Small modular nuclear reactors aren’t a viable solution to the climate crisis (“Don’t rule out nuclear power in warming climate,” In Our View, April 4).
They’re unproven as a major producer for electricity. They are a fraction of the size of current nuclear generating stations. Nuclear power requires big and continuing subsidies from governments and utility ratepayers. Nuclear power requires enhanced security and supervision. It requires years of planning and construction. It requires ultra-secure spent fuel storage and disposal (not yet established). It has the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation. It requires devastating environmental and human damage in the extraction of uranium. There is an obvious irony in the plan to place a reactor in Hanford, next to the world’s largest toxic nuclear waste site.
A better alternative would be to spend this money and time on green energy generation: solar, wind and hydropower. Additionally, we can greatly improve conservation by retrofitting homes, buildings and cities for energy efficiency; transportation for energy efficiency by investment in public transportation alternatives to inefficient individual vehicles, highway projects, air travel. The current electrical grid needs investment to adapt to 21st century needs. These alternatives can have immediate positive effects on the climate crisis and our reliance on energy.
