Team 1: No Nuclear, No False Climate Solutions
*Click on Links Below:
*Climate Action Plans
*Climate Change
*Divest from Fossil Fuels
*Community Choice Energy
Please avoid FALSE Solutions being pushed by oil and gas companies & others:
1. No Nuclear. Click for info.
2. No Natural/Methane Gas Click for info.
3. No Waste To Energy. Click for info.
4. No CCS/CCUS technology carbon capture. Click for info.
6. No Biomass or Biofuels (Biodiesel, Biogas..) Click for info.
7. No Fossil Fuel Based Hydrogen. Click for info. Only green hydrogen.
We must move to clean, renewable energy and Stop Burning Stuff!
Some Greenwashing Terms:
"zero waste to landfill" = burning trash
"advanced recycling" = burning plastic
"circular economy for plastics" = making and burning plastic
False Climate Solutions
Stanford University Professor Mark Z. Jacobson discusses his recently published book, “No Miracles Needed: How Today’s Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean Our Air.”
Things like nuclear and carbon capture are false solutions!
From nuclear power to Carbon Capture, there are multi-billion dollar climate investments being promoted by fossil fuel industries that will not solve the climate crisis.
No Nuclear
CleanEarth4Kids does not support nuclear energy or weapons. We join with the Sierra Club, Mark Z Jacobson of Stanford University, and other organizations to oppose nuclear.
Supporters of nuclear energy say it has zero-carbon emissions. There is no such thing as a zero (or close to zero) emissions nuclear power plant. The mining and processing of uranium, building nuclear power stations, and managing nuclear waste all produce carbon. Uranium production is especially damaging to the environment. There is NO solution for long term storage or disposal or nuclear waste.
The 7 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy is Not the Answer to Solve Climate Change: “New nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated. In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks.”
Click here for Sierra Club’s position on nuclear power
“Every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on clean renewable energy and one more dollar spent on making the world a comparatively dirtier and a more dangerous place, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand.” - Mark Z. Jacobson, Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program and professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University
“Investment in SMRs will take resources away from carbon-free and lower-cost renewable technologies that are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming 10 years.”
“Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away.”
“Radioactivity is released at every stage of nuclear power production, from uranium mining to electricity generation to radioactive waste production. In some of these phases, toxic heavy metals are also released into the environment.
Children, women and particularly pregnant women living near nuclear production facilities appear to be at disproportionately higher risk of harm from exposure to these releases.”
“The commercial use of nuclear energy was, in the 1950s, the by-product of military programmes. Not then, and not since, has nuclear energy been a competitive energy source.”
All commercial nuclear plants are near water as they require it for cooling. 2 in five nuclear plants operate on the coast and at least 100 are just a few meters above sea level, making them vulnerable to increased floods from climate change.
“…no one has suffered at the hands of these impacts more than Indigenous people, especially the Navajo. The mining industry stripped their land of its resources. Rendered their water contaminated. And left in its stead hundreds of abandoned mines that continue to harm the people and their land today.”
“The corporations manufacturing nuclear weapons are fueling the nuclear arms race for their own financial gain. They actively lobby their parliaments and governments to continue allocating the funds to nuclear weapons. And they support think tanks and other public initiatives to promote the ‘need’ for nuclear weapons maintenance, modernization or expansion.”
The Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL) is run by Boeing and is on 2,850 acres outside of Simi Valley in Los Angeles County. It was a research facility during the Cold War with chemical and radioactive contamination and had a partial nuclear meltdown in 1959.
The site is still contaminated…
“Starting during World War II and for much of the Cold War, plants in St. Louis and its suburbs processed uranium for the nation’s nuclear weapons program. The waste created from those efforts was haphazardly trucked to storage sites where it sat unprotected and polluted Coldwater Creek, bringing generations of children into contact with radioactive waste when they played in the creek waters.
A 2019 study found that residents who lived near Coldwater Creek or played in its waters faced an elevated risk of developing certain cancers.”
