Tuesday, July 12, 2005 | 9:13 a.m.
Frank Perna's support for alternate, or "green" fuels, was right on message in his July 8 letter. The problem is that he's about 30 or 40 years ahead of his time.
Yes, wind and solar power generation technology exists today but without taxpayer or ratepayer subsidies it is not yet cost-effective. Solar cells typically require batteries to store energy. A significant amount of energy is required to extract the necessary raw materials to produce and then dispose of solar cells and batteries.
All forms of energy consumption have environmental impact. It doesn't matter if the energy source is coal, oil, bio, nuclear, wind or solar. Producing and storing energy involves tradeoffs. Hydrogen power is attractive until you understand the costs involved to produce and distribute it.
For the foreseeable future, fossil fuels will still be our primary energy source. There is still an ample supply of oil, gas and coal. The support infrastructures for these fuels are in place. As newer, low-cost technologies evolve, fossil fuel producers will continue to lower their prices until they are forced to abandon this energy source or until it is depleted.
Today, the most cost-effective and environmentally unfriendly form of energy is nuclear. Regardless of Nevada's stand on Yucca Mountain, the nuclear waste storage site will probably come to pass. Anyone believing, however, that it can be made safe for 10,000 years is not in touch with reality. The hope is that sometime in the next several hundred years, methods for reprocessing nuclear fuel rods will be developed so that they can be reused and rendered harmless.
RICHARD RYCHTARIK
archive
