Nuclear energy could be a solution if we can deal with waste

I agree with much of Frank Baumann’s Dec. 16 letter to the editor in which he advocated we curtail our use of fossil fuels, and his recommendation to rely on nuclear energy as a primary energy source if, and only if, we rid that energy source of its inevitable waste product — one of the most durable toxic substances known to humanity. Our current technology enables us to use only a small portion of the energy available in uranium — as little as 10 percent by some estimates. The rest of the energy potential in “spent” nuclear fuel becomes “waste” and goes the way of many human waste products; “dig a hole and bury it.” Out of sight, out of mind.

As the saying goes, what goes around, comes around. “Spent” nuclear fuel doesn’t always stay in its hole, but finds ways to leach into our drinking water, our air and our soil. Nuclear waste deposits retain their extreme toxicity for centuries, if not millennia. That’s a legacy we must not leave to our children and their children.

There are reports that Chinese nuclear engineers have developed technology to use “spent” nuclear fuel to produce additional energy. Mr. Trump’s trade war with China impedes our access to that technology That reality leaves us with limited options: 1) change Trump’s trade policies to enable our access to Chinese nuclear energy technology or, 2) American nuclear engineers figure out how to replicate the technology China has developed.

Nuclear energy may be the salvation that enables us to avoid the worst of the disasters resulting from our fossil fuel addiction, but only after we make nuclear energy a far cleaner fuel source than our current technology achieves. We need to achieve this progress quickly; time’s a wastin’.

Mike Manley


More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Monday, Jan. 27

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Editorial: Climate action needn’t cost us a good economy

The City of Everett can adopt a climate plan that shows the economic benefits of acting on the emergency.

Commentary: How the arguement has changed regarding abortion

Both sides promote equality, but rather than offer common ground it has further polarized the discussion.

Viewpoints: We’re not ready for a pandemic; here’s what we need

Coronavirus has arrived in the U.S., but it need not be a life-threatening pandemic.

Saunder: How about some fact-checking on the Democrats?

Checking statements for accuracy is necessary, but its use during impeachment seems a little rigged.

Shareholders are capable of demanding change

Regarding Frank Sterle Jr.’s Jan. 16 letter to the editor. He writes… Continue reading

Why were we surveilling our own ambassador?

The current strategy employed by the Trump administration and ilk, seems to… Continue reading

Four-wheel drivers club should help fix ruts at golf course

While on my walk in the snow last week, I noticed that… Continue reading

Where are the old-school moderates?

It use to be that either political party would at least claim… Continue reading

Most Read