Articles
Former U.S. regulator questions small nuclear reactor technology
I Oversaw The U.S. Nuclear Power Industry. Now I Think It Should Be Banned
More Nuclear Energy Is Not The Solution To Our Climate Crisis
New Japanese environment minister says Japan should stop using nuclear power
NRC admits San Onofre Holtec nuclear waste canisters are all damaged
Nuclear power : a false solution to climate change
Nuclear Doesn’t Help with Climate or Work Well with Renewables
San Onofre Nuclear Plant Cannot Fix Damaged Canisters of Toxic Waste
No Natural/Methane Gas
No Waste To Energy
No CCS/CCUS Technology Carbon Capture
“For years, experts have pointed out that CCS has been primarily used to pump more oil out of the earth, using a process known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Burning that oil emits far more carbon dioxide (CO2) than what is captured, and therefore CCS doesn’t represent a viable solution to tackle climate change.”
“The fossil fuel industry is spending millions to persuade the public that carbon capture is a viable solution to the climate crisis, but in reality, it’s a failed technology. And a growing number of climate scientists and energy experts, including the International Energy Agency, agree. “
“But the problems with carbon capture and storage are vast. For starters, according to Jonathan Foley, former head of the California Academy of the Sciences, even after decades of investment in research and development and millions in subsidies, carbon capture technology has only captured a few seconds’ worth of our yearly greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Furthermore, carbon capture extends the operations of the polluting infrastructure and increases our reliance on fossil fuels. Every dollar spent on carbon capture and storage takes precious resources away from real climate solutions, thereby delaying the transition to a clean energy future.”
“To date, the European Union (EU) plus just four countries – the US, Norway, Canada and the Netherlands – account for 95% of the public handouts on CCS and hydrogen.
The US has spent the most taxpayer money, some $12bn in direct subsidies, according to OCI, with fossil fuel giants like Exxon hoping to secure billions more in future years.”
“carbon capture is a useless technology (that) requires both energy and equipment and doesn’t reduce any air pollution, fossil fuel extraction or related infrastructure.”
“Because it requires energy to run, it increases all three of those and hardly reduces carbon dioxide.”
“Jacobson explains that, even if powered with renewable energy, CCUS removes less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than simply using renewable energy sources as direct replacements for fossil fuels.”
Is carbon capture essential to fighting climate change?
No. CCUS is a scam. It increases CO2, air pollution, fossil mining & infrastructure and is entirely a tool to keep the fossil industry alive
“A campaign to promote carbon capture in California by the Lawrence Livermore National Lab received $1 million from a front group run by executives of DTE Energy, a Michigan-based utility whose subsidiary owns biomass power plants in California that could benefit from policies promoting carbon capture.”
“CCS and CCUS technologies are not only unnecessary for the rapid transformation required to keep warming under 1.5°C, they delay that transformation, providing the fossil fuel industry with a license to continue polluting.”
No Biomass/Biofuels
“ ‘We need to expose biomass for what it is,” Frost says. “It’s a harm to the climate, a harm to the forests, and a harm to the communities where it operates.’ “
“Phasing out forest biomass as ‘renewable energy’ would yield massive benefits in terms of air pollution and climate protection.”
“Burning forest biomass for electricity production is more emissive of carbon per unit of energy produced than is burning coal. This is scientific fact. These emissions are immediate in their effect on the atmosphere. We need to urgently move away from emissive power sources like coal and other fossil fuels, but should not make the mistake of substituting with an emissive alternative.”
“…the production of one of the fuels could emit air pollution that is so toxic, 1 out of 4 people exposed to it over a lifetime could get cancer.”
“That risk is 250,000 times greater than the level usually considered acceptable by the EPA division that approves new chemicals.”
No Fossil Fuel Based Hydrogen, Only Green
“The carbon footprint to create blue hydrogen is more than 20% greater than using either natural gas or coal directly for heat, or about 60% greater than using diesel oil for heat.”
“The clean hydrogen standard, alongside $8 billion in funding for hydrogen demonstration hubs, were both created under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law under the heavy influence of Big Oil’s favorite senator, Joe Manchin.”
“Due to high energy demands of manufacturing green hydrogen and the need to dramatically decrease the carbon intensity of our grids, green hydrogen is only suited to limited end-uses. Careful consideration of more efficient alternatives, such as direct electrification, should be conducted before investing in green hydrogen. “
Creating “green” hydrogen needs large amounts of energy, land and water. Putting renewable energy directly into the power grid instead of making green hydrogen is a much more effective way of reducing carbon emissions.
Hydrogen is being pushed by the fossil fuel industry….
