Nuclear power
I became an anti-nuclear activist in 1976 because of the waste issue - I decided that I could not morally leave behind toxic waste for up to 24000 years just to have less expensive electricity today. I became part of the Amendment 3 campaign in Colorado that put to the voters the question of whether Colorado should allow more nuclear powerplants than the St. Vrain plant operating at the time - the amendment simply stated that the state legislature would need to certify that the waste issue had been solved before allowing more plant. The amendment enjoyed a substantial lead in the polls until a scare campaign by the industry turned around less informed voters, and it was defeated. In retrospect, the waste provision would have prevented more nuclear plants since then because the waste problem has bedeviled the federal government and is still not solved. And what is not “solved” is storage of the wastes in a geologically- stable area - not the moral question of what we should, or should not leave behind for future generations.
I suggest you continue to promote intelligent discussion of nuclear power’s future, but you must include the waste problem, including the moral, economic and technological aspects, first and foremost. A friend of mine, a climate scientist, believes we must use nuclear as a bridge technology to eliminate coal-plants around the world to give humanity half a chance to successfully deal with global climate chaos. His point is valid - we need to look at all options. But we need to look at all aspects of all options.
This letter has not been edited.