On November 19 some of the country's staunchest proponents of nuclear power gathered at Texas A&M University to promote the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants across the U.S during a conference entitled "America’s Energy Challenge: The Nuclear Answer." These industry cheerleaders hope to replicate the conference at other universities nationwide to manufacture the appearance of public support for nuclear power as the Bush Energy plan moves toward debate in the U.S. Senate in January.

"Nuclear power is more dangerous than ever," said Erin Rogers, Grassroots Outreach Coordinator for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club." After the September 11 attacks it's clear to almost everyone that nuclear power plants could be prime targets for terrorists. It's time to focus our efforts on dismantling these plants as soon as possible, not subsidizing a new generation of them."

The US Government has known since at least the mid 1990s that terrorists were targeting nuclear power plants. According to an Associated Press article from October 24, 2001, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing encouraged followers in 1994 to strike a nuclear plant. An FBI agent testified in court that one of the terrorist’s followers told him in 1995 of plans to blow up a nuclear plant, and in 1999 the NRC acknowledged to Congress that it had received a credible threat of a terrorist attack against a nuclear power facility. A terrorist strike at a nuclear power plant could spread deadly radiation clouds across the U.S. Attacks on TXU's Comanche Peak plant or the South Texas Nuclear Project in Matagorda could have devastating affects on the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston areas, respectively.

Unfortunately, the Bush energy bill (HR 4) promotes nuclear power with over $2.6 billion in subsidies and tax breaks for nuclear power plants, despite the fact that more than half of Americans polled in early November 2001 said they oppose new nuclear plants. On November 1, more than 130 national, regional, and local environmental, consumer, health, energy, and public interest groups called on the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress to shift from a reliance on nuclear power to a reliance on abundant and affordable energy efficiency and renewable energy resources.

Despite public opposition to nuclear power and a wide array of affordable energy alternatives, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and other industry and Congressional leaders used the A&M conference to support an increase in the percent of the nation’s power that comes from nukes. Bill Magwood, director of the DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, explained that the agency’s goal is to get the country’s existing 103 power plants relicensed by 2010 and to get 50 new plants built and on-line by 2020 (enough to generate 25% of the nation’s power). In the next 50 years, the DOE would like to see HALF the nation’s power come from nukes.

Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner (NRC) Nils Diaz vehemently supported the growth of the nuclear power industry as a national security issue and an American way of life. Referring to those with concerns about the health, environmental, and economic problems related to nuclear power and waste, Diaz stated that "we must defend our way of life, not only from terrorism, but from those misguided interests that, even when well intended, could be harmful to our national interests." Diaz failed to mention that approximately 50% of the power plants recently tested by NRC had significant security weaknesses and in over 40 exercises mock terrorists were able to simulate sabotaging security equipment.

Diaz also failed to mention that the NRC recently published a report in the federal register acknowledging that 12 people are expected to die of cancer as a direct result of each nuclear reactor that is re-licensed and operated for its 20-year license extension period. The NRC has said it expects as many as 100 reactors to apply for license extensions; this would result in some 1200 cancer deaths, not including deaths due to storage, transportation and disposal of high-level radioactive waste or accidents.

Congressman Joe Barton (R-Dallas) informed conference participants that Congress is set to over-ride the Nevada Governor’s expected veto of the plan to build a national high-level radioactive waste dump at Yucca Mountain—a site sacred to the Western Shoshone tribe.

Each reactor produces an annual average of about 20 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel, and 50-200 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste. Both high and low-level waste contain isotopes that remain radioactive for millions of years. No one has devised a means of keeping this waste isolated from humans and the environment for the eons it remains radioactive. Studies of the Yucca Mountain site show that there are hydrological problems with the site and that it is not suitable for storing waste. And, all of the existing low level radioactive waste dumps in the US have leaked—most are now closed.

Joe Colvin, CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (the industry’s trade association) referred to nuclear power as "green power"—a sign of the coming PR campaign to build public support for new reactors. Industry spin-miesters have long touted nuclear power as a "clean" energy alternative to combat global warming. The uranium enrichment process, in which the radioactive material is made more radioactive, generates greenhouse gases galore: 376,000 to 1.3 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually for a typical nuclear power reactor. "It requires a tremendous amount of electricity," explains Elizabeth Stuckle, a spokeswoman at the US Enrichment Corporation, the company in charge of enriching the uranium for the reactors. To get that electricity, she says, "we are having to rely on fossil fuels."

In 1998 the Council of Better Business Bureaus and, later, the Federal Trade Commission found that the Nuclear Energy Institute was misleading consumers by advertising nuclear plants as an "energy source that produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so they help protect the environment." "You can't just tell a part of the story when a critical piece of information contradicts it," says Andrea Levine, director of the CBBB's advertising division. "We were concerned about the uranium enrichment process, which relies on coal energy and which does produce greenhouse gas."

For full energy independence and security, an energy plan for the US would develop our renewable resources, use the cleanest energy available, and save energy where possible.

With today’s technology, wind energy could provide 20% of America’s electricity (the share currently provided by nuclear plants) with turbines installed on less than 1% of its land area. The nuclear plants in Texas cost $18 billion and generate 5,000 megawatts of electricity. The same money invested into wind turbines can generate 18,000 megawatts--3.6 times as much energy for the same cost. Texas, South Dakota, and North Dakota have enough wind to provide electricity for the entire United States. Texas ranks #1 in renewable energy potential.

When appropriately sited, solar energy creates no pollution and is the most environmentally friendly source of power currently available. It is already used by 200,000 homes in the United States. Texas leads the nation in the ability to generate energy with solar power. Setting a goal of having 10% of our nation’s energy coming from renewable energy by 2010 will put Texans to work—and create a new energy boom.

Energy efficiency can save Americans more energy that we import annually or will generate with new nuclear plants. Study after study has shown that by using energy more efficiently, we could save 25-30% of the energy we use in the average home or office. New energy efficiency standards for all appliances can save consumers over $22 billion and will eliminate the need for more than 170 new power plants. If Americans bought only Energy Star appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, we would shrink our energy bills by more than $100 billion.

Contact your US Congressional Representative and Senators and let them know that you are opposed to any subsidies for nuclear power in the energy bill, and that those subsidies and tax breaks should instead go toward developing renewable energy sources. To join the Sierra Club’s radioactive waste issues listserve and stay informed about state legislative and congressional actions regarding nuclear power and radioactive waste and how you can have an impact, send an e-mail to erinrogers99@hotmail.com.