Commentary: Peggy Maze Johnson urges Nevada to follow the path tread by Seattle and avoid using nuclear power

Sunday, Aug. 6, 2006 | 8:51 a.m.

Editor's note: In August the Where I Stand column is turned over to guest writers. Today's columnist is Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, an environmental advocacy group.

In 1975 I lived in Seattle and was invited by the City Council there to serve on a committee to look at the city's energy needs for the next 15 years. The impetus for the study was to determine whether Seattle should participate in the proposed nuclear plants by Washington Public Power and Supply System (WPPSS).

At the end of the study our recommendation to the council was a resounding no! Instead we proposed a strong conservation policy as the way to keep demand down so we would not have to buy into nuclear power. Our resolution was drafted by a nuclear scientist whose contribution to the study had included the sober fact that we did not know what to do with nuclear waste and to produce it would be irresponsible. Based on our advice, Seattle fortunately chose not to participate in WPPSS. Before long WPPSS experienced a severe financial shortfall and became known as Whoops! Fast forward to the present and I am back in the middle of the nuclear debate. Only now we are talking about that dreaded waste. When I took this job with Citizen Alert I was amazed when some Nevadans said they loved nuclear power but hated the waste. They didn't want the waste in Nevada but supported the development of nuclear power plants. What is wrong with this picture?

First, there is that dreaded waste. According to the nuclear industry's own publications, if we keep producing nuclear power at the current level we will need 22 repositories the size of Yucca Mountain. As an alternative, there is a lot of talk about reprocessing, but there is no successful reprocessing plan in existence. Invariably the topic of France's reprocessing program comes up. Yes, France has a program.

What you never hear is that after reprocessing nuclear waste, you are left with weapons-grade plutonium. Tons of it. That is the reason President Jimmy Carter halted any reprocessing plans in this country. In an age where we are waging a "war" on terrorism, it only makes sense to minimize risks such as tons of weapons-grade plutonium.

We cannot afford nuclear power, and more specifically the waste it produces. We do not need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to play with this deadly stuff when we can start to look at viable alternatives. Nuclear industry executives will tell you they have the answer.

They don't. They want you and I, the taxpayers, to subsidize their upfront costs for construction, their research and development, their profits and, even worse, their accidents. We cannot let that happen. We must not allow the nuclear industry to expand or we will be buried in waste and debt.

Instead, we must look at cost-effective resources available to us. Nevada is rich in wind and sun, our best future sources for clean energy. Realistically, it looks like it will be a few years before wind and solar will be readily available. For the interim, we need a plan for "transitional" energy sources.

At this time, Nevada has four coal-fired energy producing plants on the drawing board. Although I am not a coal advocate, I believe we must look at these as "transition" energy sources. And we have to look at the "best of the worst" and make sure that the coal-fired plants built are carbon-sequestering plants.

This would at least reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an additional 40 percent. While coal-fired energy might be controversial, compare it to the alternative - nuclear power. We in Nevada know better than anyone that our state, our country and our world cannot afford the garbage from nuclear power.

As we get hotter from global warming, we Nevadans must be leaders in securing our nation's energy future.