Student council
We are seventh graders that go to Burley Middle School. We wish to talk to you about the pros of nuclear energy and why the proposed nuclear reactors at Lake Anna are an excellent idea [“30 Miles to Meltdown,” The Week, February 22]. Energy is used in our everyday lives, but are some types of energy good for our environment? Fossil fuels are one of the main resources for energy in the United States, but fossil fuels are polluting and destroying the Earth.
Nuclear energy is a good substitute for fossil fuels, because it doesn’t contribute to acid rain, bad water quality and global warming. One pellet of uranium can create as much electricity as 1,780 pounds of coal, 149 gallons of oil and 157 gallons of regular gas. Just one pellet creates so much energy, but doesn’t have the harmful effects of fossil fuels.
The proposed nuclear power plants at Lake Anna in Louisa will help reduce our energy needs as those needs grow. People ask, “Well what about the risks from nuclear power plants? Is it really worth the risk?” Yes, there is always a chance that the risks of nuclear power plants will become a reality, but living life without risks is just not possible.
The main risk of nuclear power plants concerns radiation from the radioactive materials that are used in nuclear fission. There is radiation around us every day, but too much may cause devastating problems such as cancer. However, the radiation would be contained by the power plant. If a problem did happen, the chances that the radiation would breach the several barriers created around the reactor would be unlikely.
To avoid these problems, people who will work at the nuclear power plants should watch out for problems with the nuclear power plants. Also they should have inspections of the nuclear power plants to make sure everything is in order and nothing is wrong.
Nuclear energy is a great source of energy that is used worldwide. It is especially used in France. In fact they have so much energy left over from what they use that they sell it to other countries. Nuclear energy is an excellent resource to fulfill our energy needs.
Sidney Walker, Erica Burton
Students
Burley Middle School
People try to put us down
In reference to Elena Day’s letter [“Power struggle,” Mailbag, March 22] North American-Young Generation in Nuclear has taken no stance on emission control equipment for coal power stations. It is not our area of expertise. However, if this country is going to continue to use coal, then I personally believe that we should use it in the cleanest way possible.
But unfortunately, no matter how many restrictions are placed on the amount of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide that is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, this does absolutely nothing to curb the comparatively staggering amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted by these sources. If anything, “cleaner” coal allows the even bigger problem of greenhouse gas emissions to continue with even broader support. Please do not be distracted from the disease by addressing only a few of the symptoms. The only way to address this issue is to use sources of energy generation that do not emit carbon dioxide. And, please do not cloud the issue of clean nuclear power by talking about mining and transport operations. It takes 1,780 pounds of coal to equal the energy output of just a few grams of uranium! Ms. Day seems all too eager to justify the use of coal while attacking the only proven energy source that has made a serious dent in curbing the greenhouse gas emissions in this country.
I personally support clean coal technologies and nuclear power, as well as conservation, and the use of renewable energy sources. Furthermore, I live by example by driving a highly efficient car and by employing energy efficiency in my home with a geothermal heat pump, compact fluorescent lighting and by situating my house so that it takes maximum advantage of solar heating.
As for the young engineers and nuclear professionals in NA-YGN, we will not sit idly by while the best chance this country has for energy independence is discredited by the half-truths and misrepresentations that groups such as the People’s Alliance for Clean Energy and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League will spread to promote their anti-nuclear agenda. These groups have been allowed to spread flawed information without accountability for far too long. If anything, these groups should take a lesson from another grass roots organization, Greenpeace, whose founder, Patrick Moore, has publicly admitted that nuclear power is preferable to the alternatives.
Michael Stuart
Beaverdam
We have the power
I’d like to respond to Elena Day’s question: “Is it reasonable for groups whose members have vested their careers in the nationwide acceptance and growth of the nuclear industry to direct or dominate the debate on the expansion of nuclear power in Virginia?” I submit that if the younger members of the 46-year-old nuclear power industry seem to be dominating the debate recently, it is because for too long this industry’s engineers, scientists and technicians have been quietly and professionally doing their jobs, while the anti-nuclear side of the issue has been loud and largely unopposed. In today’s energy and environmental situation, these younger professionals can no longer sit quietly while exaggerated claims of nuclear risks and carefully manipulated cause of death statistics fly about.
Our careers are devoted to the safe operation of our current nuclear facilities, not the nationwide acceptance and growth of the nuclear industry. If we choose to be nuclear professionals by day and dispel long-standing nuclear myths at public meetings in our free time, that is our choice. I would hope that Ms. Day wants informed people in the nuclear debate, and wants people in the nuclear industry that believe in what they are doing. The anti-nuclear side has had it far too easy for far too long. If Ms. Day feels a power shift in the nuclear debate, it means she is finally hearing informed opposing viewpoints where there was mostly silence before. In this regard, a true public nuclear debate has begun only recently. The anti-nuclear side doesn’t need more environmentalists to “dominate” the debate. They just need more supporting facts and fewer unsubstantiated opinions that play on fear.
Furthermore, Ms. Day’s implication that to debate a technology that safely supplies 20 percent of our nation’s power “represents a waste of valuable national time which could be spent…developing conservation technologies and renewable alternatives” ignores the indisputable contribution the nuclear industry has made in averting greenhouse gas emissions. Conservation and renewables are not going to replace the current baseload generation from nuclear and fossil overnight. In the meantime, we have three choices when facing rising demand: fossil, nuclear and California-style rotating blackouts. Even the founder of Greenpeace sees this. While I have no problem with other professionals pursuing renewable energy sources and solving global energy needs, I’m not leaving a “time-wasting” career in nuclear power to build windmills. I love my job, I love the environment, but I prefer to attend public meetings that are reliably well lit, thank you very much.
Delbert Horn
Goochland
House call
I appreciate Catherine Potter’s effort to “clarify” my reference to what Piedmont Housing Alliance received in February from Virginia Housing Development Authority [“Taken for granted,” Mailbag, March 22] because it serves to keep an important subject before the public. However, I find her point too fine to cede. I took my key word directly from VHDA’s own announcement, the one headlined: “Piedmont Housing Alliance receives $6.23 million allocation to address critical housing needs.” Were I to receive the opportunity to dispense such an amount in any form to those I deemed worthy, I would think I’d been given quite a gift notwithstanding that the money mightn’t be deposited in my personal account.
I raised the matter of the City giving PHA $145,000 to highlight how our public officials deploy our very limited public resources. That money went not for grants or loans to would-be homeowners, but to a project that involves building new houses. When the item came before City Council, I argued that building new houses is the least efficient way of addressing affordability and that the same money dispensed as grants and loans would go much further.
Now, in the March 7 issue of Charlottesville Business, I see remarks attributed to Stuart Armstrong, PHA’s executive director. “It’s very challenging,” Mr. Armstrong is quoted as saying of helping low-income aspirants. “Sometimes we have to build the housing ourselves, which is not the most efficient way.”
Antoinette W. Roades
Charlottesville
CORRECTIONS
In our March 15 story on the sale of Bundoran Farm, due to a typographical error, we incorrectly dated the sale of the Scott family’s purchase of the land to just before World War I. It was just before World War II.
In last week’s Get Out Now calendar we printed incorrect information for Rosamond Casey’s “Mapping the Dark” class. The class takes place on Tuesdays from 10am to 12:30pm and 6:30pm to 9pm.