Local energy

One item in your Jan. 24 article "Triangle picked as nuke site" depressed me more than fear of nuclear catastrophe or the cleanup burden for future generations. It was the figure of $3 billion.

Confronted by an amount like that, politicians and energy executives, like animals at feeding time, find it difficult to think clearly. The equation looks so simple. If the alternatives of oil-, coal- or natural gas-fueled generating plants are worse in terms of cost and environmental impact, then a nuclear plant is the answer. Q.E.D.

The overlooked alternative is thinking small. Whether using nuclear or fossil fuel, we have a system that wastes far more than it consumes. Sixty percent goes up in steam, literally. At least another 20 percent is lost in distribution through the grid.

Local energy networks avoid much of the loss and allow local communities to develop their own sources for energy. Holland uses "hot road" technology by which one kilometer of highway generates enough energy for 400 homes. In Denmark and Holland schools are being powered from solar playgrounds. In Berlin, 80 percent of new buildings generate their own energy. London plans to be self-sufficient in energy within 10 years.

While it may be impractical to confront vested energy interests nationally, there is every possibility on a local scale. Maybe the threat of a nuclear power station will prompt our city government to adopt a self-sufficiency program. What an opportunity for Raleigh!

Richard Graham-Yooll

Raleigh