A recent Crimson White editorial suggested that the U.S. needs more nuclear power since coal and oil are bad choices. Why do the shortcomings of coal and oil mean that we have to replace them with something worse? It’s like suggesting we install pet tigers to kill rats.

Over half of the power used in our country is to heat, cool and move air and water. We could reduce this by using low-tech solutions like fiberglass insulation and passive solar heating, cooling and water heaters. This would be a lower-cost alternative to nuclear power with similar results. It’s cheaper to close the window than turn up the heat.

Coal, oil and nuclear are all antiquated power sources. Unlike nuclear, coal and oil are understood, with an existing, profitable infrastructure. We should stick with them while we develop the next generation of low-entropy power: solar, wind, wave and geothermal.

The energy industry claims that solar will never be able to power our society, but the sun deposits about 50 kilowatts of power on an average home roof, and we’ve seen thin-film technology (similar to the kind used to make solar panels) deliver cheap flat-screen televisions. Should we believe that we are incapable of harnessing solar energy when many of us have seen boats and cabins fully run by solar panels?

We should not even consider nuclear power as the “environmentally correct” choice until we acknowledge that nuclear waste from the 1970s is still sitting in drums and open ponds.

The editorial claims that nuclear materials from power plants would not be a good target for terrorists because terrorists could “just steal some of our already made nuclear warheads sitting around from the Cold War.” This statement is pure nonsense, as the U.S. Military protects nuclear warheads, while nuclear waste is often only lightly guarded. This waste, potentially exploited in ‘dirty-bombs,’ is a genuine threat. We cannot encourage rogue nations to end their nuclear ambitions while we hypocritically add nuclear power capacity. The better option is for us to end our use of nuclear power and focus on low-entropy power.

There is talk of recycling nuclear waste as a panacea to the problems of nuclear power, but current waste recycling methods convert tons of spent fuel into concentrated sources that are potentially easier to steal.

Nuclear power seems like a clean power source as long as you ignore the tons of radioactive waste it generates. Further, accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island seem relatively rare because nuclear power is still relatively rare. Accidents happen, humans make errors, and well-designed machines malfunction. Do supporters of nuclear power believe that more nuclear plants in the U.S. will not increase our chances of a catastrophic accident?

Is the U.S. willing to allow other countries like China and Japan to beat us in the industrial development of solar power? Instead of competing in advanced power, will we instead invest in antiquated, problem-plagued power sources like nuclear? The obvious alternative is to instead go solar and build a future for our children without the threat of nuclear disaster.

Michael Wofsey is a graduate student in physics.