Blindness in the advocacy of nuclear power
This is a letter to the NYTimes of Sunday, July 18:
We can set admirable goals for renewable energy resources, but if the
costs are not competitive, nothing will be built. Nuclear power is
available, and several groups are discussing construction of new
nuclear power plants with plant vendors.
The quickest method for reducing greenhouse gases now is with nuclear
power. Wind and solar power are great future resources, but without
huge subsidies, they will not make a dent in greenhouse gases during
the next 10 years.
If we are serious about reducing the risk of climate change, we need to
consider nuclear power, as the Asians and the Europeans are doing.
GEOFFREY ROTHWELL
Stanford, Calif., July 14, 2004
The writer is a senior lecturer in economics at Stanford University and a consultant to the Energy Department.
I don't get how a major scholar from a prestigious institution like
Stanford can propose nuclear power when we
haven't figured out how to deal with nuclear waste. Put aside safety
concerns. We haven't even yet agreed on a temporary waste site in South
Dakota, let alone a long term solution. Did this guy fail logic
101 in the first year along the way to his advanced degree. Maybe he
assumes the waste just won't be stored in his own hometown. Or maybe he is blinded
by the glare of light reflected off the diploma on his wall.
Melvyn Polatchek
1:29:54 AM 
|
