Regarding various energy-related letters since Oct. 20, I appreciate the lively debate that this exchange of ideas has fostered. I do need to clarify a few points though.

First, nuclear power compares well with any electricity generation source. The International Energy Agency (IEA) computed lifecycle emissions for hydro, nuclear, wind, solar PV biomass, CCNG and coal in 2000. Only hydropower had lower expected lifecycle carbon emissions than nuclear power. In terms of cost, while nuclear power plants are expensive to build, they are among the cheapest to operate. The IEA found in a recent study of more than 130 power plants of different types that nuclear power had the lowest levelized costs over the plant's lifetime.

Second, nuclear power is the only power source to have its lifetime costs fully internalized. Nuclear utilities are required to have money on hand to decommission the plant when its useful life is up. They also pay $0.001/kwh into the Nuclear Waste Fund so that the spent nuclear fuel can be taken care of. The disposition of the spent fuel is a matter of national policy, which has yet to be decided. Contrary to Andy Lau's statement in his letter, the engineers and scientists will be the ones to implement this policy. Whether the administration decides that a deep geologic depository or fuel recycling is the appropriate solution, the technical community will implement the plan with due regard to the health and safety of the public.

Finally, the solution to our energy crisis and climate change will be a mix of efficiency improvements coupled with current and future energy technologies. Nuclear power has proven itself to be a worthy part of that mix and probably the sole solution for low-carbon base-load electricity. Nuclear power can act as a bridge from the current carbon-based economy to the future.

Brenden Heidrich

senior research assistant

Radiation Science and Engineering Center