Six states are competing to land the country's first new nuclear energy plants in three decades. Environmental groups said they'll try to stop the facilities from opening, no matter which states are selected.Just that much of the article caught my eye, and I was intrigued to read on. I reflected on New England states' efforts to curb power plant emissions, sometimes above and beyond federal enforcement, because they and their leadership are concerned over the health of their citizens and their children. [See here and here, for examples.]
If states are even eager enough to consider competing for new nuclear development, do you think they're eager for rising electricity costs for their constituents? Of course not! Read your power bills closely - the costs are going up faster without new nuclear construction than would be if we had the choice for more inexpensive baseload power, that is also environmentally benign.
What alternatives to these so-called environmentalists offer that is better for the environment that nuclear? The only argument they make that may be better on a broad perspective, considering cost, releases and public health, is conservation. But if using less energy were the grassroots mandate they would like to think it is, then wouldn't we be already doing it? And if we're already doing it, why are utilities studying investing in new power stations 3 to 10 years down the road? Nobody plans to spend money on an idle baseload plant. Nuclear stations won't be idle. Why? They're the cheapest and the cleanest - and we need more of them.
Phone the staff of your senators and representatives, who are voting on the energy bill this week! You can contact your senators from here and your representative from here.
The Capitol Switchboard numbers are:
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Toll-Free Numbers: 1-888-355-3588 or 1-877-762-8762
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics