Congratulations!

We are green with envy

IMAGINE an editorial in an American newspaper getting so much pushback. Oh, for the days of Greeley or Mencken or McCormick or Greenberg—that is, the long-ago days— of editorial writing. When an editorial could say something without having to pass it through seven or eight (or more) editorial board members, all the better to water it down. Some of us still believe the editorial board was invented to keep newspaper publishers out of the line-of-fire from readers. “Well,” publishers can now say, “that was the opinion of the board.” In other words, Don’t Blame Me.

And that’s only on the rare occasion when an editorial takes a stand. Usually modern editorials consist of a lede, 15 inches of background, and a slammer at the end: Attention should be paid! No wonder, in the five-course meal that is a good newspaper, the editorials are often the glazed beets.

But then, rapture! An editorial not only gets pushback, but national pushback at that. And ticked off so many people that it actually made the news wires. We are jealous as hell.

The Los Angeles Times published an editorial this past weekend that took on nuclear energy, the state government and climate change. Not to mention uniformity. We republish it nearby. Bon appetit!

Fox News ran with the story: The LA Times was “flamed” for arguing against keeping the state’s last nuclear power plant. Critics “blasted” the article. Twitter was all a-twitter with arguments against the editorial’s position. (“They have vilified me. They have crucified me. Yes, they have even criticized me.”— Mayor Daley the First of Chicago.)

How do we get a part of that action? The best thing we can do is publish the editorial in the column to your right, and hope we get some surplus pushback. Feel free to write a letter to the editor, taking us down a notch.

NOW TO the less-fun part: If mankind wants to put less carbon into the air, he’s going to have to rely more on nuclear power. Or turn off the electricity and park the truck. At least until Homo faber develops a battery that can keep us all cool and moving when the sun is down and the wind is still. He hasn’t yet.

Ah, nuclear energy. So much cleaner than any fossil fuel. Imagine having a small nuclear plant at every bend in the river, and paying $50 a month for all your electricity needs, including automotive. That could have been us. All of us.

Unfortunately the no-nukes crowd— mostly liberals; think Jackson Browne, Graham Nash and others who put on those concerts—were louder. Or at least in better tune. In the 1970s and 1980s, these entertainers were the leaders of the NIMBY movement, and the building of nuclear plants slowed to a crawl. When it wasn’t stopped cold.

And now we know how wrong they all were. How much cleaner would be the air you breathe today, Gentle Reader, if that movement had never happened, and there were nuclear plants where so many coal-fired plants now chug along, belching smoke?

And so the LA paper says it’s time to shut down California’s plant.

The surprising thing, from this distance, is that California only has one. Why does such a large state have fewer nuclear plants than Tennessee? California has a lot of people. And a lot of cars. Its energy needs surely dwarf most of these several states. Yet the state seems ready to shut down “Diablo Canyon” in three years.

From the editorial: “California can’t allow the retirement of Diablo Canyon’s nuclear reactors to prolong its reliance on gas plants or increase planet-warming and health-damaging emissions.”

Can’t allow? But that’s probably what will happen, whether an editorial will allow it or not.

“The plant’s closure should instead serve as an impetus for California to do more to accelerate the shift to renewable energy and set a realistic course to meet the state’s target of getting 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045.”

Realistic course? Not until those new batteries are invented.

“Those floating the idea of keeping Diablo Canyon open seem to ignore many practical considerations, including how to address seismic risks, the ecological harm of using seawater for cooling, and what to do with spent nuclear fuel. The cooling system and earthquake safety upgrades that would be required for the facility to keep operating after 2025 are so extensive they would likely exceed $1 billion, according to the Public Utilities Commission.”

A billion dollars? That’s nothing in the nuclear plant business. There is a plan for spent nuclear fuel, but a famous liberal politician from Nevada—former U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid—worked against the Yucca Mountain plan for years. (Aside: Why hasn’t Congress taken steps to undo his work?)

As far as the ecological harm of using seawater, we have to leave that to the experts. But using freshwater of rivers in the interior of the country doesn’t seem to cause major problems.

Until we can store wind energy much better, the best alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear. We didn’t know that was debatable anymore among serious people. But thanks to all that pushback created by our friends in LA, we now know otherwise.

Who says editorials have to be glazed beets? Sometimes they can be the green bean casserole. With extra cheese.