Nuclear Greens

I read with considerable interest Mr. Huber's article, ("It's Time for Greens to Go Nuclear"). On the surface, he appears to present a rational approach to new power generation, and some historical context. A closer look at the article reveals a deep bias and poor reasoning.

His basic premise appears to be that environmentally conscious individuals and groups have no choice but to burn megatons of coal, embrace nuclear power, or freeze in the dark. In a single sentence, he dismisses any possibility of alternatives to his polarized view. There are, however, viable alternatives.

One such alternative is the Solar Power Satellite, or PowerSat. PowerSats sit in a very high orbit, constantly in sunlight. They capture this undiluted sunlight, convert it to electricity, and beam it down to the surface for use via safe wireless power transmission technology. No fuel is burned, no greenhouse gasses emitted, no mines, wells, or dams. Cheap, clean power, forever. No leaps of technology are required to build PowerSats, no 'magic' involved. The concept has been around since the late 1960's.

Currently there are several organizations pursuing the PowerSat concept, including an effort at Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, and the University of Alaska, not to mention various commercial interests.

Why then would such a power source go unmentioned Mr. Huber's article? I would suggest that the existence of viable alternatives reveal his anti-environmental position to be untenable. He paints those who reject the two choices he offers as irrational when in fact it is such artificial narrowing of options that reasonable people of all political leanings reject. In saying 'Neither' we are saying there are other options.

Like new nuclear plants, PowerSats won't be ready for five to ten years, but the time to start is now, because as Mr. Huber correctly points out, we certainly will need the power. Nuclear power won't be able to make up the difference any faster, so why invest in another fuel-using, waste producing power source when we have huge fusion reactor, already running, located at a convenient 93 million-mile distance?

We shouldn't condemn our children to live in a world with an energy legacy far less than we've been blessed with. We should develop truly sustainable, unlimited energy sources now.

William E. Maness
wmaness@powersatcorp.com

* * *

Received on April 17, 2001

PowerSat Corporation Editors Note:

Other Letters removed for copyright reasons.  To view the original page requires a Wall Street Journal account, and may be accessed at:

http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB987534692622328897.htm