Opinion | No, nuclear power is not clean energy.

Two decades after the now-defunct Long Island Lighting Company’s plans to build seven to 11 nuclear power plants in Suffolk County failed, safe energy activists are concerned that we could once again be targeted by nuclear power plants.

It comes amid the biggest push for nuclear power development in New York State, the United States and the world in years, as nuclear power advocates try to seize on climate change as a new reason to develop nuclear power, saying it ” carbon intensive.” free” or “no emissions”.

This is not true, especially if you take into account the “nuclear fuel chain”.

“The dirty secret is that nuclear power is a significant contributor to global warming. Nuclear power is actually a chain of highly energy-intensive industrial processes,” said Michele Lee, an attorney and chair of the Smart Energy and Conservation Policy Council. “These include uranium mining, conversion, enrichment and nuclear fuel production; construction and dismantling of massive structures of nuclear facilities; and disposal of high-level nuclear waste.”

In a two-page fact sheet posted online titled “How Nuclear Power Getting worse Climate Change,” says the No Nuclear Sierra Club campaign: “Nuclear power has a large carbon footprint. At the forefront of nuclear energy, carbon energy is used to mine, grind, process, convert and enrich uranium, as well as to form (fuel) rods and build nuclear… power plants…. Throughout the entire nuclear fuel chain. There is radioactive contamination of air, land and water. Cleaning up uranium mines and factories requires large amounts of fossil fuels. Each year, the United States alone generates 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and twelve million cubic feet of low-level waste. None of this will magically disappear. It will take enormous amounts of energy to isolate this hazardous waste for future generations.”

The majority of carbon emissions occur during this nuclear fuel cycle; however, nuclear plants themselves also emit carbon, a radioactive form, Carbon-14.

However, many politicians and much of the media continue to use the words “carbon-free” or “emission-free” when talking about electricity generated by nuclear power. Consider an article on the front page of the business section New York Times The following began last week: “Technology companies are increasingly turning to nuclear power plants as a supplier of the emissions-free electricity needed to run artificial intelligence and other businesses.”

An article appeared in the Associated Press last week. Newsday which began: “Amazon said Wednesday it would invest in small nuclear reactors, just two days after a similar announcement from Google, as both tech giants seek new sources of carbon-free electricity to meet growing demand from data centers and artificial intelligence. “

Politicians backing climate change claims appear to include New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who just hosted a “summit” on nuclear power. It unveiled the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) “Draft Nuclear Advanced Review Project.” It argued that “a growing and innovative group of advanced nuclear energy technologies has recently emerged as a potential source of carbon-free energy.”

As Food & Water Watch reported online: “Governor Hochul’s latest bad idea is to build new nuclear power plants in New York. In September, she hosted the Energy Future Summit in Syracuse, where she entertained representatives of the nuclear industry, and now her administration has published a “blueprint” to promote the construction of new nuclear reactors.”

Long Island is considered an advantageous area for nuclear power plants because it is surrounded by a huge amount of water that can be used as coolant—a nuclear power plant requires up to a million gallons of water per minute as coolant.

Safe energy activists – some of the veterans of the fight against LILCO’s nuclear power plans – are preparing a letter to the Long Island Power Authority board of trustees saying they “reaffirm the long-standing consensus that nuclear power has no place on Long Island ” . We also believe that nuclear power has no place in planning for New York’s energy future.”

“LIPA exists because Long Islanders said no to nuclear power. The reasons for this decision were public safety, the impossibility of evacuation and the ever-increasing costs and electricity rates. Nuclear power was neither necessary nor appropriate for Long Island. That is still true,” he continues.

“A recent study by the Nature Conservancy found that “Long Island has sufficient low-impact solar photovoltaic potential to accommodate approximately 19,500 megawatts (19.5 gigawatts) of solar capacity in medium- to large-scale installations.” (250 kilowatts and above). )’ A gigawatt of energy could power 750,000 homes. These estimates, amounting to nearly three times more energy than currently required, do not even include the potential for residential solar energy. Additionally, solar energy is the most widespread and supported form of renewable energy in the country. In contrast, nuclear power has generated the most public opposition.

“Long Island’s abundant energy resources also include offshore wind power. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the total offshore wind energy potential in our region is 323,000 megawatts, or 323 gigawatts of energy. LIPA is leading the way with the South Fork Wind Farm. There is clearly no shortage of renewable energy potential on Long Island. Nuclear energy will not be needed here.”

Additionally, the letter notes, “LIPA’s enabling legislation clearly states that ‘the authority shall utilize, to the maximum extent possible, all cost-effective conservation measures and technologies based on renewable energy, cogeneration, and energy efficiency that will benefit the interests of the ratepayers of its service territory.’ .

He calls for opposing “any effort” by the state Public Utilities Commission or NYSERDA to locate nuclear power plants on Long Island.

Food & Water Watch is asking people to share their views in letters or email to Hochul and Doreen Harris, president of NYSERDA, both in Albany, ahead of the Nov. 8 conference.^th There is a deadline for comments. “Take action: Demand that they stop this fast track to danger and instead chart a path to the renewable energy future we need,” the group asks.

Meanwhile, while this is happening on Long Island and across the state, internet headlines about nuclear power last week read: “Japan’s Top Business Lobby Proposes Maximizing Nuclear Power.” And “European countries support nuclear power ahead of major climate summit.” And: “The super-rich are considering nuclear power for emission-free yacht travel.” And “France plans to recycle nuclear waste into forks, door handles and saucepans.”

Also last week, the US Department of Energy released a report saying: “US nuclear capacity could triple from 100 GW (gigawatts) in 2024 to 300 GW by 2050.” It continued: “Utilities shut down nuclear reactors in 2022; in 2024, they extend the life of reactors to 80 years, planning to increase power (by making nuclear power plants work harder and produce more electricity); and restarting previously closed reactors.”

The problem of nuclear energy remains and even becomes more acute.