John Wheeler demonstrates very clearly the huge cost to society imposed by the anti-nuclear movement. Here is just a single example of that cost, the closing of the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant.
(…) By looking at the utility’s current energy mix and by comparing the relative costs and environmental impacts, it is fairly easy to hypothesize what would be happening if the plant were running today.
The current energy mix at SMUD is 60% natural gas, 20% hydro, 8% biomass, 8% wind, 1% coal, and the remaining 3% is geothermal, solar, and small hydro.
If Rancho Seco was in operation today, it would displace all of the coal and a large portion of the natural gas SMUD burns now. If the plant was running today it is safe to predict
- Energy rates would be lower because the nuclear energy would off-set a large portion of the high cost natural gas they presently burn.
- Greenhouse gas emissions would be lower because nuclear energy would eliminate all the coal they burn, and a big piece of the natural gas.
- By now the plant would be paid off and with a license extension it would be running for another 20 years. This would help keep energy costs low for another two decades.
(…) Whether or not shutting down Rancho Seco was a good idea depends on your point of view. If you sell coal or natural gas then shutting down the plant was great! If you are an anti-nuclear activist, then you probably feel like shutting down Rancho Seco was one of your movement’s biggest victories. However, if you are a rate payer, or if you believe that burning fossil fuels is harming our environment, then shutting down the unit was a huge, costly mistake.
Please continue reading…
Recent Comments