home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
061989
/
06198900.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
76 lines
<text id=89TT1563>
<title>
June 19, 1989: Shutting Down Rancho Seco
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989
June 19, 1989 Revolt Against Communism
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 36
Shutting Down Rancho Seco
</hdr><body>
<p>Foes of nuclear power get a lift from a victory in Sacramento
</p>
<p> In all the decades of the nation's fuming debate over
nuclear power, opponents had never spoken with such indubitable
authority as Sacramento voters did last week. They became the
first ever to vote, by a solid 53.4%, to shut down a functioning
nuclear power plant. The decision, in a special referendum, put
an end to the operations of the 15-year-old Rancho Seco facility
owned by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Within
twelve hours after the polls closed, SMUD directors, who had
pledged in advance to abide by the decision, had started
shutting down the plant 25 miles southeast of California's
capital city.
</p>
<p> Even faster than that, news of the vote by 40% of
Sacramento's electorate spread fresh hope among the opponents
of nuclear power all over the U.S. The development countered a
bleak mood stirred up among antinukers recently by two Nuclear
Regulatory Commission actions. In the first, the NRC issued an
operating permit to New York's Shoreham nuclear power plant,
though its owner, the Long Island Lighting Co., had agreed to
dismantle it. Then the NRC decided to permit a limited go-ahead
for the controversial Seabrook, N.H., nuclear power plant.
Thousands of activists demonstrated against the start of
Seabrook's low-power tests (734 were arrested) on the very
weekend before the Sacramento vote. By its effectiveness alone,
the referendum became the most potent demonstration ever against
nuclear power. What made it more potent still was the unusual
nature of the campaign against Rancho Seco.
</p>
<p> In previous tests -- 14 referendums in ten states in the
past 13 years -- debate turned primarily on purported threats
to the safety of both people and the environment. Rancho Seco
opponents, however, directly attacked the idea that has helped
the nuclear industry win all earlier elections: the proposition
that nuclear power is cheaper than conventional power. The
Sacramento plant produced only 40% as much electricity as
expected, and its output cost twice as much as that bought on
the conventional market. One result was a doubling of
electricity rates. Said Bob Mulholland, who headed the campaign
to close Rancho Seco: "It's the first time the debate over a
nuclear plant has focused on economics rather than safety. It
doesn't mean that others will vote to close plants, but it does
mean the nation will take notice."
</p>
<p> How much notice would have to be taken? To Scott Peters,
spokesman for the pro-nuclear power U.S. Council on Energy
Awareness in Washington, it seemed Sacramento voters were not
"against nuclear power per se" but "against a plant that had a
bad operating record." Peters concluded, "We don't think this
interrupts our progress." The contrary view was expressed by
Scott Denman, executive director of the Safe Energy
Communications Council in Washington. The vote was a "proverbial
shot heard round the world," he said, adding, "This is an
unprecedented breakthrough for advocates of economical and safe
energy and a severe blow to the hopes of reviving the troubled
nuclear energy industry." </p>
</body></article>
</text>