What do environmental groups say about nuclear power? Union of Concerned Scientists

[kristopher]

Nuclear Power
UCS staff monitor and work to improve the safety and security provisions at existing nuclear power plants and the performance of the industry's oversight body--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; assess the safety, security and nuclear weapons proliferation risks of new reactors; and analyze the pros and cons of increasing nuclear power as a means of reducing global warming. We write reports, file formal petitions to the NRC, testify before Congress, and provide technical assistance to groups of citizens living near nuclear plants.

These areas are discussed in detail at the link:

Nuclear Power Subsidies Will Shift Financial Risks to Taxpayers (2010)
This UCS analysis is the first to quantify the most significant nuclear power subsidies proposed in the American Power Act (APA) and the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA). These massive new subsidies would disadvantage more cost-effective, less risky approaches to curb global warming.

Nuclear Power: A Resurgence We Can't Afford (2009)
A new UCS analysis finds that the U.S. does not need to significantly expand its reliance on nuclear power to make dramatic cuts in power plant carbon emissions through 2030—and that doing so would be uneconomical.

Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees: Another Taxpayer Bailout Ahead? (2009)
With potentially 1.6 trillion dollars in risk exposure, both industry and Wall Street consider nuclear power plants too risky to finance. This report urges Congress to be cautious about committing public funds to new nuclear plants, and identifies several critical steps the federal government must take before shifting the financial risks of new nuclear plant construction onto the taxpayer.

Nuclear Power in a Warming World (2007)
In Nuclear Power in a Warming World, UCS describes the risks of nuclear power and recommends practical steps to minimize those risks, which is essential if nuclear power expands to help reduce global warming.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/

[NNadir]

1. Anti-nukes almost never tire of citing each other.

Basically the world doesn't give a fuck about what the Union of Concerned "Scientists" think.

You don't need to be a scientist at all to join that august group of group thinkers. You can send them a check and become an instant "scientist."

Anyone who does so is eminently unqualified to call himself or herself an environmentalist, either.

You cannot oppose the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy - a form of energy developed by Wigner, Fermi, Seaborg, Bethe and many others of that calibre and be an environmentalist.

[kristopher]

2. Interesting point of view since most who support nuclear also support new coal.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[TheWraith]

3. Another pile of lies from the cut-and-paste master.

You keep insisting that that survey means something it doesn't, even after you've had it debunked a half dozen times by basic math.

[NNadir]

4. Your predictably unreferenced line of bull doesn't mean shit to me.

I don't need an airhead to tell me what I believe.

I have consistently favored banning coal, oil and gas. In more than 8 years of writing here - eight years during which airheads have been predicting the death of nuclear power and the rise of a solar and wind nirvana that, um, is still just soothsaying - I have never supported any dangerous fossil fuel.

Unlike famous anti-nuke anti-science shitheads, I am not paid to greenwash dangerous fossil fuel companies.

I have NEVER met an anti-nuke who favors, as I do, the immediate phase out of coal. On the contrary, they never mutter a word against coal. It's nuke, nuke, nuke, nuke!

One hundred percent of anti-nukes oppose the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy, the form of energy that has been the largest - and fastest growing - source of climate change gas free energy for more than 3 decades.

Amory Lovins works for the car CULTists at Walmart and BP.

Have a nice denialist day.

[kristopher]

5. Nuclear Power Subsidies Will Shift Financial Risks to Taxpayers

Nuclear Power Subsidies Will Shift Financial Risks to Taxpayers

Nuclear Subsidies in the American Power Act (APA) and the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA)
Download: Nuclear Power Subsidies Will Shift Financial Risks to Taxpayers

The nuclear power industry is seeking tens of billions in new subsidies and other incentives in federal climate and energy legislation that would shift massive construction, financing, operating and regulatory costs and risks from the industry and its financial backers to U.S. taxpayers. Congress should reject these overly generous subsidies to this mature industry whose history of skyrocketing costs and construction overruns already has resulted in two costly bailouts by taxpayers and captive ratepayers—once in the 1970s and 1980s when utilities cancelled or abandoned more than 100 plants, and again in the 1990s when plant owners offloaded their "stranded costs."
Massive new subsidies will only further mask nuclear power's considerable costs and risks while disadvantaging more cost-effective and less risky carbon reduction measures that can be implemented much more quickly, such as energy efficiency and many renewable energy technologies.

