In his March 23 article entitled ""State not ready for more nuclear power,"" Ryan Dashek makes good points on nuclear energy while raising legitimate concerns, but does not put them into perspective. The impacts from irreversible climate change vastly outweigh the comparatively minuscule risks posed by used nuclear fuel.
By volume, all the used fuel in the U.S. could be stacked on the field of Camp Randall stadium about 20 feet high. The form is a solid, water-insoluble ceramic shipped in incredibly durable containers designed to withstand extreme impacts. Transporting explosive gasoline poses a far greater risk, and yet we routinely allow these shipments on our highways.
Rigorous analysis shows Yucca Mountain, a repository candidate, will most likely contain the byproducts almost indefinitely. Over a billion years ago, a natural nuclear reactor in Gabon, Africa, operated, and most of its fission products only moved several meters. Recycling nuclear fuel can dramatically reduce volume and required storage time by more than 95 percent. The problem is much more tractable than many believe.
In addition, on a per energy basis, a nuclear plant provides more permanent, high-paying and multidisciplinary jobs than any other electricity source. Nuclear energy is a good investment for our economy as well.
Alternative technologies should be utilized too. However, combating climate change without expanding nuclear power is impractical. The benefits far outweigh the risks, and Wisconsin law should be changed to allow for more nuclear power.
—Rachel Slaybaugh
Graduate student
Nuclear Engineering
