After reading a recent editorial (“Small nuclear plants may be the key to state’s energy mix,” The Herald, April 2) I was left somewhat confused. It reports that the state is funding a $25 million study that “will consider the pros and cons of building a small modular nuclear reactor.” These funds are to be entrusted to Energy Northwest, previously know as WPPSS or “Whoops.” In the 1980s, WPPSS tried to build five nuclear plants around the state resulting in only one completed, billions of ratepayer dollars lost and the biggest municipal bond default in the nation’s history.
Then your editorial goes on to state that Energy Northwest has already signed a contract to build an 80-MW nuclear plant next to its one existing reactor at Hanford.
Here’s my question: Is the $25 million from the state to fund a study of the pros and cons of such reactor construction or is Energy Northwest just using the money to implement its already decided upon course of action?
If we want to study the pros and cons of a nuclear strategy, and convince Washingtonians that we’ve made the right choice, a more neutral public agency is what we need. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council comes to mind. They are charged by the four Northwest governors with planning our electric energy strategy. Wouldn’t they be a better choice?
One more thought: Before we start building nuclear plants again, wouldn’t it be good to resolve the issue of what we going to do with the waste?
Jim Blomquist
Lopez Island
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
