The "My view" by Cathy L. Hartman and Edwin R. Stafford (Nov. 6) makes many good points about moving into "a new, cleaner technological era" of higher energy efficiency. It is a good idea to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, as they point out, to reduce global warming, to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and to quit feeding money to unstable countries that fund terrorism. They fail, however, to suggest a good source of energy to replace fossil fuels. Instead, they beat around the bush. The sources they mention are inadequate: fuel cells are a way to use hydrogen (which isn't available); photovoltaics, geothermal, wind and biomass are all either too expensive or not available on a large scale.
In short, nuclear is the best answer to every question they raise and more, but they completely fail to mention it. Nuclear now produces 20 percent of our electricity and has an outstanding safety record. The Three Mile Island incident didn't kill or harm anyone. The disastrous Chernobyl reactor in the former USSR was being run by an idiot who had no nuclear training.
Steven C. Barrowes
Ogden