Opinion: Nukes, waves and Gore
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
The the UN’s 12-day green-fest in Bali and Al Gore’s co-acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize have helped raise the heat on environmental policy. But there’s smog hovering over that verdant hope — the political pressure has helped spark renewed interest in nuclear energy. IBM recently created a Nuclear Power Advisory Council, and as the San Diego Union-Tribune reports,
Spurred by concerns about global warming, a state Senate committee launched an inquiry yesterday into the potential of using nuclear power as a clean energy source. Yesterday’s special session in San Diego was the first time in two decades that the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held hearings on nuclear power, said Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, the panel’s chairwoman. The key question facing the committee was whether nuclear power could help the state meet its goal of slashing greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050. “Before we talk about changing state policies, we want to find out what’s going on in the world,” Kehoe said. “We haven’t heard any information on nuclear power in 20 years.”
That’s not a move The Times’ editorial board favors:
The U.S. government allows nuclear plants to operate under a level of secrecy usually reserved for the national security apparatus. Last year, for example, about nine gallons of highly enriched uranium spilled at a processing plant in Tennessee, forming a puddle a few feet from an elevator shaft. Had it dripped into the shaft, it might have formed a critical mass sufficient for a chain reaction, releasing enough radiation to kill or burn workers nearby. [...] ...the U.S. government spends more on nuclear power than it does on renewables and efficiency. Taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear industry amounted to $9 billion 2006, according to Doug Koplow, a researcher based in Cambridge, Mass., whose Earth Track consultancy monitors energy spending. Renewable power sources, including hydropower but not ethanol, got $6 billion, and $2 billion went toward conservation. That’s out of whack.
Well, then ... tell us how you really feel.
On a more positive note, The Times recently provided some radiation-free solutions to America’s energy issues:
The typical American uses 12,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity a year, while the typical Californian uses less than 7,000. That’s partly because of our mild climate and tough efficiency standards, but it’s also partly because our pursuit of clean energy has made power very expensive in the Golden State: 11.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, compared to 5.2 cents in coal-crazy West Virginia. Yet even though Californians pay more per unit of power, because they use less of it, they pay lower power bills than residents of other states, averaging about $100 less per capita annually. Efficiency programs are estimated to have saved Californians $5.3 billion over the last decade. Fighting global warming doesn’t have to derail the economy, or even slow it much. Some of the costs of the expensive fixes, such as developing renewable power, capturing carbon from coal-burning plants and refining better bio-fuels, can be offset by the savings from efficiency measures such as better insulation, tougher fuel economy standards and appliances that suck less power. The right combination of saving energy and investing in new forms will pay dividends for the world.
How’s that for positive spin?
The L.A. Times isn’t the only one looking for nuke-free power. Tidal power is making waves — both good and bad — in coastal states such as Oregon and Rhode Island. (That’s probably less likely to happen in California — we’re loathe to give up our beaches, even for the future of our planet.) San Francisco has proposed an ambitious subsidy program for solar panels. Though, for the sake of preening, it’s worth noting that the ‘Los Angeles Department of Water and Power offers one of the most generous’ rebates, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.