Stop the Cuomo Tax!

Stop the Cuomo Tax!

But Governor Cuomo’s outrageous tax on New Yorkers’ electric bills to bail out a multi-billion dollar Illinois corporation can be stopped if we can get the Department of Public Service to reject the proposed sale of the FitzPatrick nuclear plant to Exelon.

We have an opportunity right now to put an end to the governor’s misguided plan by getting the Public Service Commission to reject Exelon’s purchase. Can you take just a few minutes to send a message to the Public Service Commission urging them to take a stand against this deal?


Your comment will be part of the public record of opposition to this nuclear bailout scheme that threatens to cost hard working New Yorkers billions of dollars and delay our progress toward a truly green energy future. If enough New Yorkers speak out, we can win this fight.

Thanks for all you do,

Priscilla Star
Coalition Against Nukes… Read More

Stop the Cuomo Tax!

New Yorkers know that Governor Cuomo’s plan to bail out old, unprofitable nuclear plants is a big mistake. If the governor gets his way, he’ll take $7.6 billion from hard working New Yorkers and hand it over to a highly profitable Chicago nuclear company. We should be investing in sustainable energy, not handing out giant subsidies for aging, unsafe nuclear plants.

You can help change the governor’s mind with a quick 30-second phone call to let his office know where you stand. It’s simple. Just follow these instructions:

  1. Call 866-772-3843
  2. Tell Governor Cuomo’s office your name and where you live, then say:
    “As a constituent, I oppose the Cuomo tax on New Yorkers’ utility bills and urge Governor Cuomo to stop his proposed $7.6 billion bailout of unprofitable nuclear plants. His mistaken plan would take billions of dollars out of New Yorkers’ pockets to subsidize aging, unsafe, nuclear plants owned by a highly profitable Chicago-based company. Instead, Governor Cuomo should invest in energy efficiency and truly clean renewable alternatives like solar and wind while saving consumers money.”
  3. Click the button below so we can count the number of calls delivered!



 … Read More

Thumbnail for 1031343

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine is entering a new period in the decommissioning and mitigation stage of the response to the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Unit 4 reactor.

During the last week of November, 2016, just before a fresh blanket of snow covered the plant, workers moved the new confinement structure in place over the sarcophagus that was erected in 1986 to stem the release of radioactive materials into the environment.

The author at Chernobyl after exiting the control room of the Unit 4 reactor in November 2016.

I spent the majority of the last month in Ukraine, at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, as a member of the last international delegation allowed on-site before the arch was moved. I am currently working on reviewing my notes and data and will write a new series of editorials soon. It was incredible to witness how much progress had been made on-site in just the last year. The experience showed me that the workers at Chernobyl are willing, and able, to do the work – they just need the resources and assistance.

The majority of the time we were at the Chernobyl plant, the entire facility was closed down to international delegations in preparation for the movement of the New Confinement Structure. We were very fortunate to have official status which allowed us to remain on-site even after it was restricted. In the worker town of Slavutych when I ran into Simon Evans – Hans Blix’s right hand man and Associate Director at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the international financier of the new confinement structure). Evans first response to my salutation was “What are you doing here?”.

Those last days at the plant before the New Confinement Structure was moved in place were full of activity and anticipation, everyone was on edge, would everything go as planned? It was incredible to witness the resolve and efforts of the Chernobyl workers, despite the pressures that were being placed upon them.

The New Confinement Structure in place over the Sarcophagus. The building to the left of the ventilation stack is the Unit 3 reactor, which was constructed as a mirror image of the Unit 4 reactor.

The new confinement structure, or “The Arch” as it is called, is the biggest movable object ever constructed, and there were many problems along the way that had to be dealt with. Even up until the last week before the arch was moved, there were serious concerns about the ventilation system and the overall weight of the new confinement structure. But now the arch has moved, and the workers can begin to focus on the next stages of the decommissioning plan – as soon as they locate the funds to acquire the necessary equipment and to perform the work.

<img src="" alt="A view of the New Confinement Structure from the west. The western end of the turbine building can be seen on …read moreRead More

“NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR EXELON NUCLEAR BAILOUT” ENVIRO GROUP CONTENDS 35-year old environmental, safe-energy group sends strongly worded letter to legislators advising rejection of corporate “wealth transfer” CHICAGO– In a strongly worded letter to state officials warning of “no rational basis for the Exelon nuclear bailout,” a 35-year old Illinois environmental organization today urged legislators … Continue reading PRESS RELEASE: “NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR EXELON NUCLEAR BAILOUT” NEIS CONTENDS …read moreRead More

Thumbnail for 1016914

Dr EAS Sarma | These are serious matters on which DAE and NPCIL cannot afford to feign ignorance and pretend that the public here in India would never come to know about these developments. DAE, presided over by the Prime Minister (PM) himself, has the moral obligation to get at the root of this problem and inform the public about the magnitude of the peoblem and the corrective action taken.

The post India Must Black-list French Nuclear Suppliers: Former Power Secretary writes after Exposé in France appeared first on

…read moreRead More

The Fairewinds Crew created this special 2-minute animation to show you why building new nukes is a lost opportunity for humankind with precious time and money wasted on the wrong choice. At least $8.2 Trillion would be needed to build the 1,000 atomic reactors the nuclear industry wants – that’s 1 reactor every 12-days for 35-years. Watch the animation to see what it means and why!

