Earthrise at Christmas (Photo credit: NASA.gov)

On TIME’s Ecocentric blog, Bryan Walsh brings up a number of good points in his post, On Earth Day, Contemplating the Human Cost of Energy, including,

When we evaluate different forms of energy, we shouldn’t only take into account the financial price or even just the environmental cost, but the damage to human health and well-being as well. And the results are a bit surprising … Coal is by far the deadliest source of energy per unit of power … And at the bottom is nuclear power …

In an Earth Day post, Celebrating clean energy’s castoff, Rep. Joe Barton (Texas) personally sought to answer the question following the Fukushima situation, “Could it happen here?”

So I went to Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant in Glen Rose, Texas, which lies just outside of my district, to get answers. I left the tour with renewed confidence not only in the safety and security measures at Comanche Peak but at plants around the country.

In fact, I told the plant manager before I left, “If there is ever an earthquake in this area, I want to be in the control room at Comanche Peak because that is the absolute safest place to be.”

Andrew Revkin also spent Earth Day thinking about nuclear power. He toured the Indian Point Nuclear reactor in New York and posted his thoughts on the Dot Earth blog about standing at the top of the facility’s used fuel pool,

I felt a mix of awe and fascination — and, yes, a tingle of fear — as I stared into the green depths and absorbed that the reactor’s entire legacy of used fuel since it began producing power in 1976 was there in that small space …

I was strongly encouraged by what I saw today, but will be doing more reporting before weighing in more thoroughly here.

This reasoned discussion and self-education approach best serves the ongoing assessment and strategy for developing energy sources to meet our country’s current and future needs.

The most important point — they went and investigated the situation and plants for themselves. This is key to understanding the facts about nuclear energy in the U.S.

As you can see in the four category-winning entries below, the youthful Clean Energy-generation understands the importance of protecting the planet by using low carbon energy sources.

7 years old and younger winner

8 to 10 years old winner

11 to 14 years old winner

15 years old and older winner

This year, hundreds of AREVA employees throughout the United States and Canada joined in the Earth Day spirit by participating in various “green” activities throughout the month of April.

AREVA recognizes that individuals play a critical role in identifying sustainability challenges and solutions. This year the goal was to support the integration of sustainability into everyday life by encouraging employees to adopt a Personal Sustainability Practice, or PSP. A PSP is any simple action, taken on a regular basis that is good for your health, your community and the planet, for example biking to work or switching to a non-styrofoam coffee cup. Employees from across the region have committed to PSPs that will have a positive social and environmental impact throughout the year. All employee PSPs will be registered as part of the Earth Day Network’s billion acts of green initiative.

Local outreach and volunteering are a part of our corporate citizenship activities in our communities, and during April that energy and engagement has been focused on supporting Earth Day 2011. Activities ranged from environmental clean-up, tree planting and electronics recycling to natural resource conservation and education, and have contributed to the environmental sustainability of the communities in which we live and work.

At AREVA, we believe that engaging in Earth Day activities promotes a sustainable culture at work and at home. Our 2nd annual Earth Day Poster Contest for the children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews of our employees generated many colorful, creative entries depicting our theme “One AREVA, One Planet.” The artwork reflects the next generation’s understanding of the importance of protecting the planet.

As a company committed to providing energy solutions with less carbon, while being socially responsible and respecting the environment, Earth Day 2011 is another way AREVA continues demonstrating our commitment to sustainable development.

Pointing out that initial focus was on the state of the planet and various kinds of pollution, he recalls how during “the first Earth Day and that is that, at the time, the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations were supporting nuclear power.  In fact, nuclear energy was regarded as a savior to our environmental dilemmas.  It cleaned the air of pollution and didn’t take up a great deal of space.”

Alexander explains why anyone would consider nuclear energy as a green energy source:

“The main thing is its tremendous energy density.  The Nature Conservancy took note of this last August in their paper on “Energy Sprawl.”  The authors looked at the amount of space required to produce energy from the various technologies – something no one had ever done before.   They came up with some remarkable findings. 

Nuclear turns out to be the gold standard.  You can produce a million megawatt-hours of electricity a year – that’s the standard they chose – from a nuclear reactor sitting on one square mile.  That’s enough electricity to power 90,000 homes.”

