Energy solution may be nuclear

Follow the money. It’s always about the money. Our fuel prices are higher because someone is willing to pay more than we’ve been paying for the oil.
OPEC sells to the highest bidder. Our country espouses that system — capitalism — and we taught the world how to use it. As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
There’s no one else to blame. Our prices will not go down. If you have any investments, even bank savings, your investment managers are buying stocks in the very companies that are making a profit from you. Wake up, enjoy the profit, but also accept the blame.
Tapping more of our resources will not lower our fuel or energy costs. The extraction companies will just sell to the highest bidder, whether it’s us or another country. If we could force them to sell only nationally, that might help, but our own free-enterprise system prevents that.
The only feasible solution is to find alternative energy sources that don’t harm our resources: water, air, forests, and without using government subsidies that you pay for indirectly by taxation.
Wind, solar and wave energy have too many fluctuations to be totally reliable. Geothermal energy apparently is good only for moderating temperatures within a narrow range for comfort.
Nuclear-thermal electric generation (not nuclear steam systems) seems to be a most efficient method. It doesn’t affect our water or air and there are no waste products except a depleted radiation source every 20 years or so. Nuclear subs use a fist-size piece of radioactive material to power the boat for 20 years.
One cubic inch of radioactive material might power your house or vehicle for 20 or more years.
This is not a dream. These generators are used in space vehicles now and are very reliable, very compact. Every home or car could have one, but who would build it with no ongoing money stream to be had?
There may be some holes in my theories but I refuse to complain without trying to offer some solutions. What are yours?
DICK KWIATKOWSKI

Grand Junction
Proposed police facility
appears far too expensive
I find that the new police facility is too expensive. For $104 million, School District 51 built the new Fruita school for eighth and ninth grade students, Pear Park and Chipeta elementary schools and, remodeled West and East middle schools.
A $98 million structure is not much for the money. Our property tax is based on real-estate values. With growth in developed properties and the high price of homes, the revenue should be built-in.
I realize we need a new police station, but the school district showed us we can get more for the money. Maybe instead of a separate workout room for officers, we can have a community fitness center with a boys/girls club. Kids can be with excellent role models and the officers, firemen and city officials can bond with the community.
The sales tax of 7.75 percent should hold because the sale price of everything has risen. The city should find money within existing revenues and go back to the drawing board.
JIM LAUDADIO
Grand Junction

Vote Congress out
over Medicare debacle
Congress cares about health care?
If a major employer decided to reduce health benefits for its employees, picket lines would go up immediately and every local politician would be denouncing the company.
However, Congress, by its inaction, may allow Medicare reimbursements to be reduced over 10 percent and yet 90 percent of the incumbents will get re-elected by the voters. Wake up people!
L.W. HUNLEY
Grand Junction

This entry was posted on Monday, July 7th, 2008 at 9:11 am and is filed under Printed letters. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.