Ban New Coal & Nuclear Plants Now

January 29, 2009 in Ecological Wisdom & the Environment

Despite the desperate warnings of global climate disaster plans continue to build new coal and nuclear power plants. This must stop.

Green Change among others is leading a Call to Immediate Action to demand the new Administration ban the establishment of new coal plants and nuclear power plants. Please go and see what you can do to help.

Stop new coal and nuclear plants now

The global climate crisis is the defining challenge of our generation.

We’ve got to halt all new coal and nuclear plants in the United States.

Coal is the dirtiest, most climate-polluting fossil fuel.

Nuclear power is far too dangerous and expensive to include in our energy production.

President Obama and Congress still support new coal and nuclear power. For our planet, and our children and grandchildren, we must act swiftly.

Please email President Obama and your Members of Congress today to urge them to support legislation to halt all new coal and nuclear power plants.

19 responses to Ban New Coal & Nuclear Plants Now

  1. I don’t understand. How has nuclear power or nuclear spent fuel hurt you or any of us?? Coal combustion kills 30000 yearly. Your position to ban both is a little bizarre.

  2. Personally I think Coal powered plants is the number one danger to be stopped, they are popping up all over the nation.

    Nuclear power plants is being offered up as the “alternative” to coal, or more often along side “clean coal”. Nuclear power should not be considered an alternative to coal. The dangers are far too great to justify, and there is still after all these years absolutely no solution in place for the disposal of the radioactive waste. Consequently the waste is stored on site in containers that slowly decay over time.

  3. Ron, how has nuclear power technology hurt you? What is the relative risk? Please define and quantify “dangers are far too great”. Compared to what? What is the track record of nuclear safety? There are numerous things in everyday living that have far higher relative risks than nuclear. Even Chernobyl, the worst case scenario, affected far fewer people than coal combustion does EVERY YEAR.

  4. Risks of nuclear power are high compared to renewable sources such as solar, wind, and water power, which exist naturally, don’t require mining to extract, and don’t produce byproducts that require intricate storage methods for tens of thousands of years. Those sources, particularly wind and solar, present almost zero risk of calamity.

  5. Building thousands of 300 ft tall turbines which have to be maintained and replaced after 20 years, not to mention the mining of raw materials and manufacturing of the components. Come on, no risk with renewables???? On a per watt generated basis renewables require more than 10 times the material (steel, concrete, aluminum, copper) to build than nuclear. That’s not even taking into account the backup generation that must be maintained as well as a huge new transmission system that will have to be constructed. Nuclear plants will be constructed at present sites requiring minimal if any additional transmission infrastructure. There are many factors that go into a fair comparison of nuclear and renewable.

  6. Use less energy = need less power plants.

  7. Also I would disagree about the safety of hydropower. On a per watt generated basis the mortality risk associated with hydroelectric dams is far higher than nuclear. Over the years there have been a number of catastrophic dam failures that have killed thousands.

  8. How many people have wind farms killed? Has a turbine ever fallen over and crushed someone? What about solar panels? Wasn’t there a story about a solar panel that blew up and contaminated the surrounding area with silicon?

  9. I’ll answer the first question myself:

    Aug. 28, 2007 – Reuters
    First death from U.S. wind tower collapse recorded

    LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – A man died over the weekend at a wind farm under construction in Oregon in what is believed to be the first death of a wind power worker from a tower collapse in the United States, law enforcement and industry officials said on Monday.

    Chadd Mitchell, 35, was killed on Saturday afternoon when a 242-foot-tall tower he was working on toppled over, said a dispatcher for the Sherman County Sheriff’s Department.

    Mitchell, of Goldendale, Washington, was working at the top of the tower — essentially a hollow tube — when it buckled. A second worker in the tube was injured and a third worker on the ground was not hurt, according to The Oregonian newspaper. Federal officials are investigating the incident, it said.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2720796920070828

    Found a second death due to a ladder collapse in Nov. 2008:

    http://www.caller.com/news/2008/nov/11/wind-farm-death-caused-lattice-tower-employer-said/

  10. Thanks for the info. My point is that by the sheer numbers of turbines that will be required statistically there will be accidents and deaths. They are complex huge machines working in severe environments 300 feet up. There are 104 nuclear plants in The US today. It will take at least 2000 wind turbines to replace each one, plus backup coal and natural gas plants will be needed. That means we will need 200000 wind turbines to replace nuclear. Nuclear accounts for 20 percent of our electricity so to replace all coal, nuclear and hydropower we will need at least a million wind turbines with backup coal and natural gas (which will be running 2/3 of the time).

