In your Nov. 22 issue, you wrote about the ongoing problems the country faces with finding a solution for its radioactive waste as a reaction to the newly opened temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel at the nuclear power station Dukovany ("Waste not," News, Nov. 22-28). You quote several times so-called experts and even indicate that there exists a consensus among experts about a best solution for nuclear waste. Your reporter has fallen victim to the usual biased pro-nuclear information streams in this country.

First of all, without any second thought you write that Dukovany is scheduled for decommissioning in 2025. With that, you automatically accept that the power station will receive a 10-year lifetime extension — its projected lifetime at building was 30 years and runs out between 2015 and 2017. It is true that ČEZ is planning such a 10-year extension and even is investing in Dukovany in order to get it.

However, such an extension still needs to be granted by the State Office for Nuclear Safety. ČEZ is counting on that if it has invested around a billion euros into the plant, it will be difficult to say no. One could call this nuclear blackmail, and the last word about it has not been said.

You continue to quote without any balancing word the opinion of ČEZ that Dukovany could easily remain open until 2035 or 2045 — a 20-year extension or even double the projected lifetime. Maybe it is sufficient to say that the Dukovany reactor design does not have a safety-containment and has a plant layout that makes it extremely vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The VVER 440/213 reactors are basically sitting ducks for anyone wanting to shock the nation and beyond.

Also there is a widespread opinion among leading nuclear safety experts that old reactors pose an exponentially larger risk for human and technical failure. The best is to close them down as soon as is viable — at the end of their projected lifetimes would be a good moment.

You continue to describe the nuclear waste situation here and only quote a notorious pro-nuclear adviser to the European Commission as saying that there is a "strong consensus that geological repositories are the best solution for nuclear waste."

Derek Taylor, the adviser, spreads with that more wishful thinking than scientific fact. The only scientific consensus that exists is that no solution exists for nuclear waste that can guarantee that it is kept out of the environment long enough to avoid any harm, for a time which is to be counted in tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

The maximum humankind can do is to try to reduce the risk. Finland and Sweden are furthermore not actively constructing, but actively studying options of deep storage. Construction is still many years and uncertain permitting procedures away. According to a recent review by the United Kingdom government, next to deep storage, a second option is that of controlled on- or near-surface storage — an option that could guarantee that the nuclear waste would be more easily retrievable in case a better option is found or in case of problems.

This brings me to a next point of critique on the article: "It is all about information." Indeed it is, and on the basis of information, very large majorities of the population in the villages and towns involved dismiss the plans for deep storage. There is too little known.

The only nuclear waste site actually under construction, Yucca Mountain in the United States, is marred with delays and problems and might not be used at all. The choice for any option or site should only be made when it is clear how much waste we talk about and under which conditions storage should take place. The amount of nuclear waste in the Czech Republic is still a political open end, and public discussions about criteria have not taken place to a sufficient degree.

You furthermore write wrongly ("If you can't stand the heat, don't go nuclear," Opinion, Nov. 22-28) that nuclear power is delivering 39 percent of Czech energy needs. It delivers at present only 39 percent of the total electricity production; electricity being a bit more than 21 percent of total energy production, which means that nuclear power delivers only around 8 percent of the total energy production in the Czech Republic, and well over half of it is exported.

Also your sympathetic editorial warning about the creation of more nuclear waste when no solution is in sight could have benefited from contacting real experts. No fuel cells or "clean coal" technologies are the alternative for the Czech Republic (nor any other country), but a combination of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources as wind, hydro, biomass and solar.

That these alternatives can deliver has been showed in several scenario studies from which one done by the German institute DLR for Greenpeace*. Also your excellent article on energy-efficient housing is a good illustration.

The Prague Post used to have good access to a wide spectrum of experts, including experts from the country's thriving energy movement. I do not see why such a one-sided approach was necessary. Maybe the high turnover of reporters has led to a loss of contacts — high time to renew them!

* Sven Teske (editor), Dr. Wolfram Krewitt, Dr. Uwe Klann, Stefan Kronshage: Energy Revolution: A Sustainable Pathway to a Clean Energy Future for Europe; a European Energy Scenario for the EU-25, Amsterdam (2005) Greenpeace International / DLR, Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Department of Systems Analysis and Technology