Dear Editor,
I refer to the column Six reasons to ditch nuclear power by Andreas Späth.
Andreas Späth has a very biased opinion. There are pros and cons for nuclear, fossil and "renewables".
In response to each of his six points:
1. As far as most expense goes, there are ways to calculate and promote any option. Very much like statistics.
2. Renewables are also not a solution to global warming.
3. No renewable energy conversion is 100% renewable.
4. Looking at the whole process, all forms of renewable also have downsides. Even catching solar heat and preventing it from radiating away during the night will affect global warming. Wind turbines on the skyline is also not a pretty sight.
5. Danger is relative. It needs money and the dedication of people to limit "danger". The question is what is realistic.
6. Blood on old hands is sentimental reasoning only and does not add to reaching optimum solutions. There are very few unbiased opinions on this subject.
Most parties appear to have agendas for entering the discussion. I hope the UCT Geochemisty PhD study was a little more objective! I don't mean to be personal but the PhD mention should not be used to give credibility to a point of view.
Eelke de Boer,
Botswana
- News24
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.