E-mail
Print
Allison Fisher's letter to the editor arguing that development of nuclear power "thwarts efforts to develop a clean energy sector" almost made me spit out my morning coffee (Readers respond, Nov. 6).
Nuclear power is, and always has been, a very clean energy option.
The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management states that if "all the spent fuel produced to date in the United States [was] stack[ed] side-by-side, end-to-end, the fuel assemblies would cover an area about the size of a football field to a depth of about five yards."
How does that compare the 130 million tons per year of contaminated waste produced by coal power? Or the risks of oil spills? Or the degradation of land during the extraction of oil shale? Or mountain top removal?
Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases and, besides the actual construction location, does not affect the local environment in a negative way.
Nuclear is a viable option and should be used to complement the nation's energy needs and the customers of BG&E. Mark Fischer
To Our Readers: The Sun welcomes comments from readers. All comments become the property of The Sun, which reserves the right to edit them. Comments should include your name and address, along with day and evening telephone numbers. E-mail us: talkback@baltimoresun.com; write us: Talk Back, The Sun, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore 21278-0001; fax us: 410-332-6977
Nuclear power is, and always has been, a very clean energy option.
The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management states that if "all the spent fuel produced to date in the United States [was] stack[ed] side-by-side, end-to-end, the fuel assemblies would cover an area about the size of a football field to a depth of about five yards."
How does that compare the 130 million tons per year of contaminated waste produced by coal power? Or the risks of oil spills? Or the degradation of land during the extraction of oil shale? Or mountain top removal?
Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases and, besides the actual construction location, does not affect the local environment in a negative way.
Nuclear is a viable option and should be used to complement the nation's energy needs and the customers of BG&E. Mark Fischer
To Our Readers: The Sun welcomes comments from readers. All comments become the property of The Sun, which reserves the right to edit them. Comments should include your name and address, along with day and evening telephone numbers. E-mail us: talkback@baltimoresun.com; write us: Talk Back, The Sun, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore 21278-0001; fax us: 410-332-6977
Digg
Twitter
Facebook
StumbleUpon
It's always amazing to me how some folks will complain about some situations but won't take the time to learn some relevent facts. We all want to reduce carbon emissions- there is no serious question that we have to do something that is effective and easily implemented. If you think that windmills or green roofs will bring about a significant reduction in carbon emissions, you don't get the total picture of energy use in the US and the world.
I fail to understand how folks who are so passionate about carbon reduction won't open their eyes to the solutions such as nuclear power that have been adopted all over the world with great success. Natural gas usage is another area that is neglected because of erroneous public perception.. Lobby groups are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince you that coal and oil are still the best way to go. OPEN YOUR EYES. We are all slowly dieing from the poisons spewed out by the huge power plants in the midwest. Where is the outcry.
diogenes3 (11/09/2009, 11:48 AM )