If you want more information, we have issued a paper, and presented this topic at several major universities and forums , and wanted to make it more accessible to people throughout the world. Truthout published Arnie Gundersen’s summation of this project in a news analysis entitled: Nuclear Power Is Not “Green Energy”: It Is a Fount of Atomic Waste.

People often say: here’s what it boils down to, but at Fairewinds we have found that in the nuclear business, ‘boiling something down’ is not a good thing to do! Here in Vermont, where we make maple syrup from the sap of the maple tree, we say: ‘here’s how it sugars off’. Fairewinds has sugared off the data to give you this 2-minute CO2 Smokescreen Animation; we hope it clarifies a tough topic.



Related Fairewinds Material

Demystifying Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power’s Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Smoke Screen


[soundcloud url="" params="color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&wmode=opaque" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /]



In 2015, human activity released 35,810 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. In order to avoid catastrophic climate change, this number must quickly be reduced (to 22,000 million tons). Currently, our CO2 production grows by 2% every year (730 million tons) as people worldwide seek a more affluent lifestyle.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) has a plan to solve this problem: building 1,000 new nuclear reactors before the year 2050.

That means we would need to build a nuclear power plant every 12 days for the next 33 years.

Our existing reactors (438) offset only 3 percent of global emissions ((1,183 million tons of CO2 or 3.3%)1.18Gt/35.81Gt). Every time a new reactor goes online, our carbon footprint goes down slightly, and only by 7/1,000 of 1%.

Along the way, outdated reactors must be decommissioned; the deadly waste must be tended in perpetuity; and each new reactor built will increase the probability of atomic disaster somewhere in the world. Constructing this infrastructure will cost $8.2 trillion ($8,200,000,000,000). Even after spending all this money and waiting all this time, by the year 2050, these new reactors will have offset only 3.9 GT of CO2, which is less than 10% of the reduction we will need. (9.3%)

The nuclear industry touts CO2 reduction to green-wash its agenda. For the nuclear industry $8.2T over 33 years is good business. For humanity, it is an opportunity cost—precious time and money wasted on the wrong thing. If we follow the WNA, another generation will pass and climate change will only get worse. We already have clean, cheap, …read moreRead More

Thumbnail for 1005096

Arnie Gundersen spoke with host Harvey Wasserman about stopping nuclear power on Solortopia’s Green Power and Welness Hour. Also appearing on the show was Dennis Kucinich.


[soundcloud url="" params="color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&wmode=opaque" width="100%" height="166" iframe="true" /]

…read moreRead More

November 14, 2016 By Arnie Gundersen, Truthout

Starting in 1971, I became a card-carrying member of the “nuclear priesthood.” I began as a licensed nuclear reactor operator and progressed through the industry to become a senior vice president. I believed, with religious fervor, that by helping to build and operate atomic power reactors, I would be creating power that was “too cheap to meter.” The historic 1973 gasoline shortages and long lines of cars queued at the pumps made it clear to me and hundreds of other nuclear engineers that nuclear power was the only solution to the “energy shortage.” In the 1970s and ’80s, solving this apparent energy shortage was our only mantra. At that time, there was no scientific data connecting fossil fuels to climate change.

In 1953, President Eisenhower initiated his “Atoms for Peace” program as a means to transform the atom from a scourge into a benefit for mankind and created grand illusions of at least 1,000 US atomic plants by the year 2005. However, well before the 1979 disaster at Three Mile Island, nuclear construction costs were skyrocketing and construction schedules were constantly slipping. The overzealous goal of 1,000 US atomic power reactors dwindled to about 110 finally completed reactors, while more than 120 others that had been on the drawing boards were canceled before producing a single watt of power.

By 1985, Eisenhower’s dream of reclaiming the power of the atom for peaceful purposes had unraveled and had become a nightmare. Electric rates continued to skyrocket and ratepayers were left picking up the pieces from Atoms for Peace.

Of the more than 230 attempts to construct atomic power reactors in the United States during the 20th century, only 99 reactors are still operating. Globally, a total of 438 atomic power reactors were still operating in 2015, according to the World Nuclear Association.

During the 20th century, the lights stayed on and the prediction of a dire energy shortage never materialized. Nuclear power’s claims that it would be an economic nirvana “too cheap to meter” collapsed as well. Entering the 21st century, renewables began to appear more feasible, so the atomic power industry latched on to NASA’s James Hansen’s 1988 prognosis of the global buildup in CO2 resulting in global climate change as a new justification for existence. Armed with this new marketing ploy, nuclear power lobbyists flooded Capitol Hill looking for financing to fund the 21st century “nuclear renaissance.”

Does the nuclear industry’s latest claim that it is the world’s salvation from increasing levels of CO2 hold up under scrutiny? No. The evidence clearly shows that building new nuclear power plants will make global warming worse.

A Growing Carbon Footprint

Before we look at the data, two concepts are important to clarify. First, burning a fossil fuel like coal or oil emits CO2. The amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year is massive, measured in gigatons. A single gigaton is one thousand million tons of CO2 gas. …read moreRead More