A Green Energy Future Without Expanding Nuclear
During the 60s and 70s nuclear powers around the world embraced nuclear power as cheap, environmentally friendly, and safe. So far nuclear hasn’t lived up to any of these goals. Nuclear power has required $145 billion in federal subsidies to be cost-effective since its inception in 1948. Mining and refining uranium has devastated many regions of the world. And most importantly nuclear reactors continue to endanger the lives of millions, as seen most recently in the Fukushima reactor disaster in Japan in 2011. Now that viable alternatives like wind and solar exist, expanding nuclear energy no longer makes sense.
The People’s AdvocatesFor four decades, Public Citizen has proudly championed citizen interests before Congress, the executive branch agencies and the courts. We have successfully challenged the abusive practices of the pharmaceutical, nuclear and automobile industries, and many others. Read more.
Read the Public Citizen essay: "A Green Energy Future Without Expanding Nuclear"
Endnotes & References
Sign onto a national petition to stop building new nuclear power plants in the United States at Public Citizen, our partner organization, or NukeFree.org.
Even though nuclear power may not be a pressing issue in your region, let the President know that you don’t support the expansion of this dangerous power source.
Q. What would be the financial consequences of a nuclear disaster in the United States?
A. Under the Price-Anderson Act, the nuclear power industry is only liable for up to $10.5 billion in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. In reality cleanup and reimbursement could cost as much as $600 billion, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the extra $589.5 billion.