Nuclear Propaganda Exposed

The Dirty Truth Behind Government and Industry Claims

By Lynda Williams

November 20, 2024 in  Counterpunch 

ONE Propaganda Tweet

As a physicist and concerned citizen, I find myself outraged every time I scroll through social media and encounter tweets from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Nuclear Energy (ONE) touting nuclear power as “clean, safe, and carbon-free.” This narrative not only misrepresents the dirty reality of nuclear power but also obscures the significant environmental and health risks associated with its production and waste. It’s infuriating to see government agencies knowingly lie and promote such misleading information, while ignoring the pressing issues faced by communities affected by the toxic reality of the nuclear power industry – propaganda paid for by US taxpayers!

Oh, Canada! Leading the Charge Against Nuclear Greenwashing

Finally, someone is doing something about it—but not in the U.S., where you’d expect it. In Canada, a coalition of seven environmental organizations recently filed a formal complaint with the Competition Bureau against the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA), accusing it of misleading the public by marketing nuclear power as “clean” and “emissions-free.” Based on Canada’s Competition Act, the complaint challenges the CNA for violating provisions related to false or misleading advertising, similar to greenwashing regulations in other countries, where deceptive environmental claims distort market competition and misinform consumers.

The complaint argues that the CNA omits critical information about the environmental damage and health risks associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, radioactive waste management, and the impacts on communities near nuclear facilities. By selectively framing nuclear power as a climate solution, the CNA diverts attention and resources away from truly sustainable alternatives like solar and wind energy.

In the U.S., similar deceptive practices could be challenged under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which includes the FTC’s Green Guides. These guidelines require that any environmental claims be substantiated, transparent, and not misleading about the overall environmental impact. Yet, industry organizations like the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the American Nuclear Society (ANS) continue to promote nuclear power as a “clean” energy solution to climate change while conveniently ignoring the lifecycle emissions, radioactive waste, and long-term environmental costs.

CNA Misinformation Ad

Leading the charge in Canada are groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), Environmental Defence Canada, and the Sierra Club Canada. Here in the U.S., organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club could take similar action against the NEI and ANS by leveraging the FTC’s guidelines to expose deceptive marketing practices in the nuclear sector.

Small Modular Reactors: A Costly and Dangerous Gamble

The Biden administration has funneled billions into developing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), touting them as the future of “clean” energy. This renewed investment includes funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, which together allocate billion of dollars to accelerate the deployment of next-generation nuclear technologies which are riddled with technological problems and have no real launch date on the horizone. SMRs are still in the design and testing phase and the earliest they could come online is at least a decade away. The push for SMRs is also bolstered by private sector investments, particularly from tech companies looking to power energy-intensive AI by restarting moth balled nuclear power plants like Three Mile Island and to build future SMRs in these locations that also serve as short term storage for thousands of tons of highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste.

Global Greenwashing Nuclear at COP29

The push for nuclear expansion is a global effort led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) one of the most powerful agencies at the United Nations whose mission is to promote nuclear power around the globe. At the UN COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan a Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050 led by the US and UK was also endorsed by 31 countries. The declaration falsley claims that nuclear power has net-zero carbon emissions while ignoring ongoing problems of radioactive waste and enviornmental impacts. Most climate experts agree nuclear power is not a solution to climage change due to high cost and delays. The acting Australian prime minister, Richard Marles, declined to join the pact, stating, “pursuing a path of nuclear energy would represent pursuing the single-most expensive electricity option on the planet.” Several international indigenous groups and activists protested at COP29 against the pact and nuclear greenwashing in general. According to Leona Morgan, Diné organizer with Don’t Nuke the Climate, “Nuclear is not carbon-neutral. It’s fueled by fossil fuels… they just simply don’t count the carbon footprint before the nuclear power plant or after the nuclear power plant.”

