In Prof. Andy Lau's Oct. 20 letter "Nuclear energy not portrayed accurately by former Pa. gov.," he calls into question the comments that former Gov. Tom Ridge made on nuclear power. The context was nuclear weapons and environmental effects. The logic of Prof. Lau's comments is specious.

Nuclear power is not "inherently tied to" the "nuclear weapons industry." They both have a common historical origin, namely, nuclear fission. However, the modern, nuclear power plant evolved from the nuclear-propelled submarine, developed in the early 1950s. Likewise, commercial, jet aircraft evolved from post WWII military aircraft. However, we do not associate passenger aircraft with airborne weapons of war. Although commonly confused with it, nuclear power is not an instrument of war or terrorism.

To say that we are not disposing of nuclear waste is deceptive. The accepted practice is to store spent nuclear fuel on the sites of nuclear reactors, where it is safe and secure. Although executing long-term storage in, for example, Yucca Mountain, has been politically problematic, the current method of storage is sufficient. Moreover, this spent fuel that contains fissile plutonium will be readily available for reprocessing to produce new fuel, when, in several decades, uranium becomes scarce and expensive.

To say that "nuclear power generates less carbon dioxide than coal" is an egregious understatement. Essentially no carbon dioxide arises directly from the consumption of nuclear fuel. Whereas, coal-fired plants produce amounts of carbon dioxide proportional to the amount of coal burned. Typically, a conventional coal-fired plant consumes a trainload of coal per day, from which it produces about 10 percent of a trainload of ash and a commensurate amount of carbon dioxide.

Gary Catchen

professor of nuclear engineering