Nuclear power is underrated

One important subject none of the presidential candidates is addressing is our need for nuclear power.

Because of ignorance of the technology, many Americans are prone to taking emotional, irrational positions on the subject. A letter from an anti-nuclear power group in the April 9 Daily Herald is a case in point.

It talks about "the dangerous, long-lived high-level radioactive wastes" generated by nuclear power. The fact is that modern nuclear power plants, such as those used in France, Japan, etc., do not generate nuclear waste. They "recycle" their waste products. Several countries use such nuclear power to generate at least 80 percent of their electricity.

In the U.S., though, we are still burdened by laws written decades ago, when current technology didn't exist. We did the same thing when we outlawed drilling for oil in much of our offshore continental shelves, and the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve, on what today are pseudo-environmental grounds.

The effect of all these mistakes is to force us to use much more oil and natural gas than should be necessary. It is this situation that is dramatically helping Big Oil reap enormous profits, while dramatically increasing our trade deficit. (This is also another area in which H.R. 25, The Fair Tax Act, would be a great help.)

Wind and solar power are not solutions. They can help, but there is no way they can provide the levels of power we need, or the growth in electric power we need. Wind power is only viable in a few locations, in which the wind is unusually steady and strong. Solar power is only available half the time, and covering the country with solar cells wouldn't provide the level of power we will soon need.

Also both wind and solar power have enormous economic problems due to their inconsistent power output. The grid requires steady power input, which forces wind and solar facilities to have conventional backup power for the full renewable power potential, i.e., two power generation facilities, both of which are used only part-time.

In much of the country, we use oil to generate electricity and natural gas for electric power "peaker plants." This is particularly ironic, now that hydrogen-fueled cars are viable. Hydrogen burns "cleanly." The exhaust, oxidized hydrogen, is water. Problems with emissions are gone. Engines can be more efficient, because they don't have to be strangled to minimize emissions.

But hydrogen is most economically obtained by electrolysis, separating the hydrogen in water from the oxygen. The electric energy used is as much as the energy available in the hydrogen produced, so if fossil fuels generate the electricity, more fossil fuels will be consumed, rather than less. If modern nuclear electric power is used, however, hydrogen-fueled cars make sense, importing oil and natural gas will be greatly reduced, emissions by new cars will be eliminated, and the nuclear waste problem will disappear.

Peter G. Malone

St. Charles