Environment can benefit from nuclear power

The Dec. 13 guest column, “Nuclear power not solution to global warming,” is a thoughtless, undocumented attack on nuclear power. Authors Julian Boggs and Maureen McCue claim wind and solar to be “smart and sensible” energy solutions. They say nuclear power is too expensive and can barely make a dent in global warming pollution in the next 20 years.

I will refute their claim. Here is a comparison of projected costs for new power generation provided recently by SCANA Corp's CEO, Bill Timmerman: The per megawatt hour (MWh) cost of electricity with nuclear fuel is $76, compared with $114 for coal, $132 for wind, and $614 for solar. He concluded, “Building more nuclear power plants promises to hold down future electric costs.”

Large government subsidies keep wind and solar competitive. The Energy Information Administration reports the 2007 federal subsidy for wind at $23.37/MWh and for solar at $24.34/MWh. In contrast, the federal energy subsidy for nuclear was only $1.59/MWh.

Building comparable generating capacity from diffuse and intermittent energy sources takes a toll on our mineral resources. Wind needs seven times more concrete and 90 times more steel than nuclear. Thermal solar requires 14 times more concrete and 140 times more steel than nuclear.

Nuclear power is the safest and most achievable and economical solution.

John Tjostem

Emeritus professor of biology

Decorah