So, according to a June 29 Tribune article, PG&E prodded business and community leaders for a speedier approval of relicensing by claiming economic advantages from a nuclear plant? Did chief nuclear officer Ed Halpin mention that there is no policy for the disposal of nuclear waster?
Now that the myth of storage in Yucca Mountain has gone up into thin air, nuclear waste continues to be stored plant-side in cooling pools and hard casks. Did Mr. Halpin give any idea of the economic picture if we are to be a de facto nuclear storage site with an annually increasing waste pile? And did he talk about the economic drawback of the potential of a Chernobyl or a Fukushimatype disaster? Is there any insurance company willing to carry the burden of insuring against that eventuality? But, wait: We the taxpayers carry that burden! No insurance company is willing to insure against nuclear disaster.
As to the charitable support from PG&E for our community: Whose money is that, anyway? Should it not be returned to the ratepayers who are up for increased rates?
Industries, even dog owners, are required to clean up their messes; why not nuclear plants?