Let’s Be Real: Nuclear Power is Not Clean or Green

Sure, nuclear fission may not produce direct carbon emissions, but the nuclear fuel cycle—including uranium mining, reactor construction, radioactive waste management, and decommissioning—creates significant greenhouse gas emissions. In places like the Diné Navajo Nation, uranium mining has already caused immeasurable harm. Over 500 abandoned uranium mines and mills continue to contaminate the land and water with radioactive waste, leading to severe health problems that affect multiple generations. The DOEʻs failure to clean up abandoned mines and address these ongoing harms while simultaneously promoting the narrative of “clean, safe, carbon-free” nuclear power is not just unethical—it’s a dangerous distraction from real solutions for our energy needs and the fight against climate change.

In addition to the delayed deployment of SMRs, there are future problems with going nuclear. High grade uranium resources are finite, with estimates suggesting “peak Uranium” reserves may only last another 10 to 15 years at current consumption rates. This means that SMRs could face fuel shortages before they even become widespread. As high-grade deposits run dry, the industry may turn to in-situ leaching (ISL) methods, which pose severe environmental risks, particularly groundwater contamination. Furthermore, reprocessing nuclear waste—an extremely hazardous and costly endeavor—is not currently practiced in the U.S. due to its dangers. However, as peak uranium approaches, reprocessing may be reconsidered as a necessary evil if we rely on nuclear power as a primary source of energy.

Better Use of Funds: Investing in Renewables

Instead of funneling billions into new unproven nuclear projects, those funds should be redirected to renewable energy sources that are ready for deployment today to reduce carbon emissions. The billions allocated for SMRs could fund solar panels on rooftops for every house in a city the size of Las Vegas. Investments in wind farms and solar plants can achieve far greater reductions in CO2 emissions without the risks of radioactive waste.

Congress has the power to reprogram funds from nuclear projects to support wind, solar, and energy storage, providing immediate climate benefits.

Tim Judson, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), told Democracy Now at COP29 that the push for nuclear power is an “elaborate greenwashing scheme.”  “The nuclear industry is, pound for pound, the most subsized energy industry in history and the fact that their pumping more and more money into it as the industry is on the verge of decline is one of the most false solutions we are talking about in the climate talks. If nuclear had to stand on its own two feet, it would phase out within a decade.”

The Way Forward: Taking Action While We Can

US citizens concerned about the DOE’s misleading promotion of nuclear power and SMRs can take meaningful action by contacting the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to advocate for oversight of nuclear greenwashing and request the reprogramming of funds from SMR development to renewable energy initiatives. Individuals can file complaints with the FTC and the DOE Office of Inspector General for industry and government greenwashing. We can also support non-profit environmental groups and ask that they follow Canada’s lead to hold the nuclear industry and government agencies accountable.  With the Trump administration poised to make sweeping cuts to federal agencies and roll back nuclear safety oversight and regulations, citizen advocacy is more crucial than ever before.

We don’t need to face this challenge alone. Over the past four years, several formal complaints and legal actions have been initiated against nuclear greenwashing in the Eurpoean Union, Austria, South Africa and now Canada. In confronting the extremism of the Trump administration, it’s more vital than ever to collaborate with other nations committed to challenging nuclear misinformation and demand real sustainable energy solutions that prioritize our planet over corporate interests.

Lynda Williams is a physicist and environmental activist living in Hawaii. She can be found at scientainment.com and on Bluesky @lyndalovon.bsy.social

 Action Contact Information

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Phone: (202) 224-4971

Website: https://www.energy.senate.gov

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Report fraud: https://reportfraud.ftc.gov

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)

Website: https://www.ucsusa.org

Email: ucs@ucsusa.org

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Website: https://www.nrdc.org

Sierra Club

Website: https://www.sierraclub.org

 

References

1. Seven Canadian environmental groups challenge the nuclear industry’s false claims: https://nuclear-news.net/2024/11/07/1-b1-seven-canadian-environmental-groups-challenge-the-nuclear-industrys-false-claims/

