PRESS STATEMENT: May 15, 2001


by David A. Kraft, Director, NEIS (Nuclear Energy Information Service)





"WHY YOU CAN'T "NUKE" YOUR WAY OUT OF AN ENERGY CRISIS"





Ten years ago, President George Bush I unveiled his new "National Energy Strategy." After one year of fact finding, public hearings, and focus groups, even the DOE concluded in 1990 that, "Energy efficiency and renewables are basically the cleanest, cheapest and safest means of meeting our nation's growing energy needs in the 1990s and beyond." But instead, George I's plan called for -- drilling in ANWR; more nuclear power; more oil and gas exploration; "clean coal" technology; ignoring better vehicle fleet mileage; eliminating tax breaks for renewables and some energy efficiency; and ignoring the threat of global warming.





Sound familiar? Ten years and one failed energy war in the Persian Gulf later, George II is calling for exactly the same things. Only this time the energy war is being waged AGAINST the American people and the environment.





I suppose we should expect no better than "more nukes" from two ex-oil men masquerading as national leaders while conducting the "welfare for status-quo energy producers" business promotional tour.





If we say, "no nukes," it's because we've come to "know nukes" -- all too well.





The Bush Administration calls for continued reliance on the failed technology of the past; and for a future that will contain:





* a reliance on speculative technological developments, government subsidized where possible;


* the continued production of more radioactive wastes that are yet to be perpetually stored in an environmentally safe and acceptable manner; certain proliferation of nuclear know-how, technology, materials, and ultimately weapons, and the threat of future Chernobyls





Instead, we call for:


no new nuclear plant construction;


elimination of existing subsidies, and no new subsidies for nuclear power;


no extension of nuclear plant operating licenses prior to the year 2020.





Better, cleaner, reliable and comparably costing ways already exist to produce power and meet legitimate energy needs. Technology is no longer the barrier; obtaining the economies of scale that could be brought about by gaining larger market share is.





Nuclear power's continuation simply crowds out more reliable, more environmentally friendly energy options like wind, solar and biomass. It also sucks up sorely needed, increasingly scarce and competitive R&D money, both in the DOE budget and from the private energy sector, already dead-last among major industries for investment in R&D.





Further the marketing-manufactured nuclear renaissance occurs while its congressional allies call for legislation that would provide up to $1 billion in various subsidies for an industry they previously claimed was "mature," and "competitive."





Finally, without huge doses of paradoxic subsidies and protections, nuclear power simply can't continue, making it embarrassingly inconsistent with the deregulated, market-based environment that lawmakers -- including Bush and Cheney - - have been touting.





If markets are supposed to deliver efficiently what customers want, then future energy policy should promote the renewable energy and energy efficient future they have been demanding consistently for two decades. No amount of cutesy, fraudulent advertising campaigns or misinterpreted opinion polls can alter this fact: that the American public has wanted and continues to want more energy efficiency and renewable energy resources, not nuclear power plants.





We call for an energy future that won't bring us Chernobyls and Tokaimura's, Yucca Mountain's or Mobile Chernobyls, nuclear wastes and nuclear weapons. Such a future will not merely spring up like mushrooms after a spring rain; it must be methodically planned and implemented.





This energy future begins today.





Thank you.

www.neis.org