In her Jan. 1 letter to the editor, responding to Richard Bedard’s Dec. 28 Maine Voices column promoting nuclear power as a zero-carbon energy source, Sigrid Olson states no new nuclear plants should be built until there is a national solution for safe disposal of nuclear waste. This reaction is an example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Trade-offs exist in every solution for reducing carbon emissions, but adverse consequences are rarely made explicit.

Sustainable energy sources have not been growing fast enough to make any discernible effect on atmospheric carbon, and wind and solar power are demonstrably unreliable for operating the electric power grid. All wind and solar installations require a backup, fossil fuel-generated power source.

While energy generated by wind and solar power appears benign, the components used in manufacturing the turbines and panels are less environmentally friendly, the turbines requiring quantities of rare earth minerals, mined and refined under toxic conditions in China, and the panels requiring potentially critical minerals that could leach harmful substances.

The life span of solar panels is only 25 to 30 years (20 to 25 years for turbines). Vast numbers of used turbines containing environmentally toxic elements will need to be disposed of safely, but no national plan has been proposed.

After construction a nuclear power plant will run for at least 50 years at minimal cost. While no national depository exists, nuclear waste is currently encased in cement at plant sites, and to date there have been no radiation leakages. And, unlike wind turbines, nuclear power plants do not slaughter birds.

Janet Jones
Freeport

Copy the Story Link