Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation
Share via:


Sometimes, there comes a time, when... you just have to "bite the bullet"



“Nancy Folbre, an economics professor, has said that the biggest positive result of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster could be renewed public support for the commercialization of renewable energy technologies.”

Catastrophic events at Fukushima and long term down time at San Onofre nuclear power plants have highlighted the fact that nuclear power is not required to support electrical needs of communities.

When nuclear power plants have shut down for extended periods communities realize benefits - growth in the green/renewable energy sector and greater health impacts.   When nuclear power plants are decommissioned - over time - cancer rates decline.

“In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.”

Estimated Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of carbonaceous fuels when coupled with carbon capture and storage Min est (g CO2/kWhe 98, Max est (g CO2/kWhe  396.

Both coal and nuclear are destined to be shut down and as more time goes by with industry stalling the final outcome, more carbon negatively impacts our global climate reality. More water resources are negatively impacted. More people develop cancer and other “downwinder” diseases. More children die too young.

There are viable options for replacing coal and nuclear found in green/renewable energy production, but we are quickly losing time as industry seeks to extend nuclear and coal lifespans in what appears to be a laissez faire atmosphere.

It is time to seek an advantage for truly green and renewable energy.

It is time to make time for high value solutions.

Category of the action

Reducing emissions from electric power sector.

What actions do you propose?

Regulators require - in the interest of slowing global warming, conserving water, securing healthy communities and to spare more time for viable solutions to come online:

Coal and nuclear go offline for thorough technical, security, and financial audits, and ultimately to enter the final shutdown process - so, for example - nuclear power company "A" shuts down for one month, in the next month coal energy co. "B" shuts down for one month - rotating through all nuclear and coal producing companies worldwide.

In conjunction:

The EPA, DOD, DOE, IAEA, and similar regulatory agencies worldwide have their contractual agreements audited and gone over with a fine tooth comb with regards to all laws, codes, regulations, treaties, etc. governing the health and welfare of communities and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with the intention of ensuring that no laws are being violated.

And, when laws are found to be compromised - legal consequences shall be enforced - the point of this being that laws are being broken and thus corporations are unjustly benefitting from lack of oversight - also, by conducting the audits, governments can "reign in" those who have been bilking energy consumers/rate/tax payers for years.

The overall outcomes will be 

  1. To re-enact government oversight and to provide green/renewable energy projects to gain ground in what has been a very unfriendly regulatory and funding climate, 

  2. Cut back on gross contributions to global warming, and 

  3. Bring healthy environments back to communities

Who will take these actions?

Nuclear and Coal energy producers with compliance oversight by regulatory agencies and authorized citizen watchdog groups.

Where will these actions be taken?

World wide

How much will emissions be reduced or sequestered vs. business as usual levels?

Ultimately, this will be a huge number. But, I have no idea on how to figure this out. It would require, I think, a fairly large database project of all emissions contributions taking into consideration all activities - from the front end of the cycle - such as mining uranium and coal, to facility construction and shutdown, transport, and finally the disposal of waste (incomplete list of acitvities).

What are other key benefits?

  • Governments will gain greater understanding and documentation of the true costs of nuclear and coal energy production
  • Security issues will be detected and addressed
  • Public trust of government may be renewed
  • Green/renewable energy producers will be afforded the opportunity to "shine"
  • New jobs will be created in cleanup
  • New jobs will be created in waste dispaosal
  • New jobs will be created in environmental health and resource sciences
  • New jobs will be created in green/renewable sectors
  • Global environments will realize greater health
  • Humanity may realize a secure future
  • Quick appraisal of seriously dangerous conditions of aging nulcear power plants (WoodTV8 14 May 2013 24 Hour News 8 Daybreak Upton discusses problems at Palisades - + Hanford, San Onofre et al.


What are the proposal’s costs?

Potentially in the trillions. Benefits could far outweigh $.

Credit Matriot and Notnarayan: Carbon Avi in References

Time line


Regulatory agencies and citizen watchdog groups convene to hash out details

October 2013:

Industry is compelled to comply

January 2013:

Research on impacts of regulated changes presented publicly via recognized media outlets (mainstream, social, alternative, energy, scienctific, health outlets/journals/organizations)

April 2014:

Research on impacts of regulated changes presented publicly via recognized media outlets (mainstream, social, alternative, energy, scienctific, health outlets/journals/organizations)

Analysis of outcomes (full spectrum impacts: nuclear, coal, and green/renewable energy producers) conducted and reported out via same outlets noted above

N.B. "Full spectrum" includes: status of carbon, finance, legal, community health, and water resources)

October 2014:

Annual report produced and distriibuted to public via mainstream media, alternative news, and scientific and health outlets as noted above

With so little time, the clock is racing, we must address these failing dinosaurs immediately.

Deepak Chopra Life is Chaos and Order
[snip] Having comfort in our own ambiguity, unpredictability, and uncertainty, a small amount of intent can give rise to a creative leap of imagination that fulfills your intention. How can you let your creativity emerge? Is it possible to think of chaos and unpredictability as the creative force of the universe? [/snip]

Global Rads: Order vs Chaos // BP vs Fukushima 05.11.13

Related proposals

 Switch The Track


Buying Time: Rapid Impact Rules Full References (updated 25 May 2013)
City of Seattle: Mayor McGinn Press Release 22 April 2013 New coalition of regional leaders formed to oppose coal exports
Energy BC Nuclear
Lung Cancer
Investor Watch The Carbon Tracker
Hvistendahl, M. 13 December 2007 Scientific American Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change
Investor Watch The Carbon Tracker Initiative
Kujawski, R. Elephant Journal 14 September 2012 Will Climate Change Cripple Coal & Nuclear Power Plants?
Physicians for Social Responsibility Iowa Coal & Health: A Preliminary Mapping Study
San Onofre Safety Cost of Nuclear Power
dana1981 Skeptical Science 18 March 2011 The True Cost of Coal Power
Sovacool, B.K. 2 June 2008 Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey
Townsend, A. San Clemente Patch 22 March 2013 Restarting San Onofre Isn’t Cost Effective, New Study Suggests
Wasserman, H. 16 May 2013 San Onofre at the No Nukes Brink