Letter: Nuclear power should be banned

Friday, Jan. 9, 2004 | 9:03 a.m.

America's proposed energy policy defies common sense but can be explained by campaign contributions from the nuclear power producers. A $5 billion subsidy for the nuclear power producers is not based on sound science or sound economics. When the costs of storing and protecting the toxic nuclear waste is added to production costs and subsidies, nuclear power is the most expensive and dangerous method of producing electricity.

Fifty years ago the U.S. government saddled the American taxpayers with the costs for storing nuclear waste. Then the Price Anderson legislation limited the costs to the nuclear power producers in the event of catastrophe. If it's so safe, why the protection for the nuclear industry?

The Bush administration and Congress should declare a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain to be scientifically unsound. And the $5 billion subsidy for the nuclear power industry should be eliminated because there are viable alternatives.

Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy are slowly abandoning nuclear power for sources such as wind, solar, natural gas and geothermal. In this country, Nevada should be the test bed for wind, solar and geothermal. Regarding natural gas, production could be substantially increased, and the cost reduced, by allowing the proposed Alaska pipeline to take the least expensive and shorter route to connect into existing pipelines. These measures would lead to a cleaner environment and a more secure America.

FRANK PERNA