Let’s go nuclear

Although I agree with a lot of what Ms. Adler is saying in “Hairy sustainability,” there are a few points that her analogy fails to cover. Staying with her analogy, the U.S. currently has way too much hair (greenhouse gas emissions) to remove solely with her laser treatment (renewables). All the solar panels in the world produce about 6,000 megawatts; there is a single nuclear power plant in Japan that can put out that much. I am a huge advocate for solar power, but we are still decades away from solar putting a dent in emissions. Wind also should be expanded greatly, but some places simply aren’t windy enough. On top of that, turbines take a whole lot of land and metal. Most importantly, solar and wind cannot provide base load power. If the wind isn’t blowing at night, solar and wind power don’t produce.

The true laser treatment analogy would be nuclear power. Its upfront costs are high and people are afraid of the technology, but it’s the best solution out there. Through the whole life cycle the costs are second only to fossil fuel. Once the plant is up and running, it’s cheaper to maintain than any other power source. As for safety, no U.S. citizen has even been harmed because of the nuclear power industry.

Working as a nuclear tech is safer than being a real estate agent. I’ve lived near the Calvert Cliffs power plant my whole life, and I’m fine. As for Ms. Adler’s statement that meltdown costs are immeasurable, they aren’t. A meltdown did occur in the U.S. at Three Mile Island. No one died; no one even got hurt. Greenhouse emissions definitely are a hairy problem, but the solution is a combination of all renewables AND nuclear power.

Jon FacemireJuniorMechanical engineering

Where is the uproar?

Last night at the ERC, after finishing my normal workout routine, I stopped to get a smoothie. As I stood there waiting, AC360 was on the television. To my great surprise, they were doing a story on a 15-year-old boy who was shot. In front of two dozen classmates, Lawrence King was shot in the head by a fellow student. Why? Another random school killing? An accident between friends? None of the above. He was shot because he was gay.

This boy was killed because he decided to come out and be who he was born as. Police are calling this a hate crime, and my question is, why have I not heard about this sooner? The event took place Feb. 12 and I, an avid follower of the news, did not hear about it until last night! Now, I am sure the media has been focused on the Oscars, which received the lowest ratings in its history, and the dresses of the movie stars. This poor boy deserved better, and even more so, the cause of his death deserves more attention. Anderson Cooper asked a few questions I would like to relay to my fellow students: What if this was a black student killed by white student because of his race? Or a Jewish student leader killed by a Muslim student? Would this have received more attention? OF COURSE.

Even on our own campus, we had protests when a noose was found in a tree by the Stamp Student Union. I am a gay student. I have been out since my freshman year of high school. Many people believe that all gay students are radicals forcing their cause onto others. I am not one.This is a matter of human rights. Does one group deserve to be neglected? Should we let, as a society, a boy die in vain?

Aaron ThorneSophomoreAerospace engineering