With fossil fuels so costly, let's rethink nuclear power

last updated: June 26, 2008 05:31:13 AM

Gas prices near $5 a gallon and oil nearing $150 a barrel, and much of our electrical power is generated by fossil fuels! What is wrong with this picture? Isn't it time to give nuclear power another look as a reasonable, clean and efficient solution to our power needs?

The Modesto Irrigation District Web site documents a citizens advisory vote in 1982 against MID participation in a joint venture nuclear plant in Phoenix. But, facing a state mandate get 20 percent of all new electricity supplies from "renewable" sources and the inability to construct new dams on major rivers, the reality looms that nuclear might be our only reasonable solution.

During a visit to Europe, we observed nuclear cooling towers dotting the countryside. France derives 75 percent of its power from these plants, while about half of Sweden's power is nuclear.

A drive north on Highway 99 near Sacramento presents the bleak sight of the Rancho Seco towers, shut down at the cost of half a billion dollars, and at the loss of ready, economical, clean power.

The California Energy Commission Web site says that while the state produces 78 percent of its own power, a third is generated by natural gas; only 10 percent is from nuclear, and less than 9 percent comes from renewable sources such as wind and solar. (Pacific Gas & Electric says its mix is 47 percent natural gas and 23 percent nuclear.)

MID's power mix fluctuates, but last year it generated 58 percent of its electricity from natural gas and coal, 29 percent from hydroelectric and roughly 12 percent from wind. The remaining 1 percent, often purchased through short-term contracts, included some nuclear.

According to MID board minutes, a "why-not nuclear" discussion took place last year. The conclusion was that California law and the 1982 advisory vote had closed the door to development of nuclear power.

A recent Newsweek feature, however, concludes that nuclear is inevitable. It quotes Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: "Nuclear is the cleanest, safest and has the smallest footprint" of any major alternative energy source.

He added that 50 percent of nuclear fuel used today in the United States comes from dismantled Soviet nuclear warheads. Washington State University has developed methods to take the waste products, recycle them as fuel and effectively reduce the long-range waste problems.

The downside? For starters, all of the negative feelings generated by Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island debacles, both of which occurred more than 20 years ago but still have citizens leery of nuclear power's safety. But many safeguards have been developed since those incidents. While Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster, no one was killed or injured at Three Mile Island -- the safety mechanisms worked.

Recently, the first new U.S. plant application in 20 years was filed in Texas. In the best-case scenario, this plant could come online no sooner than 2015.

By then, we will have consumed an immense amount of our rapidly diminishing (and expensive) fossil fuels, and also spewed hundreds of thousands of tons of pollutants into the air -- something that does not occur with nuclear power.

It is time to realize that nuclear is inevitable, and the sooner we start getting our applications filed, the sooner we will get on the receiving end of this power.

Is it time for Modestans to revisit that negative vote on nuclear energy?

Hagerty is an Oakdale real estate developer active in community nonprofits. E-mail him at columns@modbee.com.

• Comments
• Add Comment
• Disclaimer