Regarding the June 9 Post Business article “White House bets big on reviving U.S. nuclear power”: About a bipartisan effort to decarbonize with new nuclear energy:
It is true that Georgia's two new reactors have suffered significant cost overruns and schedule delays that are associated with first-of-its-kind projects. After all, Alvin W. Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are the first nuclear reactors licensed and built from start to finish in the United States in decades.
All large infrastructure projects, including energy projects, face the same problems: rising material costs, high interest rates, inflation, and weakened supply chains that drive up construction costs. These challenges are not unique to building new nuclear reactors.
Indeed, many efforts to build renewable energy projects are facing such adjustments. NuScale's small modular reactor project in Idaho was halted after participating municipalities pulled out as estimated project costs rose from $58 to $89 per megawatt-hour. Meanwhile, five subsidized offshore wind projects off the coast of New York and New Jersey were recently halted by state agencies after developers sought significant increases to contracts that were already above market rates. The three New York projects required a 54 percent increase in rates to a whopping average of $176 per megawatt-hour.
But we who work in the nuclear industry are ready to drive down costs on future projects. And nuclear and hydro have proven their cost-efficiency and effectiveness whenever technology-neutral, outcomes-based market incentives have been introduced to reward projects for the emissions they avoid. In the United States, wind and solar are the biggest beneficiaries of subsidies and tax breaks, but results are not always proportional to the investment. Germany plans to spend $580 billion on renewable energy by 2025, yet the country's carbon emissions have fallen by less than 2% per year since 2010.
While wind and solar are certainly part of the climate solution, the power grid needs reliable, always-available baseload power. Nuclear power is the only proven form of this kind of energy. Nuclear reactors generate tons of electricity to keep the lights on around the clock without increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Let's work toward deploying next-generation nuclear reactors and prove the naysayers wrong.
Kenneth Petersen, Stoughton, Wisconsin
The author is president of the American Nuclear Society.
A recent Post article on nuclear energy called “Small Modular Reactors [are] “New nuclear technology.” But it's not.
While the specific reactor design is new, the idea of a “modular reactor” is decades old. The Army Nuclear Program operated several such reactors between the mid-1950s and the mid-1970s. One of the reactors in the program was SM-1, located at Fort Belvoir a few miles from the White House.
William C. Evans, Germantown
The author is a veteran of the Army Corps of Engineers' nuclear power program.
The headline of an Associated Press article published by The Washington Post on June 10 was “Bill Gates Advances Nuclear Project in Wyoming to Revolutionize Power Generation.” The article's frenetic tone and lack of a clear timeline could mislead Post readers. The article states that Gates and TerraPower “have begun construction of a next-generation nuclear power plant on a site in Wyoming.” To the untrained eye, it sounds like Gates is building a nuclear power plant on a remote site in Wyoming right now. But it's unclear when the project will actually reach that stage.
Instead, TerraPower is working on site preparation that doesn't require a building permit. To begin construction of the reactor, Gates must first obtain a building permit under the Atomic Energy Act, as well as numerous other state and federal permits. As it stands, Gates' project applied for a building permit with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March. But that process, like the construction process, will likely take years. Let's stop distorting the reality of how long it will take to build the next generation of nuclear reactors to fight climate change.
Daniel Adamson, Silver Spring
The June 10 Washington Post multimedia feature, “The Plastics We Breathe,” briefly touched on the discovery of plastic in the ocean before going on to explain the various ways we eat, drink, and breathe in microplastics. But the oceans are at the epicenter of the plastic crisis, and a closer look at what's happening there can help us understand how plastics are affecting humans.
Every minute, more than one garbage truck's worth of plastic enters the ocean. Once there, plastic is not biodegradable and continues to break down into smaller and smaller pieces.
Around 1,300 species of marine animals are known to ingest plastic, which not only accumulates in their digestive systems but also gets incorporated into the fish proteins that humans consume – the first and most obvious way that microplastics enter the food chain.
Microplastics in the ocean enter the global cycle. As ocean water evaporates, they are carried into the air we breathe and into clouds, and these tiny plastics can be carried far away and deposited by rain in freshwater sources and on agricultural land. These tiny plastics can also alter weather patterns by changing the rate at which clouds condense and sea ice melts.
While the Washington Post was right to point out that microplastics are “making their way into our bodies with devastating effects,” scientists already have strong and disturbing evidence about the impacts of plastics on marine life. Studies have shown that ingestion of microplastics by marine organisms leads to adverse health effects, including reduced food consumption, impaired growth and behavior, and cellular damage. In one study, Pacific oyster larvae exposed to microplastics experienced a 41 percent decline.
There are some simple, research-based solutions we can implement right now to protect ourselves from microplastics. These include reducing our production and consumption of plastic in the first place, adding microplastic filters to our washing machines, and removing microplastics that are intentionally added to products like exfoliating cleansers. But this is just the beginning. A new set of policies, like California's new law targeting packaging waste and the soon-to-come UN Plastics Treaty, will be critical and require strong public support.
Britta Bechler, Hillsboro, Oregon
The author is Associate Director of Marine Plastics Research at the Marine Conservation Society.
The Washington Post's June 3 Climate Solutions article, “Vegan Leather Isn't As Sustainable As You Think,” should have included more background information and offered readers other clothing options to consider.
In contrast, plastics account for 3.4 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, while animal agriculture, the very industry that vegan fashion and food companies are trying to disrupt, accounts for 11 percent of those emissions, according to the U.N. While reducing plastic use should be celebrated as a health and ecosystem benefit, climate leaders have a responsibility not to confuse reducing and recycling plastics with tackling the root causes of climate change.
Additionally, the article strangely makes no mention of the harsh chemicals used in leather production, including heavy metals like chromium, aldehydes and arsenic, which are used to turn cow hides into boots, wallets and coats.
We've seen it before. The “vegan materials are bad” argument is the same misleading excuse the fur industry uses to divert public attention from animal welfare. Minks, foxes, rabbits and other animals that we consider precious and keep as pets are subjected to horrible conditions every day just so they can be made into luxury clothing. When will their perspective be considered?
If we really want to avoid petroleum-based clothing, we can rely on nature's bounty. Plant-based fibres are plentiful, including cotton, bamboo and hemp. Clothing can be made from recycled fibres, and the launch of the #NoNewClothes challenge in 2024 highlights the opportunity to swap, borrow and buy second-hand instead of jumping on the latest consumer trends.
Major retailers and lawmakers can also make a difference by refusing to sell fur or keeping it off their shelves. Here in Washington, the DC Council is considering a bill to ban the sale of fur products. Passing this bill would help DC demonstrate its commitment to sustainable and humane fashion.
The author is executive director of DC Voters for Animals.
The Post deserves praise for its June 6 front page story, “The Warmest 12 Months on Record,” a great piece about the rising global temperatures that are almost certain to become a reality in the coming years and decades. The article ends with a comment from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: “We are playing Russian roulette with the planet…. We need an exit gate off the highway to climate hell.”
It is both ironic and heartbreaking that prominent members of both political parties in America seem reluctant to step off the exit ramp.
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) recently announced his intention to withdraw from California's auto emissions regulations, which he blames on “unelected leaders nearly 3,000 miles away in Virginia.” Shortly after, New York Governor Kathy Hockle (D) suspended Manhattan's rush-hour congestion charge, which was set to go into effect on June 30. This is the same political leader who warned last year that extreme weather events like floods and wildfires could become the “new normal” for New Yorkers.
The challenge is clear: how do we shift the political narrative to favor opportunists in tackling the climate challenge?
Joel Darmstadter, Chevy Chase
