Nuclear energy can answer our needs

I agree in part with the Monday letter regarding peak oil. It noted our present state of oil consumption is untenable in the long run.

What I disagree with is the writers’ conclusion that driving alone in one’s car is “obsolete.” What the letter fails to state is that cars do not necessarily need oil to run. Cars can run on electricity, hydrogen and many synthetically-produced alternatives to the fuels we use.

To manufacture these fuels, and in some cases replace them, it is necessary to find an abundant source of energy.

Here’s the other half of the equation, best stated by investment guru John Mauldin, referring to the oil dilemma:

“… if we would start a project to build a massive nuclear infrastructure, such as in France, which produces 80 percent of its energy from nuclear, while at the same time pushing ahead in a Manhattan-type project the development of electric cars (or some hybrid), we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower travel costs by the middle to the end of the next decade. And the environment would be cleaner and safer.”

The New York Times has noted many European countries are considering or committing to nuclear energy programs. Reasons include falling oil supplies/high prices, concerns about greenhouse gases, dependence on foreign oil supplies, and the inability of solar and wind power, and conservation, to make a significant dent in power needs.

Nuclear energy could easily solve all of our power needs. I believe inevitably it will have to.

I also believe the hype over the “danger” of nuclear energy is a red herring for those whose only real wish is to force us into power-deprived, less-prosperous lifestyles. Their greatest fear is abundant power, whether it is clean or not. Nuclear power is the ultimate threat to these activists who wish us, to paraphrase the late Dixie Lee Ray, to “tend sheep.”

David Dahlberg

Snohomish