Nuclear power critic is clutching at straws

PAUL LYNCH (Letters, April 21) is clutching at straws in his attempt to attack nuclear power.

He is, of course, technically correct in asserting that nuclear power makes a contribution to global warming, though it’s very small in comparison with power produced by fossil fuels.

The mining of uranium and its transport across the globe undoubtedly produces some small amount of greenhouse gases — but very little in comparison with what is produced by the mining of coal and the drilling of oil and gas, and the burning of it to produce electricity.

And of course the transport of workers to a nuclear plant would contribute to global warming as well, just as it does with current non-nuclear plants.

Mr Lynch asks about the cost of storing and guarding radioactive waste.

Actually, the cost would not be great and, in any case, isn’t it much preferable to dispose of the waste safely rather than allowing CO2, sulphur dioxide and other noxious gases to escape and cause damage? He need not worry about the availability of uranium and other nuclear fuels such as thorium.

These are in plentiful supply and, fortunately, are found in more dependable countries than those from which we get our fossil fuels.

Present estimates are that there is sufficient nuclear fuel to last a 100 years or more.

By then it is most likely that fusion power will be available; it will last as long as there’s water in the sea.

Solar, wind and waves can contribute usefully, but nuclear energy is the sole source of the dependable and constant electricity supply on which our society relies.

It would be perverse of us not to consider it seriously.

David Sowby

Knocksinna Crescent

Dublin 18