Re: “Nuclear energy could be part of the solution” (In Our View, June 6), I strongly support Clark Public Utilities’ opportunity to join forces with other entities to study development of a small nuclear reactor, sharing costs and intellectual assets.
The amount in question is $200,000, a figure dwarfed by the sums and human impacts at risk if the region acts in ignorance about the costs and benefits of different power generation resources.
For better or for worse, the region has decided to transition rather quickly from fossil-fuel power generation. The replacements for dependable (not intermittent) generation capacity are all in need of study. Our future depends on how well we analyze the risks of each solution.
Nuclear has risks and costs, as do wave power, geothermal and battery-supported solar/wind. The best solution is likely to be a combination, optimizing costs, risks, capacity addition, cost to transmit and environmental benefits of each. Rate impacts of each scenario must be modeled.
So, $200,000 is cheap compared to the cost of not knowing.
