Nuclear Power for Energy Needs

* Bertram Wolfe, in “Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Energy Scarcity” (Commentary, Sept. 18), says he believes we need nuclear power and that high-level nuclear waste disposal is a “political” and not a technical issue. Exactly how does he plan to guarantee to future generations, for over 10,000 years, that the disposal techniques will be satisfactory? Engineering principles say that a prototype has to be tested for a life cycle (at least 10,000 years, in this case) to provide such a guarantee. This is certainly a technical matter and hardly political.

As for nonpolluting energy sources, the solar thermal units at Kramer Junction could not be expanded by Luz some years ago because no utility would buy the electric power. Maybe we had better revisit the subject of the expansion of our solar and wind alternatives.

SHELDON C. PLOTKIN

Exec. Board Member, Southern

California Federation of Scientists

Los Angeles

*

It was gratifying to see a positive commentary on nuclear power. After 25 years of research, development and field operations in alternative energy sources, the conclusion is that solar, wind and geothermal together can provide only a fraction of our electricity needs into the future. While nuclear power is fully capable of providing 100% of our electricity, only 15% is currently produced by nuclear generating plants in the U.S. France now produces 80% of its electricity from nuclear power and has demonstrated it can do so both economically and safely.

We cannot expand the use of nuclear power overnight, but we can begin now to plan an expanded role for nuclear-generated electricity that will relieve an even greater energy crisis in the future.

NICK SIMON

San Juan Capistrano

*

Rather than make a point-by-point refutation of the disingenuous arguments made in Wolfe’s commentary, it is sufficient to note that the actions of those most familiar with nuclear power belie their expressed confidence in the safety of the industry. For example, nuclear power plant owners and operators will not agree to repeal the Price-Anderson Act, which limits their liability in the case of a nuclear meltdown. Owners and operators are not willing to pledge themselves financially responsible for any damage caused by a radiation disaster and post sufficient bond as a surety of that pledge. Insurance companies specifically exempt themselves from issuing homeowner insurance that covers damage caused by a meltdown.

Verbal assurances of nuclear power safety ring hollow when the captains of industry most familiar with the risks refuse to put their pocketbooks on the line as a show of confidence in the safety of the industry. They know full well that the risks involved are very real and potentially catastrophic. The public should not accept the building of a new nuclear power plant until the industry shows its good faith by being fully liable for the nuclear-related calamities it claims can never happen.

THOMAS DOBRZENIECKI

Costa Mesa