Letter to the editor: We need coal & nuclear |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: We need coal & nuclear

I disagree with letter-writer Dwayne Kiger’s assertion that natural gas eliminates the need for coal ( “Trump lies about coal,” Aug. 6, TribLIVE). Coal and nuclear are needed to protect the grid. A natural-gas plant cannot store its fuel on site. Stop the flow of gas, and the lights go out about a minute later. A coal-fired plant usually has three weeks of fuel stored on site. Nuclear is fueled to run two years. A balanced mix of fuel sources is good for stability.

Don’t let the all the new wind turbines you see fool you. Just because you see them turning, don’t assume that they are making rated power. At low wind speeds (9 mph) a typical 1.5 megawatt turbine may only be generating 0.04 megawatts. Most wind turbines need a 30 mph wind to generate rated power. Fossil-fuel plants can respond to changing grid conditions by controlling their power outputs. Not so with solar and wind. This is why energy storage systems are being intensely researched.

Bottom line: Think of energy sources like your 401(k). The better balanced it is, the more stable it is.

Carl Massart

Buffalo Township

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.