Nuclear power part of the answer

IN his letter headlined ‘Nuclear energy not worth the risk’ (September 22), Dr Philip Michael has many contentious arguments to make against nuclear power that need to be answered, although too many to tackle here.

To begin with, he repeats the very modern myth that there is not enough uranium to sustain the nuclear energy industry into the future.

He says that “supplies of high grade uranium (which is the only type currently worth mining) will be exhausted in about 80 years”.

His statement is — to say the least — an oversimplification, but even if correct, for the sake of argument, it has to be said that today’s nuclear power technology may be obsolete in 80 years anyway and replaced by something better.

We will soon arrive at the point of peak oil, while the use of fossil fuels is unacceptable because of their contribution to CO2 levels, so we need something to sustain us for at least half a century.

Renewables such as wind can help, as can energy conservation and contributions from solar and other technologies, but they cannot provide the whole solution. Nuclear power will have to be part of the mix. As for Dr Michael’s suggestion that the result of the use of nuclear power would be “permanently and irrevocably to contaminate the earth for the sake of eight decades of dubious power”, it must be said the amount of nuclear waste to which he refers will be very small and disposed of safely forever.

Radioactive products cannot in fact cause permanent contamination as they decay over time into safe materials.

There are far more dangerous products, and they remain dangerous forever. The most dangerous of all is CO2. No other energy source — including biofuels, solar and even hydroelectric — produce less CO2 than does nuclear.

That is the essence of our choice. We can choose nuclear power and accept the very manageable risks posed by it, or pursue more polluting technologies that create the unmanageable risks posed by excessive levels of CO2 and which threaten unimaginable environmental catastrophe.

Dr Michael says: “We certainly need new energy sources, but not at the expense of rendering large parts of the earth uninhabitable.”

It is becoming increasingly clear that unless effective action is taken to stop climate change, large parts of the earth will indeed become uninhabitable.

Nuclear power is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

John Stafford

136 Dargle Wood

Knocklyon

Dublin 16