Posted 02/07/07

Questions? Comments? We'd love to hear what you have to say. Please send feedback to agallagher@smcvt.edu or kpower2@smcvt.edu.

This letter was written by sophomore Zach Mangione regarding Emma Long's article, Dangerous and efficient for the week of 02/07/07:

After reading the article [“Danergous and efficient,” February 8th] I think it’s important to make clear for readers a few points about nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is by no means “green” or carbon free. Sure the actual production of energy from nuclear may be free of carbon emissions but the mining, extracting, milling, crushing, and transportation of uranium is a fossil-fuel intensive process. One must also factor in the manufacturing of concrete and steel for the reactor and transporting and assembling the plants on site. Secondly it should be noted that Yankee Nuclear is known for storing its nuclear waste in above ground vessels on the banks of the Connecticut River. Given the high radioactivity of nuclear waste this is something that no one should be comfortable with. The nuclear industry has yet to find ways of safely disposing of its radioactive waste.

According to an article by Paul Rauber in Sierra Club magazine [“Why Not Nukes” January/February 2007] a study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows that at least 1,000 new reactors would have to be constructed worldwide to have any significant affect on global warming. Since capital is a limited resource this would mean substantially less money to spend on many far cheaper ways to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. The study also found that each dollar spent on energy efficiency would save seven times more carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere than each dollar spent on nuclear power. When you compare this to the US Federal Energy Funding, of which a mere $24.1B is spent on energy efficiency and renewables compared to $47.9B spent on nuclear, it is clear where the current government’s priorities lie. Instead of pumping resources into the nuclear industry we could be using those resources to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency, implement more efficient lighting and electrical appliances, and demand stricter recycling laws, to name a few.

As a country we should be exploring ways to actually produce clean, safe, reliable energy instead of relying on old unsafe technology. Nuclear energy may be a short term solution, however the crisis of global warming is not a short term problem, and any realistic solution is going to take vastly different thinking than our current legislature and White House has shown. This is not a decision to be made between the lesser of two evils, i.e. coal and nuclear. We have the option of taking a completely alternative path towards clean energy.

Also I would like to invite anyone who is interested in being a positive force to fight global warming to attend SMC’s environmental group meetings every Wednesday at 7:30PM in Eddie’s Lounge.

Sincerely,

Zach Mangione ‘07