Sir, - How nice, how refreshing, how deeply unusual to find the nasty words "radioactive waste" in a letter from an advocate of nuclear fusion (Frank Turvey, October 14th). Let's flesh those words out: several hundred tonnes a year from a working fusion reactor. Information which isn't so much withheld from the public as not offered - but surely of at least as much interest as the glowing "cheap limitless energy" hype ladled out by the fusion lobby. Not that that hype holds an awful lot of water, heavy or otherwise, when subjected to any but the most cursory scrutiny.
In this I'm not impugning the sincerity or integrity of fusion scientists - just suggesting that their enthusiasm is blinding them to very real concerns about fusion; concerns which, taken in concert with the truly formidable technical obstacles yet to be faced, may well have contributed to recent cuts in the US fusion programme. The question remains: is this really an area to which much Irish expertise should be directed?
Mr Turvey is well aware that the current prime suppliers of power - oil, coal, gas and nuclear fission - have got to go for one reason or another, but it is surprising to find him repeating the old canard that renewables could supply only a fraction of energy needs. Plausible scenarios have been developed for an energy future dependent only on renewable sources so his affecting picture of our `children's children . . . freezing in the dark' without nuclear fusion is a non-runner.
Perhaps the most important objection to the fusion programme is that it keeps alive the false impression that in the long run we have some other option than renewables (including in that hydrogen as a transport fuel) - the simple fact is that we don't and the sooner we realise it the better - Yours, etc.,
From Jim Woolridge
Earthwatch, Bantry, Co Cork.