Pin It

Our answer: Nuclear is dangerous and unnecessary 

Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club director

David Deick wishes “the Sierra Club would weigh in” on the future of nuclear power “I saw that coming,” May 2). Happy to oblige. Nuclear power is too dangerous, too expensive, and has made too many promises it has failed to keep. Mr. Deick’s “new facts” about nuclear technology that will bring us perfectly safe, zero-waste nuclear reactors someday bring to mind the famous quote: “Nuclear fusion is the energy of the future—and always will be.”
Fortunately, nukes are far from “our only hope for survival.” As Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has observed, “existing technologies for more efficient end-use can save three-fourths of U.S. electricity at an average cost of around 1 cent per kilowatt-hour—cheaper than running a coal or nuclear power plant, let alone building one.”
Last month, at the International Pathways to 100-Percent Renewable Energy conference in San Francisco, the world’s energy experts agreed that powering the world with 100 percent renewable energy is now achievable, and nuclear isn’t necessary. They did not agree with Mr. Deick’s belief that this will condemn us “to caves or doomed cities.”
The reader can peruse the reasons why choosing the path of renewable energy makes more sense than going nuclear at

Readers Poll

How do you feel about the availability of mental health services in SLO County? 

  • There is not enough access, and there needs to be more.
  • There is access but only for those with a lot of money.
  • Most people should be able to afford it if they knew how to find it.
  • People need to learn to get over their issues themselves.

View Results

Pin It


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Search, Find, Enjoy

Submit an event

Trending Now