Nuclear Power

Re "An End to Nuclear Fishin'?" (Dec. 9): Every form of power production has an environmental impact. When a total cost assessment is performed--taking all environmental effects into account--nuclear power comes out looking much better than might be suggested by the portrayal in the article. The amount of waste heat produced by power plants is more a function of the amount of power produced than it is of the type of fuel used to make the power. The article fails to mention the fact that a nuclear power plant offsets a tremendous amount of pollution that would otherwise be created.

The U.S. nuclear industry is turning up the power on old reactors, spurring quiet debate over the safety of pushing aging equipment beyond its original specifications. The little-publicized practice, known as uprating, has expanded the country's nuclear capacity without the financial risks, public anxiety and political obstacles that have halted the construction of new plants for the last 15 years. The power boosts come from more potent fuel rods in the reactor core and, sometimes, more highly enriched uranium.

A vigorous new debate is under way over the future of electric power in the United States. In particular, the nuclear-power industry has mounted an aggressive publicity campaign to win new friends and to persuade the public that nuclear power is the only certain provider of the nation's future electricity needs.

Re "Asia and the Atom: Willing--and Wary," July 25: Your reporting on the booming energy needs of Asia that could only be met through nuclear energy was very comprehensive and thoughtful. But your characterization of Pakistan as an "international outcast" in the context of alleged import of nuclear technology from China is not only unwarranted but totally baseless. For the record it must be pointed out that Sino-Pakistan cooperation in the nuclear field is entirely for peaceful purposes and is in accord with anti-proliferation laws.

The prospect of power shortages in Japan this summer, of stifling city apartments and manufacturing slowdowns, has divided a country still reeling from the worst nuclear catastrophe since Chernobyl over whether to restart some of its idled reactors. The government contends that the country can't afford not to resume nuclear energy production. The last operating nuclear reactor in Japan, on the northernmost main island of Hokkaido, will be taken off line May 5 for stress tests and safety improvements.

China has joined Germany, France, Russia and other nations now pledging to review their atomic energy programs in the aftermath of the nuclear crisis sparked by Japan's devastating earthquake and tsunami. FOR THE RECORD: Energy in China: A March 19 Business article about China's nuclear power industry misspelled the name of Yang Fuqiang, senior advisor on climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, as Yan Fuqiang. ? Premier Wen Jiabao announced this week that China would put a moratorium on construction of new nuclear power plants while it updates safety standards.

The newspaper's front page contained one of those jigsaws of incongruity that one expects these days in California: One article reported that the California Independent System Operator had just declared the latest in a long series of Stage 2 electricity alerts while another reported on workers merrily dismantling the Rancho Seco nuclear electricity generating plant near Sacramento. Those two stories form the bookends of this state's energy crisis.

Re "No to nukes," editorial, July 23 How unfortunate that a powerful and influential paper such as yours chose to issue a statement against nuclear power. Nuclear power has served this country extremely well and continues to serve as a role model for safety and human performance across all industries. The used fuel is small in volume and will, in about 400 years or so, be less radioactive than the ore from which it was mined.