A post from Senator Kerry in the Earth Day spirit could also be found on the Energy Collective calling for Americans “to force Congress to pass climate and energy legislation, the comprehensive stuff not the weak tea…

And here’s what I’m saying and what we need you to demand: this is the way to transform our energy economy – put Americans back in control of our energy production – instead of sending so much of our money to oil-rich regimes around the world (yes, $100 million every day to Iran!)  – and creates millions – millions – of the clean energy jobs that can power our economy in the next century.”

Both of these posts have one clear message: clean energy solutions, including both nuclear energy and renewables, are a must for America.

Thanks to everyone who signed up for the Energizing Earth Day initiative. This included well over 200 individuals and organizations that have pledged their support for clean energy, including nuclear energy and renewables, as a way to protect our environment and our planet.

Even through Earth Day 2010 has come and gone; there is still time to sign up. We will keep the site live for a little while longer so a few more can sign up. Also, please remember the Climate Rally will be held on the National Mall on April 25, where people can express their support for more clean energy as a way to control greenhouse gases.

Also a special thanks to artist Suzanne Hobbs of PopAtomic Studios who supplied the dedicated art for Energizing Earth Day and to author and environmentalist Gwyneth Cravens who wrote a series of special blog posts for our Earth Day coverage at the AREVA North America Blog.

We also would like to thank the following organizations for their support:

• ADAGE
• Constellation Energy
• Dewey Square Group
• Duke Energy
• EDF Inc.
• Energy Northwest
• Grow Idaho Falls
• Idaho Falls Power
• Idaho National Laboratory
• Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding
• Nuclear Energy Institute
• Pew Center on Global Climate Change
• UniStar Nuclear Energy

Best regards,

Jarret Adams

As I looked out the window, and I saw the sun coming up and the curvature of the Earth, I thought, “Wow. The Earth is round.” But when I saw it with my own eyes, it meant something different to me. And looking at the Earth’s atmosphere and seeing how thin it is, you realize the Earth is a very fragile planet.
—Eileen Collins, space-shuttle commander

In a microcosm, Earth Day, 1970, had the effect of creating a community out of a New York City block full of isolated strangers. All over the country similar small miracles occurred. What had been an ignored commons was transformed and so, for a time, were we. Now it’s more evident than ever that what happens to the atmosphere or the ice caps and glaciers on one part of the globe becomes everyone’s problem. The increasing droughts in some areas due to temperature rise are putting dust in the lungs of children thousands of miles away. China’s smog drifts to California. We can’t survive as isolated, self-regarding entities. We’re linked to the destiny of all humans and the destiny of the earth, as Stewart Brand foresaw when he searched for a visual way to express that truth. Our personal destinies, and the destinies of our children, grandchildren, and remote descendants are intimately linked to choices we make today.

Special Guest Blogger Gweneth Cravens

When I began my nuclear journey I didn’t know about base-load electricity—the steady flow that reliably meets the minimum demand at all times. I thought we could get all the power we needed from wind, sunlight, conservation and efficiency. These all are useful, but the fact is that base-load comes from only a few sources: fossil fuel combustion (about 75%), hydroelectric dams (about 6%), and nuclear power (20%). Of these, nuclear power is the only clean, readily expandable resource and has the smallest environmental footprint. To reduce carbon emissions, fossil fuel plants must be replaced whenever possible with nuclear plants. We’re accustomed to thinking of them as gigantic, but in fact reactors actually come in a variety of sizes and can be adapted to a variety of needs. (The Nuclear Navy has demonstrated the flexibility of reactors. After the earthquake in Haiti, a nuclear aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, came to the rescue. Process heat from the ship’s reactor enabled the desalination of 400,000 gallons of seawater a day to keep people alive.)

Climate scientists use probabilistic risk assessment methodology to analyze climate change. Reactor scientists use the same methodology to determine reactor and fuel-cycle safety. So why do some people in the technical community remain skeptical of climate-change science, which is derived from a vast body of data and which is supported by nearly 100% of climatologists? And why do those in the environmental community who are convinced of climate change because of the science want to limit or obliterate nuclear power? There are good reasons that high-profile climatologists like James Hansen campaign for more nuclear plants.

