Multifaceted energy policy must include nuclear

Follow us on

Date published: 9/7/2005

This is in response to a letter ["More nuclear plants and more oil don't make good policy," Aug. 31]. It might be hard for Aviv Goldsmith to remember, but way back in the early 1970s, when nuclear technology was young, the U.S. generated about 20 percent of its electricity from oil.

By the 1980s, less than 10 percent of electricity was generated from oil, and today it is virtually nonexistent. In the '70s and '80s, nuclear energy replaced oil in the electrical energy market. Because of advances in hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear stands ready to replace oil yet again as a fuel for automobiles.

Today's advanced reactor designs are ideally suited for the production of both electricity and hydrogen, a critical component to our future energy independence.

The U.S. imports nearly half of its oil. One would think that if demand is cut by 50 percent, then we would not import any oil at all, but one would be very wrong.

The cost of oil production in Saudi Arabia is about 80 cents a barrel. Compare that to the domestic production cost of about $10. If oil demand was reduced, the cheap foreign oil will still be bought first, putting a financial strain on domestic suppliers.

Ironically, cutting oil consumption would most likely increase our dependence on foreign oil. Instead of doubling gas mileage, we should stop using oil altogether.

As for the waste issue, calling spent nuclear fuel "waste" is like calling used motor oil "waste." More than 90 percent of the energy contained in used nuclear fuel is still there. As with used motor oil, we should recycle this fuel and use it as a source for future energy supplies.

The energy bill is right-on in promoting the use of nuclear energy, as well as the use of renewables and encouraging conservation. It puts the U.S. another step closer to energy independence and security.

Michael Stuart

Hanover

Date published: 9/7/2005