Nuclear Propaganda Exposed

The Dirty Truth Behind Government and Industry Claims

By Lynda Williams

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. 

CNA Misinformation Ad

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, organizations like the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the American Nuclear Society (ANS) continue to promote nuclear power as a “clean” energy solution while conveniently ignoring the lifecycle emissions, radioactive waste, and long-term environmental costs.

Leading the charge in Canada are groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), Environmental Defence Canada, and the Sierra Club Canada Foundation. 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.

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 Navajo Nation, uranium mining has already caused immeasurable harm. Over 523 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 Department of Energy’s (DOE) failure to 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.

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 substantial financial support to accelerate the deployment of next-generation nuclear technologies. The push for SMRs is also bolstered by private sector investments, particularly from tech companies looking to power energy-intensive AI applications.

However, this push for nuclear expansion is not happening in isolation. At the recent COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, a declaration was endorsed by 31 countries—including the U.S.—to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050. The declaration emphasized nuclear energy’s crucial role in achieving net-zero emissions, aligning with the U.S. strategy to secure a low-carbon future. The international momentum behind nuclear power reflects a coordinated global effort to promote nuclear as a solution to climate change, despite ongoing concerns about radioactive waste, environmental risks, and the diversion of resources from renewable energy.

The Peak Uranium Crisis

In addition to the delayed deployment of SMRs, high-grade uranium resources are finite, with estimates suggesting they 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 but risky solution.

Better Use of Funds: Investing in Renewables

Instead of funneling billions into nuclear projects, those funds should be redirected to renewable energy sources that are ready for deployment today: 

• The $4 billion 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.

The Way Forward: Taking Action While We Can

People 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 increased transparency. Additionally, individuals can request the reprogramming of funds from SMR development to renewable energy initiatives, and they can file complaints with 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 in try to hold the nuclear industry and government agencies accountable.  With a potential Trump administration poised to make sweeping cuts to federal agencies, reduced public oversight could embolden the nuclear industry to expand greenwashing efforts unchecked. Advocacy is more crucial than ever before. 

We don’t need to face this challenge alone. In confronting the extremism of a potential Trump administration, it’s more vital than ever to collaborate with Canada and other nations committed to challenging nuclear misinformation. By working together across borders, we can expose the truth, resist industry propaganda, and push for real, sustainable energy solutions that prioritize our planet over corporate interests.

 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/