The NY Times editorial page has, for years and years, been pro-nuclear power. With all the usual blinders on. Whatever. But columnist Bob Herbert had a pretty hard-hitting take last week: “We’re Not Ready.” He likens the blithe indifference on safety at offshore oil rigs to that on nuclear power.
There is no way to overstate how cautiously we need to proceed along this treacherous road. Building nuclear power plants is mind-bogglingly expensive, which is why you need taxpayer money to kick-start the process. But the overriding issues we need to be concerned about, especially in light of our horrendous experience with the oil gushing in the gulf for so long, are safety and security.
The Times printed my letter in response, alongside one from the Nuclear Energy Institute and one from a guy pushing a new, “safe” technology. Here’s mine:
This analysis of nuclear power is on the money. Safety is a concern that needs to be uppermost in the minds of those in the headlong rush to institute a “nuclear renaissance.” It’s not.
The cost of nuclear power and the radioactive waste it produces are two other critical issues. And there are more, like the threat of terrorism and the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation when there are more reactors in countries with unstable political environments.
We would be much better off if we took the huge federal loan guarantees for nuclear power and used them for renewable-energy and energy-efficiency programs. There would be a significantly greater and faster return.
We should be looking toward a true “decarbonization” of our energy economy. This would create more jobs, more quickly and at less cost, and provide significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions much sooner.
