Efficiency is best near term energy investment

Alan Eckert |

7/20/2008 - 7/20/08

Nuclear energy advocates such as Richard Allison ("What politicians aren't telling us about wind power," July 13) and Stanley Logan (letter to editor, same date), simply aren't addressing the fundamental problem with nuclear power.

High-level radioactive wastes, an unavoidable by-product of nuclear power, must be isolated from the environment for many thousands of years — time frames conceivable only in geological, not human terms. The best solution that the government has been able to adduce for this problem is the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, which sits in a high-risk earthquake zone and overtops an aquifer that currently — not 10,000 years from now — is used by a nearby farming community. It is no answer to say, as Dr. Logan does, that nuclear wastes reduce the worldwide burden of radioactivity because they take it from dispersed underground low-level sources and concentrate it in a handful of deadly locations. Building more nukes simply mortgages the future safety and health of the human race in a way for which we have no acceptable solution.

The second unaddressed issue is efficiency. Most of the debate centers around increasing energy supply, but in fact, in the near term we cannot responsibly produce our way out of the mess we are in.

Coal-plant carbon sequestration hasn't been demonstrated on a commercial scale, and will be expensive.

Our existing heavy reliance on coal plants will continue until we have sufficient renewable sources that can be networked efficiently with reliable base-load units (these can include geothermal and even solar, by the way). Until then, we can make tremendous strides by efficiency improvements. The Swiss live very nicely while consuming less than half the energy per capita as Americans.

Combating climate change will require sacrifice. No presidential candidate has yet been willing to say this, but it is a fact.

Alan Eckert lives in Santa Fe.