Dinosaurs don't get it.

• Position: Letter to the editor

In his recent commentary [July/August 2006], Chris Flavin reasonably concluded that constructing new nuclear power plants will unlikely achieve more than simply replacing nuclear plants slated for closure. He then proposes that the answer to increasing energy availability while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions lies in a "large-scale commitment to renewables."

However, many experts believe that renewables will not even satisfy the future increase in energy demand. The International Energy Agency, for example, notes that while energy demand over the first three decades of this century is projected to grow by 60 percent, the expected growth of renewables will only meet 15 percent of that increase (and leave unaffected the already excessive GHG emissions associated with current energy generation).

If it is virtually inconceivable for the nuclear option to "make a serious dent in the world's energy problems" and if the same can be said of renewables, how can Worldwatch then conclude that adopting both of these significantly inadequate options will generate sufficient GHG-free energy? Isn't this wishful thinking?

And this leaves your readers in a quandary. If Worldwatch believes a sound, viable, and...