Nuclear is viable solution for crunch

Early this year, letters from Erv Hoglund and Clark McKee fully documented both the need for, and safety of, large nuclear power plants to solve Washington state’s electricity shortage.

Why haven’t our leaders seen this problem coming decades ago and attempted to solve it? Well, Mike Mitte’s etter of June 6 explained that power companies for the past 15 years have attempted to build such new generation plants in our state but have been clocked by liberals every time (“Energy issue: Herald is biased against Bush”). Why are they opposed, when nuclear power provides a viable and safe means for satisfying our growing need for electricity?

The liberals point to the worst nuclear power accident in America at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania; yet in that incident nobody was killed or even injured. The accident resulted in improved procedures, instruments and safety systems, so that U.S. nuclear reactor power plants are now much safer.

At present, there are 103 nuclear power units operating in the nation, which are responsible for about 20 percent of our electrical power. By contrast, France now safely uses nuclear energy to generate nearly 80 percent of its electricity. In America, the nuclear industry has not expanded because of paranoid fears that nuclear power is far too dangerous to use. The leaders of radical environmental organizations, such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, show fear and hatred because they are totally ignorant about nuclear technology. They exploit the psychological association of “nuclear” and “bomb” as stupidly as “electric” and “chair”!

In the case of Washington Public Power Supply Sysytem, its cost was steadily increased by fright peddlers who pressured the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to increase safety regulations – in some cases to the absurd – driving the cost overruns for the plant at Satsop to the point where it was no longer practical to complete.

Lynnwood