Touted as clean, nuclear pollutes and threatens SC

Recently Governor Mark Sanford pledged to create a commission on climate change to map out ways the state should take on global warming. Nearly twenty states have already established such panels, serving to catalyze policies such as California's requirement that industries reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020. It's high time that we see bold action on global warming here in South Carolina.

Still, the nuclear industry is well established in the state and is posing as a global warming "solution" - but the reality is that nuclear power is dirty and dangerous. In addition to the lethal threat presented by deadly radioactive pollution, the process of getting a new nuclear reactor up and running takes upwards of a decade and is extremely energy intensive, relying heavily on our present fossil fuel infrastructure. Nuclear energy is indisputably less effective at reducing carbon emissions than efficiency and renewable energy.

Please join SCASCC in calling Gov. Sanford on Monday March 5th to thank him for taking this important first step and to encourage him to follow through and work for a clean, safe and just energy future for the state based on efficiency, conservation and clean technologies instead of the false promises of nuclear.

Call Governor Sanford on Monday March 5th at 803-734-2100.

Talking points on nuclear energy & global warming

1. Nuclear energy is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative - energy efficiency. Doing things like driving cars with better fuel-efficiency, building LEED buildings and maintaining existing structures and light bulb switches are all quicker, cheaper solutions to global warming. Energy efficiency offers a bigger bang for the buck. - Rocky Mountain Institute


2. Collection and processing of mineral ores for nuclear fuel is either directly powered by diesel & gasoline engines or uses electricity from the power grid. The electricity from the power grid most likely comes from a non-renewable source. As high-grade ores become scarcer, even more fossil fuel energy will be required to dig deeper for lower-grade ores. Wikipedia - Nuclear power


3. Nuclear energy is extremely expensive to produce and requires millions of dollars of investment from our government, but no capital investor or market-driven utility would ever consider financing a nuclear operation. Meanwhile, in 2006, capitalists invested more money in clean technology like renewable energy than information technology. - Rocky Mountain Institute


4. Nuclear energy can only produce electricity, but electricity amounts to just a third of America's total energy use (even less for the world). The majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation and heating/cooling our buildings.
   
   
   • A switch to nuclear can only hope to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 10%, not even close to the 60% needed to stabilize the global climate. - "Nuclear Power No Solution." Green, Jim
   
   
   • 2006 - UK Sustainable Development Commission report finds that doubling the UK's existing nuclear capacity would only give an 8% cut in CO2 emissions by 2035, and nothing before 1010. They warned against looking for a quick fix to UK's energy crisis. "Is Nuclear The Answer?"
   
   
5. Nuclear fission, the reaction to make nuclear energy, releases millions of curies of unregulated radiation of noble gases and tritium, a radioactive hydrogen ion that easily passes into the human body. There is documented evidence of radioactive contamination in South Carolina water and soil. - Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Policy Research Institute. "Is Nuclear Power The Solution to Global Warming?"


6. A complete switch from fossil fuel power to nuclear power would require a five-fold increase in our current number of reactors, cost several trillion dollars and drastically increase the tonnage of radioactive waste for which we CURRENTLY have no place to store. - "Nuclear Power No Solution." Green, Jim.


7. 2004 - National Academy of Sciences report finds nuclear industry practice of storing radioactive waste in water-filled storage containers next to reactors to be unstable. A plane could hit the tanks and drain them, spreading deadly radiation across the state, and even nation and world due to wind and water currents. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission suppressed the report. "Are U.S. Nuclear Plants Safe From a 9/11-type Attack?" Nouraee, Andisheh.

Call-In Script

Call Governor Sanford on Monday March 5th at 803-734-2100.