No matter what our opinions, we all are participating in the huge release of carbon into the atmosphere with every keystroke, every flip of the switch in our households, every purchase of a doodad from China. Ocean acidification, destroyer of oxygen-producing marine life, and the rapid rise in the average global temperature will not wait while we argue about which side is right. It’s time to drop all that and become more conscious of our shared destiny.

We need to listen to one another. I look forward to a time when nuclear engineers routinely participate in Earth Day and understand that they in fact comprise the leading edge of the environmental movement. Because of my own experience about prejudices I harbored because of wrong information, I’d like to see every anti-nuclear activist tour a nuclear plant and learn about the extraordinary scientific, humanitarian, earth-friendly feat occurring within its sturdy walls. I encourage people on both sides of the debate to examine their biases and to help others make the transition from myth to science-based fact.

The power to save the world does not like in rocks, rivers, wind, or sunshine. It lies in each of us.

Gwyneth Cravens is the author of Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy and has written articles on science and other topics for The New Yorker, Harper’s, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other publications.

Yesterday I mentioned some beliefs I once held:

• Manmade radiation is far more dangerous than natural radiation—cosmic radiation, for instance.
• Even a tiny speck of manmade radioactive material can kill you.
• Radiation from a nuclear plant can travel hundreds of miles and kill you.
• Nuclear plants are just ticking atomic time bombs. Without warning they can explode and kill millions and cause cancer, and mutations. The Chernobyl accident killed tens of thousands of people.
• Nuclear plants could easily be taken over by a few gunmen and the fuel in the reactor stolen and turned into an atomic bomb.
• The people who work in the nuclear field are indifferent to humanity and to the environment.
• A coal-fired plant is safer than a nuclear plant any day.
• Nobody knows what to do with nuclear waste. Mountains of it are piling up everywhere. It lasts forever and will turn huge tracts into radioactive wastelands.

Special Guest Blogger Gweneth Cravens

Multiple barriers protect humans from the radiation released by the controlled chain reaction in a reactor. The uranium fuel pellets are jacketed in an alloy and enclosed in rods; the rods are immersed in water (itself a barrier); the water and rods are located within a thick-walled steel vessel which is anchored in bedrock, usually underground, and which is enclosed by a big steel and concrete containment building with walls four to six feet thick. (The Chernobyl reactor, of Soviet design, lacked containment.) On my website there’s a video of what happens to a jet crashing into a wall comparable to that of a containment building. Wall: 1. Jet: 0.

I learned that U.S. power reactors can’t explode atomically (it’s against the laws of physics) and that you can’t just whip up an atomic bomb from the low-enriched uranium in nuclear fuel.

Tours of nuclear plants and research reactor facilities convinced me that they’re more difficult to penetrate than, say, Fort Knox. In Power to Save the World there’s a chapter called “Barriers” that details the exhaustive security precautions, detection systems, and layers of protection at a plant. Even a footfall near a containment building is monitored.

If anyone feels compelled to fret about exposure to low-dose radiation from electricity generation, he or she should focus on coal combustion. Coal-fired plants expose people within a 50-mile radius to 100 to 400 times more radiation than they’d receive from a nuclear plant, and the annual output of coal fly-ash (around 120 million tons) contains enough uranium-235 to run all of our 104 nuclear power reactors. And that solid waste is also laced with toxic heavy metals that never decay. As for nuclear plants being more dangerous than coal-fired plants: their gaseous emissions create fine particulates that studies indicate kill 24,000 Americans a year and cause hundreds of thousands of cases of lung and heart disease. Household natural gas exposes people to 900 times more radiation than they would receive from living next to a nuclear plant, and natural gas pipelines and plants blow up periodically, causing fatalities—recently an explosion at a gas-fired plant in Connecticut killed six people. Not one member of the public has ever died as the result of the operation of our commercial nuclear power plants. (Wind farms and solar arrays supply intermittent power, so must be backed up by steady, base-load electricity that mainly comes from burning coal or gas.)

