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 fear we could be targeted again nuclear power plants.

It comes amid the biggest push for nuclear power in years in New York state, the United States and internationally, as nuclear advocates try to cling to climate change as a new reason for nuclear energy by claiming that it is “carbon-free” or “emission-free”.

This is false, especially if we take into account the “nuclear fuel chain”.

“The dirty secret is that nuclear energy contributes substantially to global warming. Nuclear power is actually a chain of energy-intensive industrial processes,” said Michel Lee, attorney and president of the Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy. “These include uranium mining, conversion, enrichment and nuclear fuel fabrication; construction and deconstruction of massive structures of nuclear installations; and the elimination of high-level nuclear waste.

In a two-page online fact sheet titled “How Nuclear Energy Gets worse Climate Change,” says the Sierra Club’s Campaign for a Nuclear-Free World: “Nuclear power has a significant carbon footprint. Upstream of nuclear energy, carbon energy is used for the extraction, grinding, processing, conversion and enrichment of uranium, as well as for the formation of (fuel) rods and construction of nuclear power plants… throughout the nuclear fuel chain. , radioactive contamination of air, land and water occurs. Cleaning uranium mines and processing plants requires large quantities of fossil fuels. Each year, 2,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste and twelve million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste are generated in the United States alone. None of this will magically disappear. Large amounts of energy will be needed to isolate this hazardous waste for generations to come. »

The main release of carbon occurs during this nuclear fuel cycle; However, nuclear power plants themselves also emit carbon, a radioactive form, carbon-14.

Yet many politicians and much of the media continue to use the words “carbon-free” or “emissions-free” when referring to electricity generated by nuclear power. Consider the front-page article in the business section of The New York Times last week, it began: “Technology companies are increasingly turning to nuclear power plants to provide the emissions-free electricity needed to run artificial intelligence and other activities. »

And there was an Associated Press article last week in News day which began: “Amazon announced Wednesday that it is investing in small nuclear reactors, just two days after a similar announcement from Google, as the two tech giants seek new sources of carbon-free electricity to meet demand growing use of data centers and artificial intelligence. .”

Among the politicians buying into climate change claims appears to be New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who just hosted a “summit” focused on nuclear power. At this conference, a “Draft Plan for the Review of Advanced Nuclear Technologies” from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) was released. It asserted that “a growing and innovative group of advanced nuclear energy technologies have recently emerged as a potential source of carbon-free energy.”

As Food & Water Watch said online: “Governor Hochul’s latest bad idea is building new nuclear power plants in New York. In September, she hosted an “Energy Future Summit” in Syracuse where she met with the nuclear industry and her administration released 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 large quantities of water that can be harnessed as a coolant: a nuclear power plant needs up to a million gallons of water per minute as coolant.

Safe energy activists — some veterans of the battle against LILCO’s nuclear power projects — prepare a letter to the Long Island Power Authority board saying they “reaffirm the consensus long-standing view that nuclear power has no place on Long Island. . We also believe that nuclear power has no place in planning New York State’s energy future.”

“LIPA exists because the people of Long Island said no to nuclear power. Public safety, the impossibility of evacuation and the ever-increasing electricity costs and tariffs were the reasons for this decision. Nuclear power was neither necessary nor appropriate on Long Island. It’s still true,” he continues.

“A recent Nature Conservancy study found that “Long Island has sufficient low-impact solar photovoltaic installation potential to accommodate nearly 19,500 megawatts (19.5 gigawatts) of solar capacity in the form of solar installations. medium to large scale (250 kilowatts and more). ).’ One gigawatt of energy can power 750,000 homes. These estimates, which total nearly three times more energy than is currently needed, do not even include the potential of residential solar. Additionally, solar energy is the most widely accepted and supported form of renewable energy in the country. In contrast, nuclear power has attracted the greatest public opposition.

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

Furthermore, the letter highlights that “LIPA’s enabling legislation clearly states that ‘the authority shall use to the fullest extent possible all economic means of conservation and technologies that rely on renewable energy resources, cogeneration and improvement of energy efficiency which will benefit the economy”. interests of taxpayers in the service area.

It calls for opposing “any effort” by the State Public Service Commission, or NYSERDA, to locate nuclear facilities on Long Island.

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

Meanwhile, as this is happening on Long Island and around the state, last week’s headlines were posted online about nuclear power: “Japan’s Top Business Lobby Proposes maximum use of nuclear energy. » And “European nations support nuclear energy ahead of major climate summit”. And: “The super-rich are eyeing nuclear power for emissions-free yacht travel.” » And “France plans to transform nuclear waste into forks, door handles and saucepans”.

Also last week, the US Department of Energy released a report saying: “US nuclear capacity has the potential to triple from 100 GW (gigawatts) in 2024 to 300 GW by 2050.” It continues: “By 2022, utilities were shutting down nuclear reactors; in 2024, they extend reactor operation for up to 80 years, planning to increase their capacity (by pushing nuclear power plants to work harder and produce more electricity); and restart formerly closed reactors.

The question of nuclear energy remains, and it is becoming even more acute.