In response to David E. Corbin's letter ("Lincoln can win in renewed rivalry," June 16), solar and wind are good options where locally feasible, but their ability to supply baseload power 24-7 has been oversold to the public.
Both sources require natural gas or coal backup when the sky is cloudy or the winds calm. All feasible locations for utility-scale hydroelectricity have already been exploited, so we shouldn't expect lots of growth from hydro.
Nuclear fission is our only proven, minimal-carbon, steady source of electricity that can be deployed in a wide variety of locations. We should recognized that being an environmentalist and a climate-change activist aren’t necessarily the same thing.
It’s a pity the Sierra Club has taken such an absolutist and irrational position against nuclear energy. Optics should never prevail over achieving real reduction in carbon emissions. By demonizing nuclear energy, the Sierra Club and its fellow travelers in thought have poisoned the well politically against our most useful tool against climate change.
Look to how Germany and France have responded: Germany has the most expensive electricity in Europe and isn’t making much of a dent in carbon emissions, whereas nuclear-happy France has both cheaper power and lower carbon emissions thanks to its 58 nuclear fission reactors.
Germany's and France's per-capita carbon emissions are 9.1 and 5.6 metric tons, respectively according to the World Bank. Pick the future you want.
Trevor Allen Brass, Lincoln