Unfettered Letters

Oil and coal won’t last forever

We concern ourselves with loss of habitat — rain forests, wetlands, river pollution — even though these trends may be reversible. But expenditure of petroleum and coal falls into the irreversible category. When they are gone, they are gone.

The answer is not to discover and pump more oil or mine more coal to be used as fuel from the finite supply produced in nature over eons. Nor is the long-run answer atomic energy, for the availability of radioactive elements usable as “atomic” fuel is also finite.

The answer to our need for energy in the form of fuel must be in renewable sources — solar, wind, organic, hydrothermal, wave (which are largely solar energy stored in different configurations).

Petroleum and coal are not recyclable, like metals, nor can they economically synthesized as the chemical base for numerous products, much less as fuel.

We cannot presume that practical sources of unlimited energy, such as atomic fusion, will become available before we expend all our oil, coal and uranium — if ever.

Our legacy to the future must be that we recognized the finite aspects of natural resources and ceased their profligate dissipation.

Harvey A. Jetmore Jr.
Roeland Park

Nuclear waste

Just as we are awakening to being “green” conscious by doing what is good for the Earth, nuclear-waste lobbyists are intending to kill a bill that bans Italy’s 20,000 tons of low-level waste from being taken to a Utah dump (4/17, Business, “Lobbying to import nuclear waste”).

If Italy receives permission to send its waste, surely other countries will also apply.

Nuclear waste is already being transported through Missouri via rail and truck. The state does not have to receive notification of low-level waste (gloves, protective clothing, tools) before transportation. However, it does have to be notified before shipments of nuclear spent-fuel waste, which is done periodically. It was under the “Atoms for Peace” program that President Eisenhower agreed to accept such waste from foreign countries in order for them to agree to doing research work for peaceful means.

But where does this leave us? Accidents can happen from point A to B: Trucks collide, trains derail and ships sink. And politicians and corporations make money.

Laura Herdman
Lake Lotawana

Nuclear power

There are constant letters and articles about power from wind, coal and the sun, but there is never a mention of nuclear power. Why is that?

More than 100 nuclear power plants operate throughout the country. Kansas and Missouri each has a nuclear power plant. Most people couldn’t tell you where they are.

Clean, renewable fuel of the future? We’re using it.

Edmond T. Doherty
Overland Park

Nuclear power

Your March 3 editorial “Nuclear power still has too many questions to become immediate fix” misrepresents the situation concerning nuclear waste management and plant decommissioning, and the associated costs.

Utilities are required by law to provide long-term trust funds that will pay for plant decommissioning, and for all waste management, storage and final disposal costs. A steady contribution of only a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour generated is sufficient to pay for all these costs. Thus, all those costs are fully paid for by the utility, and are therefore fully reflected in the price charged for nuclear electricity.

Any risks associated with the storage or disposal of nuclear waste, or nuclear power in general, are negligible compared to those associated with fossil fuels. Nuclear waste is generated in tiny volumes, has always been completely contained, and has never killed anyone. Western nuclear power plants have never had any measurable impact on public health over their entire 40-year history.

James E. Hopf
Public Information Committee
American Nuclear Society
San Jose, Calif.

Time for nuclear power

We are well overdue for building the next generation of nuclear plants, having squandered decades burning polluting coal, oil and natural gas (2/28, A-1, “Nuclear power regains its luster”). And now the anti-nuclear lobbyists are trying to tell us that conservation and alternatives can meet all our desires, and that we have no need for nuclear.

Certainly conservation — when it leads to efficiency and not sitting in the cold and dark — is worthwhile, and we have made great strides in efficiency. Homes are better insulated, and cars like the Prius get excellent gas mileage. The alternatives are another matter. Most are uneconomical without massive subsidies. And although we will need every possible energy resource to take us into the future, we have spent billions of dollars on developing alternatives over the last 30 years with almost nothing to show for it. Yes, we do need new nuclear units now.

William H. Miller
Professor, Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute
University of Missouri Research Reactor Center
University of Missouri-Columbia

Nuclear power

While browsing the newly acquired books at the Corinth Library, I ran across Power To Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens with an introduction by Kansas City native and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes.

It is a remarkable study of the development and history of nuclear energy. I believe it should be read as a sequel to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

It is well-balanced and, if read, will dispel many of the misconceptions and fears concerning nuclear energy.

