I am responding to the article “The Nuclear Option” the Eugene Weekly published 3/29. Calder writes that clean energy such as wind and solar is inefficient and too expensive. I counter that it is not true.

Clean energy provided more electricity than nuclear power did in the U.S. this year. Clean energy’s output has increased steadily by 21 percent while nuclear energy’s output has dropped by 2.9 percent. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the majority of America’s nuclear reactors are losing about $2.9 billion annually, as opposed to clean energy increasing profits gradually.

Without cleanup cost, clean energy is less expensive to build. Once the setup of clean energy sources is covered, it can quickly begin to pay for itself. Besides, the cost of clean energy is now falling fast and its cost will drop significantly by 2020, making it less expensive than fossil fuel or nuclear energy.

On the other hand, nuclear energy takes longer to build and costs more than clean energy. Also, there will be potential cleanup cost from nuclear incidents. Japan’s government already spent more than $100 billion, and will exceed $300 billion more collecting the pile of radioactive waste, which cleanup operations could take up to 40 years.

I would ask you: Continuous financial loss from nuclear plants is more efficient? Tremendous cost to build nuclear plants and operate cleanup process is less expensive than clean energy?

In my opinion, nuclear energy is not the proper alternative to fossil fuel at all.

Mina Moon


Comments are closed.