioxide (C02 ) emissions from existing electricalgeneration units. This is an important andhistoricstep toward 

### addressingclimate change. But EPA's**support~~**

### nuclearpowerandunderplayingof the importance of renewables andefficiency is of serious concern.
•,• The EPA Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule supports buildingnewnuclear reactors (powerplants) and maintaining existingreactors as an alternative to burning fossil fuels.**·~·** The rule encourages states to prevent even the most uncompetitive nuclear reactors from closing.

•,• The rule underestimates the advantages ofrenewable energy and energy efficiency as the best alternatives for reducing carbon emissions. Theproposed rule should acknowledge that renewable energy and energy efficiency can produce the power we need without the use offossil fuels or nuclear power. Numerous studies have shown that this transition needs only the political will to make it happen.

•:: Newnuclear reactors cost billions ofdollars and take many years to bring on line. Renewable energy, and especially energy efficiency, are much cheaper and their development is already underway.

•,• EPA incorrectly claims that nuclear power is reliable. This ignores the many times nuclear reactors had to shut for years due to warm water temperatures, flooding, and extreme weather events, all ofwhich will worsen as the climate warms.**~·** Nuclear poweris far from carbon-free. Fossil fuels are used for uranium mining. milling, processing, conversion, enrichment, transportation and construction ofreactors. Huge amounts ofenergy will be needed to isolate nuclear waste for millennia-atask which science has so far not been able to address. Largeamountsof water are also usedto operate andcoolthe reactors
.

.,_. EPA seriously minimizes the problem ofradioactive waste. In fact, they erroneously contend that radioactive waste avoids the problem ofwaste from coal-fired generation! Waste from coal is a serious problem but radioactive waste is extremely dangerous and remains so for millions ofyears. EPA also ignores the routine radioactive releases at all reactors and the several U.S. close calls to nuclear meltdowns. The Sierra Club maintains that the first step toward dealingwith nuclear waste and radioactive pollution is to stop generating it.

•,• Theproposed rule improperly calls for reductions in C02 from 2005 levels. The problem is that C02 levels in 2005 were the highest ever. In fact, current levels ofC02 are 15% less than in 2005. The proposed rule should at least use current levels, ormore appropriately, 1990 levels.
EPA isaccepting commentsthrough Oct 16, 2014. The Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign stronglysupports EPA's move toward reducing C02 emissions, but their inclusion of nuclearreactors as a reliable source C?.f electricity is a mistake. AskEPA to support closing nuclear reactors infavor ofrenewables andenergy efficiency.
Comments can be made online at**www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetaii;D~EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001.** Reference Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Alternatively. fax to 202-566-9744 or mail to EPA Docket Center, Mailcode 28221T, Attn; Docket OAR-2013-0602, 1200 PennsylvaniaAve. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
EPAwill hold four public hearings on the proposed Clean Power Plan the week ofJuly 28,2014 in Atlanta, GA; Denver, CO; Pittsburgh, PA; and Washington, DC. Speaking slots are filled butwe encourage as many people as possible to attend. Location information can be found here.

# NUCLEARPOWER MAKES CLIMATE CHANGE WORSE
The nuclear industry has been selling the world a story that nuclear power is a solution to climate change because it does not generate carbon dioxide (C02), a major greenhouse gas. While this is true ofthe nuclear chain reaction itself, the front and back ends ofnuclear power generate a large volume ofC02 and leave a trail ofendlessly dangerous radioactivity along the way.



### • Nuclearpowerhas a bigcarbonfootprint. At the front end ofnuclearpower, carbon energy is used for uranium mining, milling, processing, conversion, and enrichment, as well as for transportation, formulation of rods and construction ofnuclear reactors (powerplants). At the backend, there is the task ofisolation ofhighly radioactive nuclear waste for millennia-atask which science has so far not been able to address. All along the nuclear fuel chain, radioactive contamination ofair, land and water occurs. Uranium mine and mill cleanup demands large amounts offossil fuel. Each year 2.000 metric tons ofhigh-level radioactive waste and twelve million cubic-feet oflow-level radioactive waste are generated in the U.S. alone. None ofthis will magically disappear. Vast amounts ofenergy will be needed to isolate these dangerous wastes for generations to come.



