Soap Box

The Oct. 6 “Soap Box” section of the Telegraph contained a letter titled “Nuclear power bad,” highlighting a few main areas of concern. Rarely is something classifiable as “bad” or “good,” but in matters of science and economics, facts are a good starting point. Here is a fact-based point of view that disagrees with the Oct. 6 letter, in much more than six sentences.

Nuclear critiques generally get camped into two categories: 1) safety and 2) environmental hazard.

The safety of an energy source can be measured in the number of deaths caused by a) accidents and b) air pollution as a result of the energy source’s supply chain. Brown coal is the most deadly energy source, with 32.72 deaths per terawatthour of electricity produced. Coal is at 24.62 deaths per Tw and oil is 18.43. In contrast, wind is 0.04, solar is 0.02 and nuclear is 0.03 – all 99% less deadly than brown coal, separated by a negligible amount. Yes, the above stats do account for the notorious Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters.

Next, let’s consider the environmental hazard of each source. Once again, coal is the dirtiest, producing 820 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per gigawatt-hour. Wind? Four. Solar? Five. Nuclear? Three. Yes, when accounting for the total supply chain (e.g. each of these sources requires mining for coal/lithium/uranium), nuclear is currently the least greenhouse gas-intensive. Moreover, it is the least land-intensive by a long shot, requiring 2.2% of the land compared to solar and 2.5% as much land as wind.

What about nuclear waste? All nuclear waste generated by commercial nuclear since 1950, if piled up, would fit on a single football field, only piled 50 feet high. Moreover, there has never been an incident related to nuclear waste storage. In fact, spent nuclear fuel rods are regularly recycled for even more fuel production.

What about meltdowns? They’re rare, but not exactly within any realm of acceptable risk. We’ve seen the movies. Well, nuclear of today has about 50 years of innovation on Fukushima and Chernobyl. They operate at lower temperatures, produce less radioactive waste, even remain stable if power is lost, and can be deployed at much smaller scales than the gargantuan reactors we’re used to. Expanding nuclear energy today hardly resembles the manual and archaic reactors of the original nuclear power boom. In terms of safety and environmental hazard, nuclear is just as safe and environmentally impactful as its well-accepted compatriots, wind and solar.

What about nuclear weapon proliferation? A nuclear power plant does not contain the density of energy required to be construed into a weapon. Moving on.

Interestingly, the Oct. 6 letter worries that nuclear is an investment deterrent from wind and solar. As a result of solar investment, innovation and economies of scale, from 2009-19, the price of utilityscale solar decreased by 89%, even when normalized for subsidies. Wind has gone down 30% in the same period. These sources reached peak production for the U.S. last year, providing 13% of all energy. They’ve benefitted greatly from investment and will continue to be deployed for our energy future.

Meanwhile, coal, the dirtiest and most deadly source of energy, saw its first increase in production share since 2014. Why? As gas prices rose, energy producers looked for more affordable sources, particularly for baseload power, where solar and

GoldenOpportunity: While we await a clever cartoon based on the outcome of the mid-term elections, enjoy this random photo signifying the peaceful transition of seasons. If only politics were that easy. /Photo by Missy Votel

wind fall short due to a dearth in battery storage capacity. Unfortunately, misinformation has kept nuclear on the sidelines. In fact, the U.S.’s number of reactors has been declining (92 today vs. 104 in 2014), but nuclear power remains at about 20% of U.S. power production thanks to power plant capacity upgrades. Had the U.S. invested in nuclear, we could have had a clean energy response to the rise of gas prices, perhaps even displacing some of fossil fuel’s market share permanently.

Nuclear energy is as safe for humans and our environment as our currently preferred renewable alternatives, despite decades of misinformation and under investment. Our planet wouldn’t mind if we reinvested in nuclear at the scale we’ve supported other renewables. In the meantime, discourse amongst Telegraph readers is a healthy (dare I say, “good”) first step.

Stepping back, the energy transition our planet demands of us is daunting and complex. Navigating these issues as a nation, let alone a species of 7 billion, requires a collective effort to embrace the facts as a stable platform for cooperation.

We got this.

