Letter: Don't let fear of nuclear power nullify real danger of oil reliance
The adverse impacts of climate change are now obvious, increasing in severity, and costing more to mitigate and adapt to. America and wealthier countries are working to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for all the right reasons, and now we have another reason: they cost too much.
The war in Ukraine and supply disruptions have resulted in spectacular increases in oil and natural gas prices. Energy and price stability will never be solved by more drilling, not when their costs are subject to the whims of global markets and authoritarian regimes.
We need an all of the above energy strategy including wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear. What we don't need is more anti-nuclear fear mongering such as that from activist David Kraft (Guest Opinion: Beware a Trojan Horse for nuclear bailouts, March 16).
Contrary to what Mr. Kraft implies, there are no significant safety concerns associated with nuclear waste storage, and nuclear and renewables are vastly safer than fossil fuels, according to the nonprofit Our World in Data. Death rates aren't even close, even including Chernobyl. The volume of nuclear waste in the U.S. is incredibly small. Used fuel of all commercial reactors since the 1950s would cover a football field to a height of about 10 yards. It is safely stored in solid form, posing no significant risk while awaiting final disposal or recycling.
Illinois is fortunate to have nuclear providing over 50% of its electricity needs.
America needs an energy policy that considers the total systemwide costs of electric generation mixes. When costs of fossil pollution are no longer ignored, and the entire life cycle costs of clean alternatives are fully considered (mining, manufacturing, energy storage, land use, environmental, lifetime and disposal), advanced nuclear power makes a lot of sense. Let's let these factors determine our energy future and leave manufactured fear out of the equation.
Thomas Rausch
Glen Ellyn