It's Time to Close California's Nuclear Power Plants

[Norman Solomon]

By Norman Solomon

The facts all point to this "inconvenient truth" -- the time has come to shut down California's two nuclear power plants as part of a swift transition to an energy policy focused on clean and green renewable sources and conservation.

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Reactor

The Diablo Canyon plant near San Luis Obispo and the San Onofre plant on the southern California coast are vulnerable to meltdowns from earthquakes and threaten both residents and the environment.

Reactor safety is just one of the concerns. Each nuclear power plant creates radioactive waste that will remain deadly for thousands of years. This is not the kind of legacy that we should leave for future generations.

In the wake of Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown, we need a basic rethinking of the USA's nuclear energy use and oversight. There is no more technologically advanced country in the world than Japan. Nuclear power isn't safe there, and it isn't safe anywhere.

The perils to people are clear. In a recent letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein noted that 'roughly 424,000 live within 50 miles of the Diablo Canyon and 7.4 million live within 50 miles of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.'

San Onofre Nuclear Reactor

As someone who was an Obama delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, I believe it would be a tragic mistake for anyone to loyally accept the administration's nuclear policy. The White House is fundamentally mistaken in its efforts to triple the budgeting of federal loan guarantees for the domestic nuclear power industry, from $18 billion to $54 billion.

Our tax dollars should not be used to subsidize the nuclear power industry. Instead, we should be investing far more in solar, wind and other renewable sources, along with serious energy conservation.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a nuclear-friendly fox guarding the radioactive chicken coop. The federal government has no business promoting this dangerous industry while safe and sustainable energy resources are readily available.

The fact that federal law imposes a liability cap of about $12 billion on a nuclear power accident is a reflection of the fact that those plants are uninsurable on the open market.

As a candidate for Congress in the district that includes Marin and Sonoma counties, I intend to make this a major campaign issue. It remains to be seen whether my one declared opponent, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, will join me in urging a rapid timetable for the closure of California's nuclear power plants.

Huffman has ties to California's nuclear-invested utility PG&E. Between 2007 and 2009, according to campaign finance data compiled by nonpartisan Maplight.org, he received $11,100 from PG&E, which owns and operates the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.

While Huffman and other state lawmakers in February signed a letter to a federal commission on America's nuclear future citing seismic concerns which deserve to be more closely examined, the time for equivocation on nuclear power is long past. We don't need yet more study on whether to operate nuclear plants on fault lines.

People want bold and responsible leadership as we face up to the well-documented realities of nuclear power on this fragile planet.

_____________________________________

Norman Solomon was the director of the National Citizens Hearings for Radiation Victims in 1980 and co-authored "Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation", which exposed the health and environmental effects of the nuclear industry. For two years ending in late 2010, he served as co-chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay. For more information, go to: www.SolomonForCongress.com.

[Mojo P. Jones]

My reply is that I agree with you 100%. I appreciate all the research and time that went into your message.
No Nukes No Nukes No Nukes!!!
Thanks,
Mary Jo

[jbox]

By Norman Solomon

The facts all point to this "inconvenient truth" -- the time has come to shut down California's two nuclear power plants as part of a swift transition to an energy policy focused on clean and green renewable sources and conservation.......
_____________________________________

Norman Solomon was the director of the National Citizens Hearings for Radiation Victims in 1980 and co-authored "Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation", which exposed the health and environmental effects of the nuclear industry. For two years ending in late 2010, he served as co-chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay. For more information, go to: www.SolomonForCongress.com.

Norman, I must say I agree with every single point you have made about these plants and about the nuclear power industry as a whole. It was a Faustian bargain to build them in the first place and we did ourselves proud to block the proposed plants at Bodega Head and Point Arena. The notion that Diablo Canyon and San Onofre were built to withstand a quake of only 6.5 magnitude is the height of arrogant folly.

My question to you is how much is it going to cost to shut down and decommission these plants? Can they be made safe after shut down? How much is the PG&E bill for the average consumer going to increase to cover these costs? Where do we get the power we need to replace the power lost when the nukes go? How is this paid for and who pays it? Is investing in wind and solar a good one from purely an economic standpoint, ie, cost per KWH? These questions and their answers constitute the other side of the issue and you're going to get lots of public support if the answers are honest and make sense to the average voter.

[podfish]

Norman, I must say I agree with every single point you have made .... It was a Faustian bargain to build them in the first place ...
My question to you is how much is it going to cost to shut down and decommission these plants? .....These questions and their answers constitute the other side of the issue and you're going to get lots of public support if the answers are honest and make sense to the average voter.

I know your point isn't this simple (I trimmed some important sentences) - but I'm taking advantage to make a broader observation. The "How much will it cost (me)" argument is crippling a lot of reform. Once a decision is made that there's a problem that must be solved, the question needs to be how to proceed efficiently. Instead, it often turns into whether we can afford to proceed at all. Usually this comes up when money won't be spent on something new and shiny - somehow that seems easier to accept. But when money's needed to clean up the aftereffects or swap in a new, possibly less effective replacement, it's got no sex appeal and people seem to resist violently.

