warning: file_exists(): open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/var/www/vhosts/glencoenews.com/httpdocs/../ad_/ad_cache_.inc) is not within the allowed path(s): (/var/www/vhosts/glencoenews.com/httpdocs/:/tmp/) in /var/www/vhosts/glencoenews.com/httpdocs/sites/all/modules/ad/adserve.inc on line 160.

Letter to editor - Clean energy should not be a partisan issue to debate

To the editor,
To begin, I want to address Rep. Gruenhagen's comments regarding reprocessing nuclear waste. The Union of Concerned Scientists published a paper regarding reprocessing nuclear waste.
In their paper, they state "the French company AREVA, which reprocesses French spent nuclear fuel, claims that reprocessing" reduces the volume of waste by a factor of at least four. This statement is contradicted by recent data from the U.S. Department of Energy, which show that reprocessing greatly increases the total volume of radioactive waste, compared to direct disposal of spent fuel."
Their "bottom line" comment as they refer to it in their paper simply states, "Reprocessing is not a sensible answer to the nuclear waste problem." The Nuclear Information and Resource Service also strongly opposes reprocessing nuclear waste. The World Nuclear Association put the capital cost to build a reprocessing plant at $16 billion. Would one plant be enough, or do we need more than one? We have 59 nuclear plants in the U.S. spread across 29 states, so I'm guessing we would need more than one reprocessing plant. I'm not sure how that works into Gruenhagen's math threatening higher utility bills from green energy.
Why don't we build more nuclear power plants in the U.S.? The common denominator in all of the scientific papers I reviewed was because of the cost. Do you think that might be a factor in the cost of electricity?
As for Gruenhagen's suggestion that disciples of the Green New Deal disconnect from the current power grid and use only solar and wind for electricity.... apparently, we will freeze in winter and sweat in summer, and then our brains will thaw. Hmmm.
Newsflash: a small number of people have already disconnected from the grid and they are doing just fine. You can live off the grid. My parents, aunts and uncles lived half their lives "off the grid."
When does Gruenhagen think electric power became available to rural areas? Even then, like today, there were people that were afraid of the new technology. A few farmers originally didn't connect because they considered it too dangerous - can't have electricity in the barn - it will burn it down. Safer to use the kerosene lanterns.
On June 26, the same date that the Chronicle published Rep. Gruenhagen's rebuttal to my editorial, Bloomberg News reported, "Clean energy resources supplied more of America's electricity than coal for the first time ever in April."
Six states, 11 counties and 130 cities across America have already committed to converting to clean/renewable energy. Green Energy is coming and you won't be able to stop it. Not because of Rep. Gruenhagen's opinion or mine. It's going to happen because people younger than both of us are going to demand it.
Glenn and I could debate this for the next year and I'm pretty certain neither of us would change our mind. What it really comes down to is this: every voter in district 18B needs to answer this question: "Would you support building a coal fired or nuclear power plant in your community?"
If your answer is yes, then get in line behind Rep. Gruenhagen. Sorry Glenn, but if you're going to advocate for it, you should be willing to live close to it too. If there is an attempt to build one within 50 miles of Glencoe, I'll be the guy with white hair and eyeglasses at the front of the protest line, so put me down as a firm No.
Lee Iacocca, the CEO credited for turning Chrysler Corp. around in the 1980's used the expression, "either lead, follow or get out of the way."
I think it's time for Mr. Gruenhagen to get out of the way.
Daris Remus,