So many risks involved if we stick with nuclear power stations
I refer to your editorial ('Nuclear power not ideal but it may still be best bet', March 20). It does not tell the whole picture, and the debate is an important one which should be carried forward.
Your argument essentially rests on the premise that nuclear energy holds the key to solving the global energy crisis and climate change. With enough checks and balances, and high design and safety standards, nuclear energy, unlike hydro-electric, solar and wind energy, can act as a cheap and reliable source of energy.
This argument is dubious on several fronts. First, nuclear power is vulnerable to the problem it intends to solve - climate change. Nuclear plants are highly water intensive, and are normally built beside rivers, lakes or oceans. Plants on the coast will be subject to the increasing incidence of storms and hurricanes and rising sea levels. Inland facilities will put serious strains on freshwater resources and damage ecosystems.
Second, the nuclear proposition looks risky when you consider the whole nuclear cycle. For most nuclear power nations, uranium has to be imported. But nobody seems too concerned about a disruption in shipments or seizure by terrorists and pirates. Then there is the problem of storing or reprocessing nuclear waste. The scientific community is as yet unclear about how long this waste has to be stored. Humanity has to live with increasing numbers of dangerous, poisonous complexes, and a militarised guard must be maintained virtually forever.
Third, the claim that a credible system of checks and balances can be maintained is questionable. With deregulation of the industry, rising competition leads to cost-cutting, cover-ups and safety abuses. In a world where disasters are getting bigger and happening more often, it is clear that current and future plants will require prodigious outlays so far not factored in. If the potential costs are factored in, by way of insurance for example, the industry would be unsustainable.
And that's to say nothing of the risks of human error or terrorist attack. As previous accidents have shown, if errors occur the consequences could threaten the very survival of humanity.