No new nukes

Posted by Trish Riley, November 30, 2009

nuclear power plant

I am glad that the L.A. Times editors have made this brazen pronouncement against nuclear power, but I’m surprised to see their support for geothermal power, which threatens the integrity of underlying stone and can trigger earthquake activity….

“Nuclear energy is not a reasonable solution because plants take too long to build and cost far too much.

Renewable power sources such as solar, wind and geothermal are getting cheaper over time, even as nuclear gets more expensive. And renewable-power plants can be built almost immediately, without the long permitting delays faced by nuclear reactors. Some clean-energy strategies, such as energy efficiency and combined heat and power systems, actually end up saving money rather than costing it.

The nation’s fleet of 104 nuclear plants supplies nearly 20% of our electricity. Building 100 more, as nuclear proponents have proposed, would supply a vast amount of carbon-free energy, and do so 24 hours a day without interruption. But then, so would geothermal power plants.

Nuclear power is a failed experiment of the past, not an answer for the future. Every dollar invested in it is a dollar misdirected, one that should have gone to more efficient, cheaper and cleaner power sources.”

via No new nukes — plants, that is —