Do you support more nuclear power plants in the Southeast?
To cut our need for fossil fuels, the only realistic option is nuclear power. Wind and solar will never be able to generate the power needed in our part of the country. —Mark, via e-mail
Nuclear power is critical for the development of our energy-hungry country, and the Southeast is the nation’s nuclear capital. The construction of a plant also provides high-paying jobs for the local economy and draws highly educated employees to the area. If the U.S. government would allow reprocessing, there would be much less spent fuel to deal with. —Brittany, Lynchburg, Va.
Japan’s nuclear catastrophe has revealed again the real dangers of nuclear energy. Solar and wind are safer long-term options. —Jill Youse, via e-mail
If there was a way to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel, then it might be an option. At this point it would be worse than coal and its tons of by-products. Wind and solar energy are just now experiencing a re-birth. If we had been developing them more aggressively since the ‘70s, who knows how much they would be able to produce. The nuclear and petroleum industry seems to have gotten most of the breaks. —Michel, Marietta, Ga.
Generating more nuclear power is not worth the huge safety risks. We need to focus on clean renewable energy, like wind and solar, that will safely sustain us into the future for generations to come. The South can’t afford another catastrophic environmental disaster. Just ask our friends on the Gulf Coast. —Rich Miller, Alpharetta, Ga.
Should commercial logging be banned in national forests?