– Jamie Finney, Durango – Sylvia Killinen, Bayfield

Breaking trust

Mercy Hospital’s decision to stop offering sterilizations in 2023 is a violation of community trust. It will lay an unnecessary burden of travel on people who do not want to be pregnant and compromise health care for anyone who needs a sterilizing surgery.

I am one such person. I suffered from severe gynecological pain for years longer than I should have because of policies like this. Because it was considered “immoral” to sterilize a young person who did not want children, I had to withstand the pain until I could get a doctor’s approval to remove organs that would never function correctly.

When I say severe pain, I mean that it was significantly worse than a broken bone. I had less pain directly after I was released than I did in the hour before surgery. It is not an exaggeration to say that the sterilization procedure saved my life.

I am not a Catholic (and with this blatant disregard for my suffering, I never will be). It is absolutely unreasonable that the director of “mission integration” should be permitted to make decisions about what procedures are permissible when there is no other hospital within an hour’s drive. This policy is an unwanted imposition of someone else’s religious beliefs.

There is not, and cannot be, moral value in forcing me and others like me to suffer.

More walk, less drive

I’d like to commend Ron Pond for his suggestion “Fix Downtown” to improve Main Ave. in last week’s Telegraph. However, if changes are to be made, I’d rather see them go all the way and make it a pedestrian mall.

Now, before you have a conniption, hear me out. I lived in Boulder for several years and can attest to the quaintness and draw of the sheltered walking promenade called “Pearl Street Mall.”

What about the loss of already insufficient parking, you say? A few parking garages could gain that back and more. Businesses end up thriving, because someone on foot is far more likely to wander into your store than someone driving and desperately looking for a parking space.

But, won’t you have to walk a lot farther from a parking garage, you say? Guess what? Durango is a healthy town, and visitors may find the extra exercise to be beneficial to their health. And, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that breathing carbon monoxide is not healthy, nor is getting hit by a car.

There are many other benefits as well: All summer long, Boulder has something called “Band on the Bricks” every week, with a stage set up in the middle of Pearl Street featuring different bands. This would be perfect for iAM Music concerts, without having to be relegated to some random parking lot.

Buskers or street performers might show up and provide additional entertainment and culture. It could also be extra work for the local Secret Circus Society members. Pedicabs could be available for those with more money than fitness. Less noise pollution. And I’m sure others can come up with some more beneficial ideas.

I’m new to town and this idea has probably been proposed before, so let’s make this happen. – Eric Orton, Durango

Walk the walk

Colorado has long been the laughingstock of the West when it comes to transportation. Durango is the jester. Buses to south of town destinations like Walmart and Home Depot leave every half hour and are in some uncomfortable places to wait. At the bottom of Bodo Dr., near Credit Union of Colorado, would be a great place for a stop. The closest stop is at Office Depot or Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, which is covered. There is also no good turn-round to run buses back on Frontage Road, which means people have to use two buses for every one-way trip.

Of course the other Durango problem is Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) mentalities. Who’s going to pay for expanded bus service? Already, people who use the bus pay for admittance. Make businesses on route help pay and upkeep their stops as a community outreach. We need to take better care of pedestrians. Also, we need a more literate police force and access to emergency care when and if someone hits a pedestrian because of the lack of infrastructure, health care and other safety mechanisms. Durango is simply no fun for people using less polluting modes of transportation and dangerous for people who walk, ride or use other mechanisms to travel. – Christa Turnell, Durango

eteran’V

Nov 10 & 11 Ve ’ss Day Sale! 25% OFF! (REC) ll hAll Month! 25% OFF!

Don’t Miss These Awesome A Autumn Deals!

AGREAT T STRAIN SELECTIO PIPES • SMOKING ACCESSOR AP REL • MJ LITER

ON • HASH & ACONCENTRRAATTE • EDIBLES • SEED • CLONES IES • APPA A RAATTURE & L CONSULT TING • A ATTM ON SITE

Bodo Park MED 9am - 6:30pm / REC 9am - 8pm 72 Suttle Street Units F & G (970) 259-3674 Grandview (REC Onl S-T: 9am - 6pm / W-S: 9am - 8pm 37 County Road 232 (970) 426-4381

y) Cortez

MED & REC 9am - 8pm 1013 E. Main St. Cortez, CO 81321 (970) 565-6500