LetteRS to the editor
to read more letters,
visit solartoday.org
Continuing the
Nuclear Dialogue

As a longtime nuclear worker who is an expert in the capabilities and risks associated with nuclear power, I was shocked to read the emotional and fearful arguments against nuclear energy in the recent article by Michael Totten (“The Bull’s-Eye on Our Back,” September/October issue). If nuclear power plants are such great targets, then why didn’t terrorists fly into them instead of the twin towers and the Pentagon? The truth is that these facilities have been evaluated as part of the nation’s critical infrastructure [and] have been found to be low-danger targets. They are hardened facilities that are built to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes, missiles and tornadoes and have proven this capability many times. Even our nation’s enemies have probably figured out the low value of these targets and have chosen others instead.

What’s more, they are the MVP in providing low-emission, baseload energy. Currently 74 percent of the nation’s low-emission electricity comes from nuclear.

It isn’t a choice between nuclear, conservation and renewables. They are all valuable players on the same team. If you want to replace a dangerous source of electricity, consider targeting the replacement of coal, which according to a Johns Hopkins University study is responsible for as many as 15,000 U.S. lives annually.

Michael Stuart

Beaverdam, Va. michael.stuart@dom.com

Stuart is a senior nuclear instructor for Dominion Resources.

oil companies or the utilities. There is no part of the Constitution that grants any such control to the federal government.

Talk about budget cuts and revenue increases are irrelevant, since the federal government should have no involvement at all in the energy sector.

Instead, the energy sector should be entirely regulated organically by the law of supply and demand. With no government interference, alternative energy technologies would fly (or crash) on their own true merits, as would the petroleum industry. If peak oil is upon us, the gradual increase in the price of oil would be the spur that impels us to alternatives, but not in crisis mode. Crisis mode is the effect of government interference.

SOLAR
TODAY

SOLARTODAY.ORG

EDITORIAL
BRAD COLLINS: Executive Director/Publisher
publisher@solartoday.org
REGINA JOHNSON: Editor/Associate Publisher
editor@solartoday.org
BROOKE SIMMONS: Manager of Online Publishing
SE TH MASIA: Managing Editor
ALLISON GRAY: Art Director
LYDIA POTTOFF: Assistant Art Director
DONA MCCLAIN: Publications Manager/
Editorial Assistant
RICHARD HAIGHT: Proofreader

ADVERTISING SALES

General MCNEILL GROUP INC.

Southern U.S., Hawaii, Asia and S. America:

800.394.5157, ext. 16

Philip Miller: pmiller@mcneill-group.com Northern U.S., Alaska, Canada and Europe: 800.394.5157, ext. 31

Kris Ohrenick: kohrenick@mcneill-group.com Focus Media & Marketing

313.670.0553

Ken Stubblefield: ken@focusmm.net

Automotive

istOcK PHOtO.cOm

a reader argues that nuclear power plants
can withstand natural disasters, missiles and
even terrorist attacks.

MAGAZINE ADVISORY COUNCIL
PAUL NOTARI, CO-CHAIR
KEN SHEINKOPF, CO-CHAIR
TRAVIS BRADFORD
ALLISON GRAY
FRANK KREITH
CHUCK KUTSCHER
JOSEPH MCCABE
ROBERT PREUS

MICK SAGRILLO THOMAS STARRS STEVEN STRONG ROBERT UKEILEY JANE M. WEISSMAN

Keep Feds
Out of energy Policy

I must most heartily disagree with Brad Collins’ Perspective column, “Let’s Hear It for the Red, White and Green” (September/ October issue).

There is no argument that we each, individually, would benefit by a less profligate use of energy in general, and a decreased dependence on fossil fuels specifically. My disagreement is in the method used to accomplish this.

We in the United States enjoy a government whose powers are limited constitutionally. While Collins’ political suggestions might work just fine in some country where the citizens are subjects, they should never work here, where the government is “of the people” and not “over” the people.

There should not be a federal energy policy of any kind. There should be no incentives or rebates for “green” technologies, nor should there be any special tax rules for the

ASES OPERATIONS
BECKY CAMPBELL-HOWE: Director of Operations
NEAL LURIE: Director of Marketing and
Communications
CAROLYN BEACH: Membership Manager
RICHARD BURNS: National Solar Tour Manager
ELENA HOFFRICHTER: Receptionist/Bookkeeper
KATE HOTCHKISS: Executive Assistant

The mission of the American Solar Energy Society, to promote the use of solar and other energy sources, is a noble undertaking. The mission should not, however, be directed at the government. Rather it should be directed at individuals and nongovernmental organizations: educating, encouraging, funding and exhorting.

Indeed, getting the government out of the energy business would hasten the adoption of alternatives. Any incentives or rebates from the government come with a cost. Bureaucrats, secretaries and bookkeepers must be paid. In order to get a dollar from the government, I must pay more than a dollar in taxes. I could easily spend that more-than-a-dollar myself and get more.

ASES BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JOHN REYNOLDS, CHAIR
MARGOT MCDONALD, CHAIR-ELECT
ANDY BLACK PAULETTE MIDDLE TON
TRAVIS BRADFORD NATHAN MITTEN
RICHARD CAPUTO VICTOR OLGYAY
ALLISON GRAY BILL POULIN
DAVID HILL DAVE RENNÉ
JASON KEYES MARY SPRUILL
JEFF LYNG JENNIFER SZARO
GABRIELA MARTIN LORIN VANT-HULL

SolAr TodAy (ISSN: 1042-0630) is published bimonthly by the American Solar Energy Society, 2400 Central Avenue, Suite A, Boulder, Colorado 80301-2843, 303.443.3130, FAX 303.443.3212, ases@ ases.org, ases.org. Copyright © 2008 by the American Solar Energy Society Inc. All rights reserved.