Nuclear energy carries many kinds of risks

We desire energy independence from foreign oil and we need cleaner energy, but nuclear energy is not the best alternative.

Too expensive to survive under capitalism, the nuclear industry wants government subsidies. The result would be dependence on energy plants and companies too big to fail. They would use their corporate power to get bailouts. There are obvious lessons from banking that we can apply here.

I propose that our government does continue to support nuclear research and development but on the scale of what we gave to solar and wind and other alternatives back in the 1970s.

The rest of what we can afford should assist more decentralized (more democratic and more jobs), cheaper and safer means of energy production.

Smart energy grids and increased energy efficiency are, of course, also great courses of action.

For those who find nuclear attractive, I advise checking out how much it is costing the French (government-owned) company, Areva, to construct a plant in Finland. It is also taking a lot longer than predicted, another large drawback to nuclear.

The long-term waste disposal problem has not been solved after decades of effort. For those who do not worry about the safety of nuclear energy, I advise reading about leaking radioactive Tritium at the Vermont Yankee plant. This plant, which went online in 1972, two years before Duane Arnold in Palo, was recently denied a 20-year extension of its license.

Bruce R. Bachmann

Cedar Rapids