2. Peak Uranium: https://peakoil.com/production/peak-uranium

3. Navajo Nation Uranium Cleanup: https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-cleanup

4. DOE Uranium Strategy: https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-next-steps

5. Environmental Impact of Uranium Mining: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-impact-uranium-mining

6. Inflation Reduction Act Overview: https://www.energy.gov/articles/inflation-reduction-act-overview

7. DOE Funding for Advanced Nuclear Technologies: https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-900-million

8. COP29 Nuclear Declaration Announcement: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/more-countries-sign-declaration-to-triple-nuclear-capacity

9. IAEA on Nuclear Energy and Climate Goals: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/nuclear-energy-makes-history

Project Pele: DoD nuclear project besmirches Pele

This article was originally published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on October 8, 2024  (paywall)

As residents of Hawaii, we hold a deep connection to culture, land, and the deities that define identity. The decision by the Department of Defense (DoD) to name its new small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) project “Project Pele” raises significant concerns about cultural insensitivity and the appropriation of sacred names for military purposes. This initiative not only disrespects the profound spiritual significance of Pele, but also represents a costly, misguided, and environmentally destructive approach to energy production.

Pele, the Hawaiian goddess of fire, volcanoes, and creation, is not merely a mythological figure; she is a living deity who holds significant cultural and spiritual importance to Native Hawaiians. By naming a nuclear reactor project after her, the DoD not only overlooks the deep respect associated with Pele’s name but also perpetuates a historical pattern of disregard for indigenous beliefs. The name evokes irony given the military’s history of environmental contamination in Hawaii, particularly at the Pohakuloa Training Area, which has suffered from the effects of depleted uranium. 

Moreover, the Army's attempt to renew its lease for the 23,000 acres of state-owned land at Pohakuloa in 2029 should be reevaluated, as this land rightfully belongs to the Hawaiian people. The historical and ongoing environmental degradation caused by military activities in Hawaii, particularly at Pohakuloa, has left lasting scars on the land and its people. Rather than continuing a lease that perpetuates this cycle of exploitation, the military should consider returning the land to Native Hawaiians as a step toward acknowledging past injustices and respecting their sovereignty. The call for this land return aligns with broader movements for Indigenous rights and environmental justice, emphasizing that true reconciliation involves not just better practices but also a commitment to restoring what has been taken. 

 Critically, the development of SMRs has faced significant scrutiny. Advocates promote them as a solution to energy needs, claiming they are more cost-effective and quicker to build than traditional nuclear reactors. However, recent analyses indicate that SMRs remain "too expensive, too slow, and too risky" to play a significant role in the energy transition. Their deployment cannot keep pace with the pressing climate crisis, and funds diverted to SMR development could be better spent on established renewable energy technologies that are already available. 

 Additionally, the push for uranium to fuel these reactors poses a serious risk to Indigenous communities, particularly the Navajo Nation. Recent protests have erupted over the transportation of uranium ore through Navajo territory, which is illegal under their laws. The Navajo Nation has long suffered from the toxic legacy of uranium mining, and this renewed interest in uranium extraction threatens to exacerbate existing injustices. President Buu Nygren has condemned the transport, emphasizing that it not only endangers their communities but also violates their sovereign rights to protect their land. 

This situation exemplifies a troubling pattern of exploitation by both the DoD and the Department of Energy, which have historically overlooked Indigenous rights in favor of resource extraction and military objectives. The call for uranium to fuel new reactors like Project Pele risks perpetuating the cycle of environmental damage and cultural insensitivity. 

In closing, I urge the DoD to cancel Project Pele and cease pursuing small modular reactors (SMRs). At the very least, the name must be changed to something that does not appropriate Native Hawaiian culture. The $300 million allocated to this project would be far better spent on cleaning up unexploded ordnance in Makua Valley, Kahoolawe, and Pohakuloa, areas that continue to suffer from the military’s historical environmental impact.

 

For more information on the Pele project: 

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3915633/dod-breaks-ground-on-project-pele-a-mobile-nuclear-reactor-for-energy-resiliency/