[cdn-nucl-l] "Nuclear energy 'best choice' by far "

Friends,

This is an excellent letter from an NA-YGN spokesman.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide

===================

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050815/OPINION/508150313/1009

August 15, 2005

Nuclear energy 'best choice' by far

Guest columnist Ruth Pullen seems to believe that unless everything can stand on its own in a competitive market, then it should fail ("Myths indicate nuclear power not best choice," Aug. 8). If we applied this same litmus test to things like telecommunications, interstate construction and national defense, I shudder to think what the implications would be.

No doubt, if these standards were applied to "renewable sources" like wind, solar, and biomass, they would certainly fail. Even with massive government subsidies to the tune of $18 per megawatt hour, these renewable sources cannot compete.

At present, 80 percent of the nation's electricity comes from either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. How can we meet the nation's energy needs while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels without nuclear energy?

Each year, the burning of fossil fuels pours more and more pollution into the atmosphere resulting in thousands of deaths from mining accidents and respiratory distress. According to many scientists this also brings us much closer to the point of no return in global warming.

But, the good news is that we do not have to choose between plentiful, inexpensive energy and global warming. The technology to produce energy in a clean and efficient manner — nuclear energy — has been used and steadily improved over the last 50 years.

The nuclear industry is the only form of electrical generation required to contain its waste. Since a small amount of uranium about the size of the tip of your little finger has the energy equivalent of about 2,000 pounds of coal, the amount of waste it produces is extremely small, and since it remains solid, it is easily contained.

Last year, in Mississippi alone, nuclear energy avoided the emission of 47,800 tons of sulfur dioxide, 16,300 tons of nitrogen oxide, and 9.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

What's more amazing is that used nuclear fuel should not be called "waste," since approximately 95 percent of the energy is still contained in it. It should be reprocessed and recycled as fuel for future energy supplies.

Ruth Pullen is right: It's only "myths" that indicate nuclear power is not the best choice. However, the facts indicate that nuclear power is a far better choice than the alternatives.

Perhaps this is why so many environmentalists including Dr. James Lovelock and Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore have publicly voiced their support for nuclear energy.

Michael Stuart
Public information officer
North American Young Generation in Nuclear
Beaverdam, Va.