The ADVANCE (Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy) Act, passed by the U.S. Senate on June 18, 2024, is a bipartisan legislative initiative aimed at promoting the development and implementation of new nuclear technologies. The Act is part of broader efforts to address climate change by increasing the role of nuclear energy in the quest to decarbonize the U.S. This legislation has sparked significant debate and concerns due to its implications across environmental, economic, and security domains.
For many years now, RLS NYC has highlighted the many reasons why we believe nuclear power does not constitute a viable option as a climate solution. In 2018, we published a comprehensive report by Tim Judson, Executive Director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), in which the renowned nuclear power expert debunked the many myths that nuclear power industry lobbyists use to push the technology over other more science-based, sustainable, and economic energy sources. In that study, Judson provided a clear assessment of the factors proving that nuclear energy does not stand in any sort of advantage vis-a-vis renewable sources such as wind and solar and, therefore, cannot be considered a feasible alternative for the much-needed energy transition from fossil fuels.
During the last year, NIRS, along with other advocates for phasing out nuclear energy, spearheaded a civil society campaign to lobby Senators against the passing of the bill. They highlighted four main problems related to the extraction, production, and storage of nuclear energy: environmental and health risks; justice for radiation victims; economic costs; and national security risks.
Let’s start with the environmental concerns. As Judson pointed out back in 2018, “Unlike renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, nuclear power generation entails major, long-lasting environmental impacts and damage to natural resources.” Mining, processing and enriching uranium produce large amounts of radioactive waste for which there is not yet a feasible solution. Contamination of soil, air, and water, along with the stress placed on drinking water sources by the plants cooling systems, are sufficient to make this technology an unsuitable option to replace fossil fuels. The myth of carbon-free technology has been debunked by Judson and many other scientists, who show that construction and maintenance of nuclear power plants are important sources of carbon emissions.
As history has proven repeatedly, Indigenous peoples, communities of color, and poor communities are overwhelmingly affected by these threats, as countless uranium extraction and nuclear projects are located in or near their lands and territories. These communities often rely on the jobs at the mines. In addition, the cost to Indigenous peoples impacts not only their health and environment but also takes a cultural toll, as their traditional territories and sacred sites are targeted for destruction and contamination caused by these energy projects.
The U.S. has yet to repair the damage caused to radiation victims. Congress has failed to renew the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, a federal statute implemented in 1990 that was set to expire in July 2024. This means that politicians are denying compensation for radiation injuries, exacerbating the historical injustice for the victims. The ADVANCE Act would worsen this situation by increasing the chances of potential radioactive releases and exposures, all funded by taxpayer dollars.
In a press release responding to the passing of the ADVANCE Act, the Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) pointed out the usual arguments that the bill advocates used to defend their position: “nuclear is clean and green, is needed to fight the climate crisis, creates jobs, and is over-regulated.” The argument that nuclear power is essential to counter the urgent climate crisis falls flat on its face once we analyze the economic costs and time associated with these projects. Nuclear cannot be an efficient solution to climate change because the costs of developing and operating nuclear reactors are many times higher and take much more time to be ready to go on the grid than other sources. This is particularly evident considering that market prices for electricity generated by wind, solar, and hydropower have lowered significantly in the last decade and are expected to continue this downward trend.
The huge economic resources needed to develop the advanced technologies that this new legislation promotes mean that we will be diverting funds away from true climate solutions. The significant government subsidies and financial incentives required to support the nuclear industry could be better spent on renewable energy sources that are safer and more cost-effective. With renewable energy projects awaiting grid connection that could double the capacity of the grid using existing technologies, the push for nuclear power appears inefficient and misguided.
National security experts warn that the ADVANCE Act could accelerate nuclear proliferation by exporting dangerous radioactive materials and technology. The legislation also allows foreign ownership of U.S. nuclear facilities. Additionally, the Act alters the mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from regulation to promotion, heightening the risk of regulatory capture and safety lapses akin to the Fukushima disaster of 2011. The Act’s provision compelling the NRC to prioritize nuclear energy’s potential to improve the general welfare over safety concerns could lead to regulatory failures and legal challenges. This change may violate the U.S. obligation under the 1994 Convention on Nuclear Safety, which requires the separation of regulatory and promotional functions.
As nuclear safety expert Dr. Ed Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists stated back in June: “This is not about making the reactor licensing process more efficient, but about weakening safety and security oversight across the board, a long-standing industry goal. The change to the NRC’s mission effectively directs the agency to enforce only the bare minimum level of regulation at every facility it oversees across the United States.” Combine this weakened regulatory framework with the risks posed by increasing extreme weather events, and the potential for nuclear catastrophes multiplies to new levels. Human and economic costs could become insurmountable.
The ADVANCE Act not only misdirects vital resources away from sustainable energy solutions but, as critics point out, also undermines safety and promotes industry interests at the expense of public health and security. The major environmental and social costs of nuclear power—and its intersection with climate justice—are so high and long lasting that they should be reason enough to leave this technology behind. Dismantling the few safeguards in place in favor of private interests based on faulty information has, for too long, been one of the favorite methods of neoliberal states. To guarantee the survival of our communities and our planet, we need to continue organizing to struggle against those who put profit over humans.
Mariana Fernández is a project manager at RLS–NYC focusing on peace and security, disarmament, and nuclear abolition.
Photo: A look at the destruction found inside the SL-1 reactor core (In Idaho falls, ID) after it was damaged by a nuclear prompt-critical excursion on January 3, 1961.
Credits: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, INEEL 81-3966, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
