Brenden Heidrich defends nuclear power in the Oct. 21 letter "Former Gov.'s energy stance of pressing importance, merit." When we focus on comparing the carbon dioxide emissions of nuclear with coal in an effort to inform choices about how to provide energy in the future, we make several errors of judgment.
One is that there is no future for coal as we will run out of it in about 100 years and it has a lot of negative environmental impacts. We should be comparing nuclear with solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.
Two, nuclear power makes concentrated, highly radioactive wastes that are unlike anything life has seen. That is what people fear. That is why the political process has stalled the selection of a "permanent" waste disposal site in the U.S. Technologists are no more important than anyone else in this decision. Heidrich's claim that nuclear waste disposal has a long history (50 years) pales in comparison to the hundreds and thousands of years needed to manage these wastes.
A third judgment error is assuming that we have to maintain, and even grow, a high throughput, energy intensive society. It's time to progress to a more sustainable state with emphasis on human development and the flourishing of life. Renewable energy can provide our energy without a need for nuclear.
Andy Lau
associate professor of engineering