And the people I met on my journey from myth to fact? Parents and grandparents who do not want any harm to come to their children or their descendants and who take pride in meeting our demand for clean electricity. Workers who live with their families a few miles from the plant. Bird-watchers, hikers, campers, Sierra Club members, home solar-power enthusiasts, climate-change activists, climate-change skeptics, recyclers, organic gardeners. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, volunteers who spend time helping school children, the elderly, and the hospitalized . . . . In brief, many of the people who think nuclear power is such a good idea that they’ve devoted their careers to it are regular human beings who worry about the environment and about human welfare. Several people recited to me a World Health Organization statistic: in lands without electricity, the average lifespan is 43 years; just a few watts per week help people survive longer. Others mentioned nuclear power’s avoidance of about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the U.S.—about the same amount as would be avoided if all our passenger cars were taken off the road.

As for nuclear waste: plenty of solutions are being implemented right now. Since uranium is the densest of energy sources, all of the spent fuel generated in the U.S. by five decades of commercial nuclear power could fit in a single big-box store. Studies indicate that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, which now stores only defense-related waste, or a plant just like it next door in the salt bed, could safely store all of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel. (Incidentally, the citizens in that part of New Mexico like the WIPP so much that they keep inviting other nuclear industries to set up shop.) Less than 1% of all spent fuel contains long-lived radionuclides. Unlike the toxic heavy metals in coal fly ash, radioactive waste will inevitably decay to natural background levels. But most experts consider this material too valuable to bury—it retains over 95% of its energy after one trip through the reactor and can be repeatedly recycled into fresh fuel. The volume of the ultimate residue is tiny—and even that can be burned up in a particular kind of reactor.

After nearly a decade of excursions with Rip and Marcia through the nuclear world, and dozens of encounters with members of the technical community, I had to agree with Rip: nuclear power must play an important role in addressing the multifaceted challenge of global warming.

But no one group or method can do the job alone. We who are concerned about the challenges of energy and the environment have to cooperate and collaborate. Not much is going to happen until we can get past the mindset of Us-versus-Them.

To be continued . . .

Gwyneth Cravens is the author of “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy” and has written articles on science and other topics for The New Yorker, Harper’s, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other publications.

When we began the project for Energizing Earthday, they jumped to mind as a key partner for the new branding. For readers unfamiliar with them, PopAtomic Studios is a design shop based in NC, lead by Suzanne Hobbs. She describes the mission for the studio:

“After many years of dinner table conversations with Dad and his Nuke friends about the need to improve public perceptions of Nuclear Energy, in December of 2008 I decided to take matters into my own hands. As a formally trained sculptor and public artist, I have been lucky to work for some of the most respected artists in my field including Nina Hole and Mel Chin. I have learned the the subtle ways that art influences our daily lives and I realized that I could use my knowledge to show, rather than tell the world the truth about nuclear energy. My intention is to show that nuclear is the safest, most reliable energy source available as well as the best solution to Climate Change, through the creation of thought provoking icons and site specific public artwork. After all, you can’t have a Nuclear Renaissance without Art!”

Cooling Tower Sketch

“For the logo I used existing, instantly recognizable icons, but I put them into a new context. I use these sorts of icons because they transcend the language and generation gaps that sometimes hinder communication. Pairing a lightbulb (bright ideas, energy, electricity) and earth (connectedness, foresight, responsibility), which tend have positive meanings with a cooling tower (not as clear on meaning, positive for some, scary for others) begs the questions ‘what is the relationship between these images?’ and ‘Is nuclear energy in fact a positive solution to the energy problems facing our planet?’”

And the creation of the brand was very physical and non-digital, using real tactile materials to bring iconic elements together:

“I cut everything out of paper and carefully put the pieces together, often scanning different arrangements until I am satisfied. Color is very important in communicating through images, so I tend to use bright inviting colors that I can tweak on the computer using virtual color mixing. Sometimes this process leads to funky shadows and color variations that I feel add to the finished product, making it stand out as an individual artwork rather than just another logo.”

Artist, Suzanne Hobbs

“Eventually I plan to open a collective studio space and educational resource center focused on providing simple, accurate information about energy for kids and adults alike. We also plan to offer fun artwork ranging form t-shirts to jewelry to cooling tower shaped coffee mugs, so we can all proudly show our support of nuclear energy in our daily lives. You can check out what we’ve created so far at PopAtomic.org.”

The Green Advisor: Earth Day Revisited

“April 2010 will mark the 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day….
…As has often been stated in this column, one of the biggest challenges facing the global economy is finding sustainable and affordable sources of energy. The problem of meeting the planet’s energy needs is inseparable from the problems facing the environment. Even those who pooh-pooh the idea of climate change caused to some degree by man-made carbon emissions can get behind the idea of cheap and clean energy. Some of that will likely come from further development of wind and solar power, but there are also tremendous opportunities afforded by applying new thinking and new technologies to energy sources we already have.

