Dear Editor:

David E. Hanson makes fun of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's tweet: "If you don't like the #GreenNewDeal, then come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis." (Letters MD/TJ March 6-7).

However, his own answer to the global warming problem is simply, "Nuclear power plants, anyone?" A little low on specifics, David?

The cost of building a nuclear power plant is around $9 billion per unit. There are approximately 450 nuclear reactors worldwide, which provide a little more than 10 percent of the world's electricity.

Thus, to generate 100 percent of world electricity, almost 4,000 new plants would be needed. The world could thus replace fossil fuels at a cost of $20 trillion.

The U.S., with 99 nuclear reactors generating 20 percent of our electricity, would pay $3.6 trillion, more than the cost David cites, and complains about, for the Green New Deal.

The processes for mining and refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, require large amounts of energy.

Power plants also have large amounts of metal and concrete, which require energy to manufacture. If fossil fuels are used for mining or for construction, their effect on global warming must be considered.

And, of course, we must consider the creation of radioactive wastes, which can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years.

What David calls a "goofy plan" is, so far, the best and cheapest alternative to a headstrong rush to climate catastrophe.

Despite his sarcasm and example from the Wall Street Journal, David has come up with nothing better. Perhaps he has discovered a process for cold fusion?

Pat Wemstrom

Mount Carroll