Here's the Wall Street Journal blog again:
“I think nuclear power has a great future, and we should look at it again,” California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said, closing The Wall Street Journal’s “ECO:nomics” conference. While he understands some people might still be afraid of the nuclear option, most Three Mile Island analogies are “environmentalist scare tactics. The technology has advanced so much,” he said.
It sure has—just not in the U.S. That was the message from the nuclear industry at the same conference, grappling with a question beguiling policy makers—and plenty of Environmental Capital readers: If coal is out of the question, and renewables are too small, how will America get its power if it keeps ignoring the nuclear elephant?
Comments
Without new nukes, the state faces the clear prospect of becoming dependent on Russian LNG to keep the gas-fired generators spinning. What governor would want that as his legacy?
Joe Somsel
San Jose California
I'm not sure how the withdrawal from the Idaho clarifies anything.
Nuclear is politically very difficult in Oregon or Washington, but much less so in Idaho. I figured the plans were a way to meed the market need for new generation in Oregon and Washington without building new plants there - go around by building in Idaho. Canceling the plants stays that possibility.
I suspect we'll see something similar for California. There won't be additional plants for California; instead, additional Palo Verde units will be proposed. Close enough to transmit the power, but far enough away politically.
- Matthew B.