More fuel for debate on energy

Re “Don’t go nuclear,” editorial, March 25

You assert that emissions from mining uranium are “significant.” Compared to what? Even a modern, high-efficiency, natural gas-fired plant produces substantial carbon dioxide emissions over its life compared with the relatively short time that mining equipment would be used to extract uranium for any individual nuclear plant. Depending on the nuclear fuel cycle chosen, the uranium fuel might be recycled, so that fuel mined during one period would be used over many years, thus limiting mining emissions.

Wind, solar, increased efficiency and decentralized power will not transition modern society to a more environmentally friendly future by themselves. I personally crusaded against nuclear power in the late 1970s. Now, however, after spending the last 30 years in a state energy agency, I sincerely believe it is time to at least seriously consider all options.

Mike Ringer

Sacramento

If anybody is guilty of scare tactics, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California’s energy utilities should take a bow. While our governor “sees atomic power as a response to global warming,” Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano says she envisions her state as “the Persian Gulf of solar energy.” She has even gone so far as to commit Arizona Public Service, the state’s electric largest utility, to pay Abengoa Solar $4 billion over 30 years for renewable energy. The federal Bureau of Land Management is currently reviewing dozens of solar and wind projects for the desert Southwest. So why would Schwarzenegger not endorse forward-thinking industrial energy solutions available today by enabling legislation for investor-owned independent utilities generating from renewable resources?

For the sake of our environment, responsible growth and regional economy, I urge all Californians to consider The Times’ recommendation and “look at the big picture.”

Rick Conrad

Oxnard

Nuclear energy proliferation has historically led to greater nuclear weapons proliferation. The nuclear energy cycle involves reprocessed fission material such as plutonium, highly enriched uranium and nuclear waste, all of which can be utilized in weapons development.

Nuclear energy is not a reasonable option in our world, where terrorist organizations, rogue states and unstable governments acquire weapons potential under the guise of energy development. We need stronger international agreements to stop proliferation. Nuclear power is not environmentally or economically sustainable, and California has made the right decision over the last 30 years to steer clear of additional nukes. Clean energy alternatives such as solar, wind and particularly energy efficiency have barely been tapped and hold much greater promise for a peaceful energy future.

John Leddy

Venice