Nuking the Sierra Club

August 11, 2002

by Brian W. Peterson

With high electricity prices locked in at high rates for the foreseeable future, California consumers also face the prospect of a population which is growing at a far faster rate than the ability to provide electricity. The re-regulation debacle of 1996, supported by both political parties, was the final straw after two decades of neglect and eco-fantasies.

Not your ordinary environmentalists, California environmentalists envisaged a future free from those ugly and supposedly environmentally-unfriendly electrical generation plants. The future of California was to be of neighborhood “co-generation plants,” solar and wind energy. California environmentalists thought themselves to be visionaries.

Perhaps because they believed their own rhetoric, or perhaps because they never considered the rapid increase in the state’s population, construction of power plants to generate electricity came to a halt. To further the supposed foresight of those such as “alternative” energy guru Amory Lovins, who was an important advocate of a Utopian future, a minor accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 made the California environmentalists look like geniuses.

While they failed to see their error in halting traditional electrical generation plants, they could not foresee the rebound of nuclear power plant safety. Nor could they foresee technological advances in nuclear power generation that will soon greatly diminish dreaded nuclear waste.

Why don’t most environmentalists support nuclear power? Contrary to what the Sierra Club says, the more the public learns about nuclear power, the more they support it. Clean burning, less waste than ever before, safe, and - thanks to sound safety leadership from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission - sane operating procedures.

Today, nuclear power plants operate at an average of 90 percent of capacity, compared with 65 percent capacity just 20 years ago. Plant operating costs have halved since 1990 - something the Sierra Club chooses to ignore in their propaganda. Even the far-left Union of Concerned Scientists has been forced to admit that safety in the nuclear industry is outstanding. Times have indeed changed.

TMI’s less famous reactor ran uninterrupted for two straight years for a period from 1997-1999 - an important achievement.

With a new “pebble-bed” technology, nuclear waste will be greatly reduced in the future while allowing the refueling process to continue uninterrupted. Additionally, this new technology being tested now in Germany, allows for a self-contained cooling system which in turn allows for less concrete, thus lowering construction costs. The industry’s improvement continues.

Besides safety, the Sierra Club also opposes nuclear energy because of the perceived threat of bomb-making. They seem unaware that the US already possesses nuclear arms and the ability to make additional nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the Sierra Club favors installing a pipeline through the so-called “pristine” Arctic desert to bring natural gas to California from Alaska. Disturbing the caribou is okay if the cause suits their needs.

How much natural gas is available for our use that can be reached practically? No one knows. But we do know that, theoretically, we can produce an infinite amount of nuclear energy.

Is opposition to nuclear energy by environmentalists a matter of ignorance, or is there something hidden? That question has yet to receive a fair hearing. Perhaps their opposition is genuine ignorance. Perhaps cleaner air would take away a strong reason for donating money to such organizations as the Sierra Club.

What is it that environmentalists want if not cleaner air? There will always be risks, no matter the course taken. There will always be naysayers, no matter the hope of progress.

Without committing to build more nuclear power plants, California cannot take advantage of progress. Rather, we sentence ourselves to continue building small plants that produce little yield of generation capabilities and pollute the air more. Environmental groups such as Sierra Club have forgotten their goals and have reduced themselves to anti-progress malcontents.

If California had clean air, the Sierra Club would lose a lot of money.

_________________________________________

Brian W. Peterson writes a political column for the Antelope Valley Press (circulation approximately 60,000) in Palmdale, California. He is a graduate of Oral Roberts University, where he majored in TV/Film. Brian’s weekly commentary and newspaper columns can be found at www.LifeAndLiberty.com.

Send the author an E mail at Peterson@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of Brian's articles, visit his archives.