THE SAFEST ALTERNATIVE
(In response to David Colthart’s April 20 column, “More nuclear power please.”)
If only more sober assessments like this were published in mainstream media sources while the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Plant was in its opening stages. Unfortunately, there seems to be a policy of deliberate misinformation when it comes to nuclear energy.
It seems as if many environmentalists in governments and NGOs throughout the developed world want to have their cake and eat it too. Meanwhile, developing nations like Brazil, India and China are powering ahead with the construction of a new generation of fast breeder reactors that are unparalleled in terms of efficiency, safety and sustainability.
The fact is, if we’re talking about green energy, nuclear is the single safest and most efficient source of energy that is both commercially viable and widely available.
Building a new nuclear plant requires a lot of initial capital investment, but unlike wind farms and solar power arrays they don’t really require intensive government subsidies, not to mention they practically pay for themselves after less than a decade of operation.
Fusion power, however, has been “30 years away” since the 1970s, and after billions of dollars of investment by governments throughout the world we remain at that mythical 30-year mark.
Let’s also not forget the sheer abundance of fissile materials that can be used to fuel reactors throughout the world, recycled material from cold-war era weaponry alone is enough to adequately meet market demands for the next few decades.
Michael Piscopo
Statepress.com reader