Yes Nukes
There’s no doubt that as a society we face challenges, some of which seem insurmountable, but the optimist in me says the same has been true in every age and some of my recent reading gives me cause for some optimism about our energy future. Let’s start with nuclear power, which is finding a renewed acceptance in the U.S.

In February the Obama Administration announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia. The 2011 Obama budget would triple—to $54.5 billion—the amount available for loan guarantees for nuclear construction. In announcing the loans, President Obama noted that the new reactors would reduce carbon pollution by 16 million tons a year, compared with a similar coal-powered plant.

The biggest problem with nuclear power has always been the radioactive waste it produces. New technology has been developed for nuclear waste recycling in France (which never abandoned its nuclear programs and generates more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear power) reportedly offering the potential for getting more energy out of the same nuclear material, thereby producing less waste…”

The first Earth Day was proclaimed in 1970, and where I was living, in New York City on the Upper West Side, it was the first warm, sunny day in weeks. My neighbors and I and our children rather spontaneously crept out of our brownstone apartments, actually exchanged pleasantries, and swept the sidewalks and picked up litter. We felt better about ourselves and our neighborhood—and about the earth. Something momentous was occurring that fit right in with the optimistic social revolution that was underway. I’d read in the Village Voice about ecologist Stewart Brand’s insistent question: “Why haven’t we seen a picture of the whole earth?” Thanks to his campaign and his inspirational writings, we now have that beautiful icon to remind us to think globally while acting locally.
​

Special Guest Blogger Gwyneth Cravens

Fast forward to the late 1990s, and an encounter with a scientist, Dr. D. (Rip) Richard Anderson, who patiently led me to understand that it was only by looking at the whole picture regarding energy and the environment that we could begin to understand what’s at stake and what actions are needed to protect the only home in the universe that we have. Rip is an oceanographer, a chemist, and an expert in probabilistic risk assessment who has led several big projects for Sandia National Laboratories, and he’s also an organic gardener, a beekeeper, and an environmental activist alongside his wife, Marcia Fernández. They campaign on behalf of clean air, clean water, and open land in New Mexico, where they reside. Rip began to explain to me the alarming consequences of the human race’s transfer of vast quantities of carbon from underground into the atmosphere. Drawing on a paper napkin, he connected accelerated global warming and ocean acidification, which he considers the greater threat, to the choices we’ve made about the energy we use to run our world civilization.

“What should we do?” I asked. “Keep extracting oil and gas and coal and burning them until the planet becomes a living hell? Build a lot of wind turbines and solar arrays?”

“As soon as people’s beer gets warm,” he replied, “I expect they’ll choose nuclear power.”

I tried to mask my surprise and annoyance. No way could nuclear power be good for the environment. Having grown up during the cold war in New Mexico, where bomb scientists and engineers worked around the clock to win the arms race, I’d developed an aversion to anything nuclear and while in college there and in grad school in New York had participated in ban-the-bomb and Mothers for Peace events.

Here’s what my environmentally inclined, anti-nuclear, us-versus-them friends and I thought we knew about nuclear energy:

• Manmade radiation is far more dangerous than natural radiation—cosmic radiation, for instance.
• Even a tiny speck of manmade radioactive material can kill you.
• Radiation from a nuclear plant can travel hundreds of miles and kill you.
• Nuclear plants are just ticking atomic time bombs. Without warning they can explode and kill millions and cause cancer, and mutations. The Chernobyl accident killed tens of thousands of people.
• Nuclear plants could easily be taken over by a few gunmen and the fuel in the reactor stolen and turned into an atomic bomb.
• The people who work in the nuclear field are indifferent to humanity and to the environment.
• A coal-fired plant is safer than a nuclear plant any day.
• Nobody knows what to do with nuclear waste. Mountains of it are piling up everywhere. It lasts forever and will turn huge tracts into radioactive wastelands.

To be continued . . . .

Gwyneth Cravens is the author of “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy” and has written articles on science and other topics for The New Yorker, Harper’s, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other publications.