The nuclear industry already will benefit from considerable subsidies provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and from a price on carbon emissions (See Table 2). These subsidies should be more than adequate to allow the industry to demonstrate whether it can build a limited number of "first mover" units, on time, on budget, and operate them safely (as recommended by numerous experts), and which the initial loan guarantees and other subsidies included in the 2005 Act were designed to support. However, proposals in pending legislation go way beyond what is needed to accomplish that goal. To illustrate this point, this analysis quantifies key nuclear subsidies in two Senate bills: The American Power Act (APA) and the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA).

For full four page analysis click DOWNLOAD at the link: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies.html

Since Republicans are such strong supporters of nuclear fission, the one section of the energy bill we can expect to see action on will be the subsidies for nuclear vendors. This is a good discussion of the dynamics of the program.

[txlibdem]

6. They're also AGAINST electric cars

The UCS has absolutely zero credibility.

[kristopher]

7. Zero credibility is a more apt description of those claiming UCS opposes EVs

That is totally false.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/hybrid_fuelcell_and_electric_vehicles/battery-electric-vehicles.html

[txlibdem]

8. Oh, yeah. You're right. Uh-huh. Riiiiight.

The future of battery-electric vehicles is somewhat cloudy. Many of the major automakers have shifted focus away from BEVs and toward hybrid electric vehicles—including plugins—and fuel cell vehicles.

For the near future, BEVs will remain in a "niche" market comprised of smaller automotive companies producing BEVs or converting gasoline vehicles into electrics. Additionally, smaller Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) are being used today for limited or off-road use in airports, college campuses, retirement communities, and other areas.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/hybrid_fuelcell_and_electric_vehicles/battery-electric-vehicles.html

Oh my gosh, you're right! That's about as glowing a recommendation for EVs as I've ever heard... :sarcasm:

The Union of Cancerned Sciontests has no credibility. Period.

[joshcryer]

10. What do they support? Biodiesel?

[txlibdem]

11. Zoom! Off into left field

Or (and this is just a thought) you could read the material at the link I posted, the same link that Kris Koal-Man provided in a fraudulent attempt to say the exact opposite. Just a small matter of factual accuracy, you understand.

[joshcryer]

14. Sorry, Thanksgiving stuff, I recall something from them in the past about a biodiesel SUV...

...didn't have time to read the article at the time, had to try to get some sleep (which somehow I managed not to do).

edit: to clarify I went to the page and it wasn't clear what they supported.

[GliderGuider]

12. They do support biofuels

Biofuels: An Important Part of a Low-Carbon Diet


To reduce transportation-related emissions—responsible for nearly 40 percent of the United States' total global warming pollution—we need more efficient vehicles, fewer miles driven, and lower-carbon fuels (i.e., fuels that generate significantly less heat-trapping gases per unit of energy delivered than today's petroleum-based gasoline and diesel). Hydrogen, electricity, and biofuels (fuels produced from plants) all have the potential—if produced in a sustainable manner—to not only reduce transportation-related emissions but also promote economic and energy security by curbing our country's growing oil dependence.

Biofuels can quickly become a staple of a low-carbon fuel diet because they integrate well with our existing fuel distribution infrastructure and offer potentially abundant domestic supplies with significant opportunities for growth. But not all biofuels are the same. There is a wide range in the estimated heat-trapping emissions and other environmental impacts from each biofuel over its life cycle (i.e., from farm to finished fuel to use in the vehicle), depending on the feedstock, production process, and model inputs and assumptions. There are also concerns about emissions and impacts from land conversion and land use associated with biofuel production.

We really need to stop burning stuff to make things go.

Electrify or die trying.

[txlibdem]

13. Do. Or do not. There is no TRY.

The stakes are that high IMO. There is no need to try. There is a great and serious need to DO, to put forth all our efforts to move away from fossil fuels before we all pay the price.

I think we may differ on the topic of biofuels, though. I believe it will take decades to replace all the privately owned vehicles with battery electric models. Commercial trucks may take even longer than that (although the cost savings in fuel and maintenance of switching to electric vehicles might turn that statement around after 2015). So, following that logic, there will be fuel burner vehicles on the roads for decades to come and they need to burn SOMETHING. I'd much rather they burn algae biofuel or ethanol made from cellulosic (non-corn) processes than continue to burn fossil fuel.

[joshcryer]

9. It is essential that dogmatic 'environmentalists,' opposed to all nuclear power, not be...

...allowed to delay the R&D on 4th generation nuclear power.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf