Harvey Wasserman, author of several books on renewable energy, knows his way around the slippery arguments of the pro-nuclear power crowd. So, when presented with the usual misleading and unsupportable line of reasoning in a piece in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, his instinctive response was to dice the article to shreds, point by point, in a strong critique, More Atomic Bomb Balm From the New York Times, As Wasserman points out, referring to a draft report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, nuclear power is clearly a boondoggle:
"To begin with, this very long article fails to mention that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has issued a draft report showing that between 99% and 124% of the nation's electricity can be supplied by renewable means by the year 2020. Since nuclear power supplies only electricity, this simple fact makes complete mincemeat of any pretext for bringing it back. If we can get the juice cheaper, safer, cleaner and more quickly from nature, why build sitting ducks for terrorists that have only 50 years of failure to show for a trillion dollars invested?"
Why, indeed?
