Nuclear waste being stored underground (photo credit: US Department of Energy)
In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell, “Newspeak” is a purposefully ambiguous and confusing language, used “to diminish the range of thought.” The nuclear industry’s use of "clean energy" is a good example of Orwellian newspeak. The words “clean energy" (to define nuclear energy) are being adopted by the federal government, states, and cities as a means to transition away from fossil fuels in order to address catastrophic climate change. But we need to expand our range of thought to understand why defining nuclear energy as “clean energy” is dangerous.
Naming nuclear energy “clean" is meant to infer that it’s carbon-free and non-polluting. But, as Vandana Shiva, who was a nuclear physicist, explains in “Don’t Nuke the Climate,” “It is the most polluting energy when you think in terms of radiation damage, and when you think of nuclear waste. Spreading nuclear disasters will be their own kind of disasters, and if you actually look at the full chain of the nuclear cycle from CO2 emission from the time of mining, to the building of the nuclear power plants, to the transportation, to all the energy spent in managing the waste, it is not the case that you are reducing CO2 emissions; CO2 emissions will continue to grow and you have the additional problem of the nuclear hazards.”
As explained in a briefing paper by the Nuclear Information And Resource Service, defining nuclear power as clean leads to three fundamental misconceptions: “1) that carbon dioxide is the only pollutant that matters when defining 'clean energy;' 2) that because radiation is invisible and odorless, it is not a toxic pollutant; 3) that nuclear power is carbon-free. None of these are true... To call nuclear power 'clean' is an affront to science and common sense.”
A nearby example of the pollution that nuclear power incurs is from Washington State’s Hanford reactors near the Oregon border. As explained in the Tri-City Herald, “Chemically separating plutonium from uranium fuel irradiated in the Hanford reactors has left 56 million gallons of radioactive and other chemical waste stored in Hanford underground tanks.” All nuclear reactors continuously release radiation into the environment just to operate, and a well respected KiKK German Study shows higher rates of leukemia for children living near nuclear reactors. In other words, nuclear power is not clean. It’s dirty, dangerous, and a distraction away from the work that’s needed to move away from fossil fuels.
This newspeak has led states like Washington and Oregon to allow nuclear energy as "non-emitting" sources to qualify as clean energy in the phase-out of fossil fuels, Nuclear is considered “clean power” in Clean Energy Standards, which makes a mockery of the concept. All of the carbon emissions outside of a nuclear plant’s energy generation are excluded, allowing energy and climate laws to use "clean" in their titles so as to include nuclear energy. The ubiquitous use of “clean” reveals how the nuclear industry and their lobbyists have been effective with their newspeak. They continue using other terms such as "advanced nuclear, carbon-free, carbon-neutral, and Carbon Free Power Project” – terms that are ambiguous and confusing when you look at the facts.
The collateral damage is revealed when the Orwellian merging of the terms "clean" with "green," pits nuclear against renewables. For example, a bill in New Hampshire would allow nuclear power generators to receive payments for contributing “clean” energy to the grid and will provide unnecessary subsidies to nuclear power making it harder for solar projects to attract investors.
This clean energy newspeak appears to have been embraced wholly by both Republican and Democratic federal and state representatives – in Oregon and across the nation – who promote nuclear without asking critical and thoughtful questions or allowing those who raise critical questions equal time to push back. In Washington, an "Advanced Nuclear Reactor" bill got a full hearing in the 2023 session, complete with pro-nuclear industry advocates getting unlimited time to make misleading and false claims, while the opponents received 3 minutes each. The bill was co-sponsored by 9 Democrats, and some are considered climate action “champions.”
At the federal level, the claim of "clean energy" allows nuclear corporations to receive subsidies worth billions of grant dollars through the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the National Defense Nuclear Authorization Act. These three federal programs have barely started — the former only issued its first award, and the latter two are just beginning. More nuclear funding from the Biden-Harris Administration was recently announced through Regional “Clean” Hydrogen Hubs that include pink (nuclear) hydrogen. Another nod to nuclear power is the Biden-Harris Tech Hubs. A Tech Hub in Idaho and Wyoming will Advance Nuclear Manufacturing and Promote Clean Energy. The Department of Energy is also looking to lease Idaho National Laboratory land to private developers for “clean” energy projects. And the United States Launches Project Phoenix to accelerate the adoption of “advanced clean energy technologies in Europe.” And the U.S. is set to lead the nuclear industry’s COP28 mission where Kerry will be lobbying to triple the world’s installed generating capacity of nuclear power by 2050. This financial gain by the nuclear power industry is publicly subsidized (that’s you and me paying the bill) and is keeping alive the myth that nuclear power is “clean energy.”
The nuclear power corporations are hugely benefiting from the "clean energy" newspeak and coupling this with outdated and debunked claims about resource adequacy and reliability. This tidal wave of false equivalencies are being used to sweep away proven advantages of renewables such as cost (nuclear power is proven to be much more expensive). This diminishment of thought serves only pro-nuclear interests, and will ultimately delay renewables. The danger is that this clean-energy newspeak may irretrievably defer meaningful action on climate change.
If you would like to get involved in Oregon Chapter Conservation Committee issues like this or others, send an email to Debra at ConservationCommittee@oregon.sierraclub.org