March 9, 2010
As a strong proponent of renewable energy, I read "The fantasy of wind power for Maryland" (March 8) and then wondered why it took so long for Jon Boone to inform the reader that the wind doesn't blow all the time. Of course, his agenda became clear: "Throwing vast amounts of the public's treasure down the rathole of wind is to deny investment in infinitely more effective technologies -- such as nuclear -- that will preserve the energy requirements of modernity." How could the author claim to be a "longtime environmentalist" and support nuclear power, the most dangerous and toxic of all energy sources?
April 5, 2011
After reading Dan Rodricks ' "Despite tragedy, nuclear still way to go" (March 27), I am gratified that there are still thoughtful editorials and letters to the editor in support of nuclear power, despite the situation in Japan. Having had almost everything possible thrown at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, there are still no deaths connected to the damaged reactors, proving again that nuclear power generation is the safest form of energy known to date. Yet thanks to a not always benevolent Mother Nature, thousands of people are dead or injured, and the majority of media coverage has diverted national attention away from the Japanese people's needs and suffering to focus on the "nuclear disaster.
March 12, 2011
In "Calvert Cliffs 3 makes no sense" (March 10), Ellen Vancko is adamant that Maryland state government should not in any way underwrite or subsidize a third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear facility. Yet while she eschews support for nuclear energy, she implies that it, unlike other forms of renewable energy, will have an effect on "climate change. " Based on that, Ms. Vancko would be more than willing to subsidize the proven inefficiency and lack of cost-effectiveness of solar and wind power — to the detriment of a proven, efficient and world-wide major energy source: nuclear power.
February 9, 2011
Ajax Eastman's Feb. 7 piece, "Wind power advocates full of hot air," presents the vastly distorted impression that the Maryland environmental community is divided on the issue of offshore wind power. This is not true. All of the state's major environmental groups — the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Sierra Club, Environment Maryland, the National Wildlife Foundation and the Maryland League of Conservation Voters — firmly support Gov. Martin O'Malley's Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act. Ms. Eastman loses credibility among mainstream environmental advocates by supporting the expansion of expensive, dangerous nuclear power plants instead of offshore wind power development.
February 11, 2010
In Tim Wheeler's article about offshore wind ("Study boosts offshore windmills," Feb. 9), Jeremy Firestone comments: "Yeah, you're going to kill some birds, and yes, there are probably some places you don't want to put wind turbines." These remarks understate the complexity of the biology that will be affected by his proposal. A committee of the National Research Council has concluded that industrial wind installations alter entire ecosystems, doing more harm than just killing birds and bats, and further, that there is insufficient understanding of ecology even to estimate their adverse effects.
October 28, 2010
Johanna Neumann cites the high cost of a new nuclear reactor as the major reason to not build one ("Let Calvert Cliffs 3 Die," October 14). But she also mentions that reactors are risky, and official statistics back her up. Since the early 1980s, just after the two Calvert Cliffs reactors began operating, Calvert County's cancer death rate jumped from 2 percent below to 16 percent above the state rate. A lot of other factors are associated with cancer, but none are apparent in Calvert County.