It’s time to dust off your “No Nukes!” button — or grab that old one out of your Mom’s top bureau drawer. You may need it soon.

The “powers that be” have begun a new campaign to convince us that we must have dozens or hundreds — worldwide, thousands — of new nuclear power plants to avert the threat of global warming.

Three groups have teamed up for the campaign: the Cheney-Bush administration [6], the nuclear power corporations, and most recently the New York Times [7].

Each of the three campaign partners has a different agenda, but they all want you to believe that building hundreds or thousands of new nuclear power plants is the best way to meet the world’s need for electricity — that nuclear power is safer, cleaner, and cheaper than all the many alternatives.

Nuclear power plants are by far the most complicated way to make electricity. Nuclear power starts by mining radioactive uranium out of the ground, then “enriching” it in a centrifuge that can make nuclear fuel but can also make fuel for an A-bomb. (Iran’s current plan to operate its own centrifuges [8] is what all the wrangling is about with Tehran.) The enriched uranium is then stuffed into a nuclear power plant where it undergoes a controlled fission reaction, splitting atoms to release tremendous quantities of heat, which is used to boil water to turn a turbine to make electricity.

In contrast, a wind turbine uses the wind to turn a turbine to make electricity.

But of course the electricity from a wind turbine must be stored in some form to provide power when the wind is not blowing. Nuclear plants produce electricity more-or-less steadily unless there is mishap such as a leak [9] or spill [10] or other glitch [11]. Hydrogen is the leading candidate for energy storage [12].

So now let’s listen to the New York Times editorial staff as it tries to convince us (May 13, 2006 [13]) that nuclear power is the best way for the nation and the world to meet its electricity needs:

NYT: “Not so many years ago, nuclear energy was a hobgoblin to environmentalists, who feared the potential for catastrophic accidents and long-term radiation contamination. But this is a new era, dominated by fears of tight energy supplies and global warming. Suddenly nuclear power is looking better.”

Yes, big accidents and routine radioactive releases are two valid concerns about nuclear power, but the biggest concern by far has always been the unbreakable link between nuclear power plants and A- bombs [14]. Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea all built A-bomb arsenals by first building nuclear power plants, so this is not merely a theoretical concern. As we speak, Iran is shuffling down this well-trodden path.

The question is, are there better ways to achieve the same result? But the Times fails to address this question.

NYT: “How much impact [nuclear power] could really have in slowing carbon emissions has yet to be spelled out, but there is no doubt that nuclear power could serve as a useful bridge to even greener sources of energy.”

Huh? We’re not sure how much nukes can reduce global warming, but we should spend billions more taxpayer dollars to subsidize nukes? This is no basis for national policy. Between 1948 and 1998, civilian nuclear power received at least $77 billion dollars of federal subsidies (in constant 2005 dollars). The insurance industry still won’t touch nuclear power with a ten-foot pole so Congress has to limit the industry’s liability by law [15] — a huge subsidy to the nuclear power corporations. Wall Street won’t touch it either [16] without huge additional federal guarantees and subsidies. This is a technology that falls on its face unless Uncle Sam provides a permanent crutch.

We should ask ourselves, Why aren’t we willing to spend $77 billion to subsidize energy-saving measures, and the development of existing minimally-polluting technologies like wind turbines with hydrogen storage, and hydrogen fuel cells to make electricity and power vehicles? These technologies exist now.

The time is now for all of us to get behind wind and solar power as solutions to our energy challenges. Together they constitute a highly desirable and entirely achievable precautionary energy program. A study published in Science magazine (June 24, 2005) concluded that hydrogen-fuel-cell-automobiles would be cheaper to run than today’s gasoline-powered vehicles. Conservation is the cheapest and least polluting option of all, and it is available in abundance [17]right now. Conservation, wind, photovoltaics, hydrogen storage, plus a modicum of ethanol and methanol can provide a bridge to even greener sources of energy. It’s time to take a principled stand for conservation, wind, and other solar options. They are good for the planet, good for people, good for local control, good for “local living economies,” and good for self-determination.

In sum, none of the available alternative energy sources can match nuclear power’s ability to thwart the nation’s inherent democratic tendencies and stop the nation’s slide toward local control, small-scale enterprise, self-reliance, and a populist political reawakening. Without nuclear power and petroleum to anchor their centralized authority and provide excuses for their military adventures, the “powers that be” will soon seem very much like the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. And that would never do. It simply would never do.

And so I say to you, dust off your protest banners and buttons. That time may be coming around again when we must hit the streets. No blood for oil! Climate justice! No nukes!