### • Nuclearpowertakes too long todeploy. Construction ofthe 1500 new reactors that the nuclear industry claims are needed to address global warming would mean opening a new reactor once every 2 weeks for the next 60 years. Reactors can take 10-15 years to build with an estimated cost of$12-15 billion each. In the past. cost and time needed for construction have each more than doubled from original estimates. We need to supply low-carbon energy sourcesNOW.



### • Nuclearpoweris notsuited(or warmingclimates. Nuclear reactors need enormous amounts ofcool water to continually remove heat from their cores. Reactors have been forced to close during heat waves due to warmth ofsea, lake or river water-just when electricity is being used most. Low water levels during heat and drought have also forced reactors to shut down. In addition, cooling causes serious damage to aquatic life, killing millions offish and untold numbers ofmacroinvertebrates and fish fry.

• Benjamin Sovacool fi"om the Institute Energy and Environment at Vermont Law School averaged the high and low estimates ofcarbon pollution from nuclear power. His study revealed that nuclear power's carbon emissions are well

below scrubbed coal-fired plants. natural gas-fired plants and oil. However, nuclear emits twice

as much carbon as solarphotovoltaic and six times as much as onshore wind farms. Energy

efficiency and some ofthe cheaperrenewables also beat nuclear by sixfold or more.



### • Nuclearpoweris notflexible. Nuclear is ali-or-nothing power. A reactor can't be geared to produce less power as electricity from renewables (like wind and

solar) increases. This can make it challengingto increase renewables past a certain

point. When a reactor shuts down due to accident. planned upgrade or permanent closure, a large amount ofpower has to be found elsewhere. And nuclear plants are being closed. not opened- some because they no longer are making a profit. (over)

### • Nuclear subsidies rob research on renewables. Nuclearpower has been subsidized throughout most ofits fuel chain. In 2011 the Union ofConcerned Scientists published

### Nuclear Power, StillNot Viable without Subsidies. This report shows that in some cases subsidies were greaterthan the value ofthe electricity produced. Subsidies are supposed to be for new innovations- not for propping up outdated technologies like fossil fuels and nuclear. Nuclear power could also be called a fossil fuel. because like coal, oil and gas, nuclear depends on a limited supply ofnatural resources in the ground. Ifsome ofthe tens ofbillions spent on nuclear were funneled to national- and state-planned programs for clean energy and efficiency, we could achieve a fully renewable energy supply, a more democratized energy grid and energy independence much sooner.



### • Cost of nuclearis going up. while cost

**o(renewable~·**

**i~·** 

### going down. Estimates for new reactors are, on average, four times higher than estimates fromjust eight years ago. Estimates for new reactors are invariably far less than the final cost, with the final cost often doubling. Costs ofrenewables continue down while their efficiency increases. Sometimes, as in the case ofthe ColumbiaGenerating Station, Cherokee, and Perry, billions were spent for reactors that were never finished. 

# RENEW ABLES ARE THEREAL

# ANSWER! Mitigating climate disruption demands sound investment in economical. expedient, clean and. most ofall, safe technologies. Wind and solar are getting cheaper and more efficient by leaps and bounds. Advances are being made in energy storage. Geothermal energy is being tapped extensively. Wind farms added about 13 gigawatts ofnew power in the U.S. in 2012. Solar photovoltaic (PV) plants added 4.2 gigawatts ofelectricity in 2013. And that'sjust solar PV. Solarwater heaters have become very economic and popular. There are also concentrated solar power plants that generate electricity directly from the sun's heat. so the total amount ofsolar power is actually higher than the PV number alone. Back in 2007, nuclear engineer Arjun Makhijani ofthe Institute for Energy and Environmental Research wrote the book 

### Carbon Free andNuclear Free: A Roadmap.for U.S. 

### EnergyPolicy. In the book he outlined how the United States, with the political will, could generate its energy needs with renewables by the year 2040. The phasing out ofnuclearpower and coal is now well underway, and the switch to wind, solar and efficiency is quickly gaining momentum.


## Check out the NuclearFreeCampaign ofthe Sierra Club Facebook Group. Follow @NuclearFreeSCon Twitter.

SIERRA CLUB NUCLEAR FREE CAMPAIGN 85 Second Street, Second Floor San Francisco, California, 94105