Should the U.S. Revive Nuclear Energy?
Readers discuss an article arguing that it’s the best way to “save the world” from climate change.
o the Editor:
Re “Nuclear Power Can Save the World,” by Joshua S. Goldstein, Staffan A. Qvist and Steven Pinker (Sunday Review, April 7):
Will it take another Chernobyl or Fukushima, possibly in an American city, to quiet the disinformation coming from nuclear activists? What the world needs is energy that is both carbon-free and radiation-free. Those of us who live near a failed nuclear power plant know the truth: Nuclear power is by far the most expensive, the most dangerous, the most unreliable and the most environmentally unfriendly form of energy production.
San Clemente, Calif.
To the Editor:
The authors write: “Today, renewables work only with fossil-fuel backup.” How am I going to break this news to the batteries that are handily backing up our solar array? As a dry run for hurricane season, I turned off the utility power to our house for a week. We lived our normal life, running the central air-conditioner, charging our electric car, and doing a lot of laundry with the electric washer and dryer. Some days were sunny, some were cloudy, but we never ran out of power.
Even our formerly solar-averse utility is starting to replace gas-burning power plants with solar plus battery storage. As George Bernard Shaw noted, “People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.”
Philip K. Stoddard
The writer is the mayor of South Miami.