Editor,
Mr. Rodberg’s Dec. 8 guest perspective urges California to add nuclear energy to its clean energy portfolio to supplement solar, wind and hydro power; however, there are other approaches which, if encouraged and financed by private and government entities (including California), could produce clean energy 24/7 just as efficiently, at less cost, with no worry about radioactive waste disposal, or nuclear malfunction.
Geothermal energy until recently was limited to a few homes or buildings plus commercial enterprises situated near surface geothermal hot spots (such as PG&E’s facility in Calistoga); however, a new wave of technologies can now install geothermal on an industrial scale over many previously unexplored areas. Studies say one geothermal site can produce as much 24/7 energy as any one of today’s nuclear reactors. Â
Ocean energy. There are various ways to harness the kinetic energy of the ocean. Some capture wave energy and tidal forces and others exploit the difference of temperature in various layers of the ocean for 24/7 energy.
Efficient energy storage. A viable storage system is essential to supplement energy availability during times when solar and wind is not available. More efficient and cost effective alternatives to lithium batteries are now available for off hours storage.
Bottom line. Nuclear is not the only or best 24/7 clean energy option. Nuclear reactors are expensive and potentially dangerous and should not be prioritized when there are other viable options to produce the same clean energy more efficiently, safer and at lower cost.
David Crabbe
San Carlos
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(3) comments
Thanks, Mr. Crabbe, for highlighting potential alternatives to nuclear power. However, what is the cost per unit and the amount of land or ocean use required by these alternatives? We know a nuclear power plant can provide about 1 GW per reactor with a relatively small footprint. Are your listed alternatives comparable in production per footprint of land area? Perhaps you can provide a number of how many geothermal energy plants, oceans, etc. are required to output 1GW. On the surface, I’d say these are not viable options to meet consistent baseline demand. And, as Mr. van Ulden has already implied (Mr. van Ulden is the earlier bird) I'd agree that any additional energy sources should be explored, as long as they’re at or the same cost as that provided by nuclear or fossil fuel plants.
I agree with Geothermal. Cheap, clean, reliable, but not abundant in CA. You can't build everywhere you need it. Ocean energy is foolishly expensive. Today it's pilot-scale only and highly corrosive. Grid-scale storage is still costly after a decade and fire-prone (lithium-ion incidents up 25% since 2020). The CA solution (based on reality) is Gen III/III+ reactors. Passive safety, walk-away safe. No meltdowns possible via physics (gravity cooling). No 3 Mile Island/Fukushima repeat, different tech. And the waste? Political issue, not technical. Finland buries it in 2025. US is stuck in limbo.
David - nice try. You must have gotten your information from these Greenie lunatics. You are correct that there are other sources but none are viable. It would help if you were to provide the required financial information associated with each of your proposed energy source. Believe me, there are many scientists and bean counters quite busy looking at alternatives and have yet to arrive at economic solutions. Nuclear is not dangerous if managed well and kudos to PG&E for having demonstrated their expertise. The combination of wind and solar are supplemental sources which should be continued but cannot sustain our demand for reliable energy supplies.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.