U.S. Energy Policy and Nuclear Plants

Your editorial (“New Designs Are Great, but Where Does the Waste Go?” Dec. 10) states “the new designs look good on paper.” I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I can assure you that the old designs looked good on paper, too. I know. I was a quality control inspector at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

I started out enthusiastic about an industry that promised to deliver us from dependence on fossil fuels. Over time, I learned that the builders and regulators of nuclear energy have been unable or unwilling to transform a good plan into a good, safe nuclear generating plant.

A part of the reason is that the pro-nuclear groups (builders, operators and the naive public and politicians) overstate the benefits and minimize the problem of nuclear energy production.

I am a witness and can document numerous instances of intentional obfuscation and cover-ups.

How many people who support nuclear energy realize the plants must be shut down after only 30 or so years? They will have absorbed enough radiation to be dangerous for thousands of years. The costs to decommission are not included in the estimated cost of building or operating the plants. As you have correctly pointed out, spent fuel is another problem the pro-nuclear voices are silent on.

America needs a cohesive, effective, environmentally benign energy policy. Where are the leaders with enough vision to make this issue a top priority? The nation that solves the complex problems of energy and environment will be the nation that leads the world during the 21st Century. Sadly, the U.S. plods along without direction and without a vision.

GREGORY W. SPEARING

Wilmington