  11. You don’t think America can do it? This is the greatest nation on Mother Earth. If we can build the Hoover Dam and that sculpture on the mountain in South Dakota of the four Presidents, well, I believe that we can build a solar panel grid the size of Massachusetts and 10,000,000 wind turbines.

    However, having said that, I believe that we will be seeing more local solutions to power needs rather than some massive new energy grid. The power needs in Minnesota and the Dakotas is different than the power needs of the Carolinas. The options available to a particular region (sustained wind speeds, hours of sunlight, natural gas and hydro-electric options) vary greatly. The solutions for Texas are not going to be the same as the solutions for Seattle.

    What we need is the incentives and the support for local and state alternative energy innovation.

    Innovation drives America, at least it used to.

  12. Phil, your arguments are based on faulty assumptions. You only need a million wind turbines to maintain current energy usage levels IF we are dedicated to using just as much energy as we are now. If new energy-saving technologies are developed (and they are being developed every day) the required amount of energy goes down, and the number of necessary turbines goes down. I and millions of others of the Al Gore-generation are working on reducing our energy demands.

    Also, indictments of windmill safety are not indictments of windmills in particular, but of building structures in general. All construction is risky, and there’s no reason windmills or solar panels are inherently MORE risky than nuclear power plants. Apparently people have died building windmills. But here’s an article I found on Google in two seconds:

    Worker killed at Xcel Energy’s nuclear power plant in Monticello

    A man working at Xcel Energy’s nuclear generating plant in Monticello died after he was electrocuted Wednesday morning, the Wright County Sheriff’s Office said.

    http://www.topix.com/county/wright-mn/2008/09/worker-killed-at-xcel-energys-nuclear-power-plant-in-monticello

    That really doesn’t prove anything about the risks of death in nuclear power plants, though, just like a couple of articles don’t prove anything about the risks of death by windmills.

    Other than actually falling on someone, a windmill seems pretty failsafe to me. If it collapses, you just have to pick up and recycle the pieces. Even if a nuclear plant continues to work perfectly, the waste produced requires tens of thousands of years of constant monitoring. I’m sure if you added the amount of resources required to maintain a waste storage facility in addition to building a nuclear power plant (after multiplying the first digit by 10,000), the equation favors wind power.

  13. Renewables like solar and wind are already cheaper than nuclear. If you take into account the technological progress that renewables will make in the next ten years (the minimum time it would take to get a new nuclear plant up and running) then investment in solar/wind is an even better deal. For supporting evidence, see:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-takahashi/renewable-electricity-is_b_162435.html

  14. Those greenies, so unrealistic. Energy needs are expected to increase 31% in the next 20 years and this doesn’t account for the influx of EV’s coming. Are you greenies going to be happy only using power when the sun shines or the wind blows? Have any of you greenies tried to permit a dam lately? Just a small dam, nothing like the Hoover dam. In case you haven’t noticed, they’re tearing down dams now, not putting them up.

    Here’s a little insight for y’all on wind power here in the NW from Bonneville Power Administration
    http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/pubs/backgrounder/06/bg102506.pdf

    20-30% utilization. So figure you’re going to need 3-5x the wind turbines you thought you’d need to get the capacity you thought you’d get. Be cure to keep those coal plants running for a base load.

  15. Green Ferret, The Huffington Post is the most liberal rag on the net. Why would you rely on them for information? lol

  16. People are dreaming if they think that electrical energy use will go down. I am absolutely looking forward to the day when my car (and millions others) will run on electricity and we won’t be sending billions of dollars to the Middle East. Oh, and by the way, everything needs to be electrical, including all transportation, industry, heating and cooling. That will best be done with proven clean, reliable, and economical nuclear power. Renewables can supplement if economical but that remains to be seen.

  17. Electrical heating is just stupid. It’s the most inefficient heating htere is. I have it in my house (not by choice) and our winter energy bills are sometimes literally 5x what they are in the summer.

    That’s actually a good use for natural gas. Geothermal is probably a better alternative, but natural gas is better than electricity for heating homes.

  18. Ross, off peak electric thermal storage heating is excellent and economical, we had it in our home in Minnesota in the 60s. Ground loop heat pumps are also extremely efficient way to heat and cool a home. If you agree that climate change is real then eliminating the large scale use of fossil fuel must be a priority, including natural gas.

  19. I’d rather see natural gas heating homes than the inefficient electric heat in my (parents’) house. If there are more efficient ways to do electric heat that aren’t prohibitively expensive, then that sounds great.