[jbox]

I know your point isn't this simple (I trimmed some important sentences) - but I'm taking advantage to make a broader observation. The "How much will it cost (me)" argument is crippling a lot of reform. Once a decision is made that there's a problem that must be solved, the question needs to be how to proceed efficiently. Instead, it often turns into whether we can afford to proceed at all. Usually this comes up when money won't be spent on something new and shiny - somehow that seems easier to accept. But when money's needed to clean up the aftereffects or swap in a new, possibly less effective replacement, it's got no sex appeal and people seem to resist violently.

Point taken. Asking how much reform will cost is a fair question however. If we spend all our resources cleaning up bad decisions from the past and our standard of living drops who is the better off? The rich aren't going to suffer, but the poor and working taxpayers and PG&E ratepayers are going to pay the cost out of their pockets. Maybe it's worth it, maybe not. Gambling on a nuclear catastrophe seems to be a fool's bet, I gotta say. Should we put it to a vote?

[podfish]

Point taken. Asking how much reform will cost is a fair question however....If ... our standard of living drops who is the better off? Maybe it's worth it, maybe not. Gambling on a nuclear catastrophe seems to be a fool's bet, I gotta say. Should we put it to a vote?

as long as we're acknowledging that it's a deliberate tradeoff - standard of living somewhat better protected today vs. the chance we'll live with the consequences of nuclear poisoning in the future. I just doubt many people understand what logic they've subscribed to. If the mutations start to show up in the grandkids, do they have the consistency of their convictions to comfort themselves with the ways they spent that money in the days before the disaster struck? I'm not saying it's an indefensible tradeoff - nothing bad may happen, it's a risk you may accept - but don't make it without thinking it through.

[GreenGraphics]

Thank you so much for this article, I could not agree more! Besides the problem of storing nuclear waste for longer than any civilization can reasonably endure, this Greenpeace video makes a powerful statement of another danger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk

[anjaloba]

I recently read the the Nuclear Energy Commission with its several billion dollars has approved the continuation of every nuclear energy site in America. This is regardless of the many safety problems our aging plants are experiencing. One plant leaked radioactive material for over 16 years without detection, and recently this plant was approved to continue producing energy. Another plant cooling tower literally collapsed and that plant is also still in use??? Time to move away from the old fossil fuel/nuclear fuel energy and new is the time to fund a new age of energy. No cost is to high! Look at what we have paid for the failing system we have now!

[K]

YESSSSS....YESSSSS....did I say Yes, lets do it. I support your movement completely.
Any suggestions on how to implement this change NOW....so they we can move it a little faster.
Thanks so much for all your time and support!

[BobHeisler]

I totally agree with you. I've been against nuclear power plants since the days when Ralph Nader came to San Francisco to warn about them. We don't need another Fukushima on our hands. When you live in earthquake country, there's a constant risk, which isn't worth it.

By Norman Solomon

The facts all point to this "inconvenient truth" -- the time has come to shut down California's two nuclear power plants as part of a swift transition to an energy policy focused on clean and green renewable sources and conservation.

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Reactor

The Diablo Canyon plant near San Luis Obispo and the San Onofre plant on the southern California coast are vulnerable to meltdowns from earthquakes and threaten both residents and the environment.

Reactor safety is just one of the concerns. Each nuclear power plant creates radioactive waste that will remain deadly for thousands of years. This is not the kind of legacy that we should leave for future generations.

In the wake of Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown, we need a basic rethinking of the USA's nuclear energy use and oversight. There is no more technologically advanced country in the world than Japan. Nuclear power isn't safe there, and it isn't safe anywhere.

The perils to people are clear. ...

[AJL]

Anyone interested in hosting a screening of SILKWOOD to remind us what kind of people in power we are dealing with.
I was just at the hole in the head yesterday and reminded of the handful of concerned citizens that prevented completion of the first Nuclear Power Plant under construction on Bodega Head.

[JeanM]

To close these nuclear power plants we need to use less power. 1. Get rid of your dryer and use the great sun to dry your clothes. 2. Get neighborhood organizations, community associations, mobile home associations and the like to start allowing clothes lines outside again. This is insane that we can't hang our clothes outside. 3. Use less energy.

I totally agree with you. I've been against nuclear power plants since the days when Ralph Nader came to San Francisco to warn about them. We don't need another Fukushima on our hands. When you live in earthquake country, there's a constant risk, which isn't worth it.

[rinaric15]

The safety of nuclear accidents relies on everyone running away from the area, as there is little else that can be done against radiation. When a reactor is near a city like LA or New York, is is impossible to get the people out of there in any reasonable amount of time. to rely on evacuation is wishful thinking, not sensible planning.
At least there should be concentrated effort to close those reactors first, and the most vulnerable, like those on earthquake faults should also be high priority. the time has come to make use of the better choices that have become available. Installation of wind and solar can be accomplished in short time. Geothermal energy is under utilized. The DOE has identified thousands of dams that could have generating capacity added. We cannot afford to have abandoned areas in our major cities, or nearly anywhere else. After 60 years, nuclear power still cannot compete economically if responsible for all it's own costs.

Home Care Services Agency New York