You will discover that nuclear energy is not only safe and economical but also the most environmentally neutral of all our sources of generated electricity.

One of the most fascinating chapters covers the reactor research, development and testing. She describes the newest and most promising reactor technology, the IFR, which is safer and will reconstitute waste from other reactors, as well as convert weapons-grade uranium for recycling in nuclear power generation.

This and other new technologies are waiting to be deployed. All that is needed is public understanding and acceptance.

I would like to second the praise given in Lewis Diuguid’s recent commentary for our libraries and, in particular, the staff at Corinth for featuring this book.

Mic Morris
Overland Park

Cleaner, safer energy

With the threat of global warming becoming real and apparent, it is necessary for the United States, who leads the world in carbon dioxide emissions, to take action in converting to cleaner, more efficient and safer energy. Wind and solar energy are perhaps the cleanest, but don’t come close to the efficiency of nuclear power.

Nuclear power does not contribute to global warming and is relatively safe. Ninety percent of France’s energy comes from nuclear power, so I don’t see why we couldn’t do it here. America needs to take action and lead the world towards cleaner energy, which would in turn alleviate pressures and dependency on oil.

Those who are hesitant to move towards nuclear power don’t seem to realize that few people have been harmed by this resource when it remains simply an energy source. Its usage in America could lead to not only environmental, but economic gains.

Eddie Bagnall
Liberty

Hazards of radioactivity

Inspired into anti-nuclear activism by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring myself, I want to correct a mistaken impression in your article “Green heroine” (4/28, FYI).

The proposed Yucca Mountain, Nev., national dump site for high-level radioactive waste is not a done deal. In fact, it’s looking more and more like it will never open.

Just as happened at the previously targeted salt formations at Lyons, Kan., the scientific studies at Yucca have shown the site to be entirely unsuitable geologically. This is good news for Kansas City.

If the Yucca dump is ever opened, your community would be one of the hardest hit in the country in terms of high-level radioactive waste shipments by truck and train bound for Yucca.

These “mobile Chernobyls” and “dirty bombs on wheels” could release catastrophic amounts of radioactivity in the event of a severe accident or attack.

Carson’s Silent Spring not only warned about the dangers of toxic chemicals, it also warned about the hazards of radioactivity.

Kevin Kamps
Nuclear waste specialist, Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Takoma Park, Md.

Yucca Mountain problems

I agree with your editorial of Aug. 31 that we should not build new nuclear reactors until we’ve begun to bury the present inventory of wastes, but I’m afraid Yucca Mountain has become entangled in a legal black hole from which it will never escape.

The past four years have seen suit after suit filed, and the end is not in sight because there are so many things to sue over.

One is the water leakage problem at Yucca. Another is the storage-can corrosion problem. And still more are the several studies that were not properly conducted.

When Yucca was selected in 1987, it was thought dry, but it isn’t. The C-22 alloy can was thought corrosion-free, but it isn’t. It was trusted that the scientific studies by scientists would be conducted correctly, but several weren’t.

Nevada’s lawyers have enough problems to keep them busy for another generation.

Ron Bourgoin
Rocky Mount, N.C.

No to nuclear plant

Missourians for Safe Energy is working to discourage our power company from building a second nuclear reactor in Calloway County, Mo., for these reasons:

1. Uranium is limited and will be depleted if many new plants are built.
2. Nuclear energy is not clean. Uranium mining pollutes soil, air and water. Transporting uranium uses polluting fossil-fuel vehicles.
3. Building nuclear reactors is expensive. Even more expensive is covering the potential damage in case of accident. No insurance company will underwrite a nuclear plant for this reason. Therefore, by law, the federal government, i.e., the taxpayer, is forced to be the insurer at a huge financial risk.
4. Nuclear energy is not safe. In addition to the risk of an accident that could release deadly radiation, the whole process is vulnerable to terrorist attack — uranium or spent fuel in transport, the reactor itself and temporarily stored spent fuel.

Nuclear energy is profitable only to the nuclear industry and only because the public takes all the risk. Developing renewable sources of energy would require a smaller investment and be less vulnerable to accident or attack.

Claire Garden
Missourians for Safe Energy
Columbia