It never ceases to amaze me that when someone expresses their opinion in this paper, they go to great links to attack whatever it is they're opposed to. So be it, as they are certainly entitled to do just that. Just once, however, I would like to see this same, opinionated individual, at least acknowledge the fact that what they're opposed to may also be beneficial in some way.
Case in point: A recent letter from Terry Putnam denounced both solar and wind alternative energy sources as fraudulent power sources; and, in fact, that they "do not work." It would seem that Mr. Putnam may be under the misconception that advocates of these forms of alternative energy believe that, by themselves, they are the solution to our energy dilemma. Perhaps he doesn't, but, in any case, nothing could be further from the truth. I rather doubt that anyone who supports wind and solar energy is naïve enough to believe that.
Claims made by advocates of wind and solar energy are not "bogus." They are based upon detailed research and implementation of both types of alternative supplies. They are not a solution in themselves. However, they are a step in the right direction, and naysayers, like Mr. Putnam, aren't helping the situation.
His solution is to produce more "environmentally-friendly energy produced by nuclear power plants." Although I agree that this form has merit, it is no more environmentally friendly than are wind or solar. I once worked at a government weapons plant that produced a great deal of radioactive materials and subsequent waste products. I can assure Mr. Putnam that dealing with the handling and disposal of said waste is expensive and far from foolproof.
To date, we do not have a viable way of neutralizing radioactive waste (including spent fuel rods from power plants) on a large scale, so we have to resort to burying the stuff in trenches in Nevada or in deep shafts and in salt domes. As long as nothing goes wrong, it is relatively harmless. The down side is that it is still there and it isn't going away anytime soon.
My point: anything that gets us off our dependence on fossil fuels is beneficial. Negativism toward any viable possibility smacks of narrow minded prejudice. Think about it.