Dear Editor,
Dr. Rinker has had some refreshing articles in the Sentinnel. I am writing to comment on some of his energy policy plan ideas for our nation from his 3/30 column: Overall, his tone seems to be one of mistrust of some of the natural resources such as Coal. One of the many natural resources found in America’s ground is an abundance of coal. To look at the long trainloads of coal moving through Roanoke on their way to ports for overseas exportation is an encouraging sign in a day when this country runs a trade deficit. While some like Dr. Rinker might consider coal a necessary dirty alternative, I am grateful that many of my relatives have been able to make good livelihoods from its mining.
The attitude Rinker portrays for the future of nuclear energy is confusing. In Part 3 of his energy plan he advocates building 200 to 400 new nuclear plants by 2025, but also favors phasing them all out later in Part 7. First of all, building this many new plants would take a prohibitively long time with the necessary regulations that are in place. (Some of the regulations are actually there to encumber this industry from new development. Nuclear energy has already been proven to be safe and efficient in other countries such as France, Sweden, and Germany. The U.S. Navy’s nuclear safety record is still perfect after almost 60 years.) In Part 4 Dr. Rinker favors shutting down all “carbon admitting stations, including natural gas.” Why should we severely handcuff ourselves this way. We have already slipped as an energy generator in the international scale. I tend to be very skeptical of any plans that give credits to “carbon footprints”.
– Doug Phillips, Roanoke