BEYOND NUCLEAR V. NRC -- 'We'll See You in Court" on TX CISF!

Public commenters just say "NO!" at NRC environmental scoping meeting on the ISP CISF in Andrews, TX, Feb. 2017We've filed a federal court appeal against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, regarding its rubber stamps of Interim Storage Partners' highly radioactive waste consolidated interim storage facility (CISF), targeted at the Waste Control Specialists national "low" level rad. waste dump in Andrews County, West Texas. See our press release here, with links to relevant documents. NRC is violating multiple federal laws, which we intend to prove at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the second highest court in the land, just under the U.S. Supreme Court. Last June, we also appealed against NRC's rubber stamps in Holtec's CISF case, targeting majority minority New Mexico. Both CISFs, just 40 miles apart, represent radioactive racism and environmental injustice.

READ MORE

"THEY'RE BAAAAACK!" -- Mobile Chernobyl bill on Capitol Hill

Image compliments of NIRSThe anti-nuke movement has, by blocking proposed bad dumps, fended off Mobile Chernobyl legislation, session after session, for a quarter-century -- although sometimes by the narrowest of margins! Now, the Democratic U.S. House Environment Subcommittee is reportedly poised to push CISF-authorizing legislation (see related entry), which will likely also be pro-Yucca dump. What can you do? Please contact and urge your U.S. Representative, and both your U.S. Senators, to strongly oppose any bills -- whether authorizing or appropriations -- promoting environmentally unjust, and non-consent based siting, high-level radioactive waste dumps! You can also be patched through to your Members of Congress via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. If any one of these Southwest dumps opens, in NM, NV, and/or TX, high-risk Mobile Chernobyls would be launched through most states!

READ MORE

Conference videos now available

Programming from the full Beyond Nuclear (no relation, but a good choice of title) conference from Helensburgh, Scotland is now available on line.

Watch the morning session on nuclear power here: https://vimeo.com/507578948/73067caed5

Watch the afternoon session on renewable energy here:

https://vimeo.com/507621317/342984144d

Linda Pentz Gunter of Beyond Nuclear's presentation on how nuclear power pushed aside renewables in the 1950s is viewable at the close of the afternoon session.

New video: Nuclear power is not a climate solution

A new, compelling video from Nuclear Energy Information Service.

How nuclear power contributed to climate change

The Nuclear Power Elephant In The Renewable Energy Room

Just under 15 minutes on how nuclear power -- far from presenting a solution -- has actually contributed to climate change. In 1952 the US government was advised to go solar. Instead, we got “Atoms for Peace”. If the report to Truman had been listened to, and we had chosen the solar instead of the nuclear path, we might not have had climate change at all. But solar had no military utility, while nuclear reactors made an important “by-product”: plutonium.

This is a pre-recorded of a talk I recently gave for Helensburgh, Scotland CND’s Beyond Nuclear conference. A section I added for the conference, but not in this video, covered the fact that nuclear power, as in the past, is still today getting in the way of much needed and urgent renewable energy and energy efficiency development.

This is well laid out by Amory Lovins who notes that, to protect the climate, we must save the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time. Since nuclear power is the most expensive way to generate a megawatt hour of electricity, and plants take years to build, it is out of the running even before evaluating its carbon footprint. As Lovins points out, costly options save less carbon per dollar than cheaper options. Slow options save less carbon per year than faster options. So in the case of nuclear power, whether it is “low carbon” or not instantly becomes irrelevant because it is already useless for climate change due to its cost and slowness.