The Arjun Makhijani guest editorial is the expected response from an environmental, anti-nuclear group (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Maryland) that monitors national news media responses that are viewed as favorable to nuclear power development. The group, sensing a funding opportunity, then responds with selected data sources that convey their message for public support. I will respond to some of the more inaccurate claims.

First quote "Renewable energy sources are quite sufficient to provide ample and reliable electricity for the United States ... wind energy potential of Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states is two times the entire electricity production of the U.S." Of course, this implies that the wind energy within the western United States be extracted from each acre of land where the wind might exhibit sufficient wind energy for development. The Department of Energy generally declares areas with a Rayleigh Distribution wind energy power class of 3 or more as potentially developable. However, the land area required for two times U.S. electricity production is immense. A rough estimate is that about 50 percent of the West must site 1.5 million 1.5 MW wind turbines for base load electrical power compounded with transmission interconnections covering the landscape.

A 1 GW coal or nuclear base load plant needs less than 500 acres. An equivalent 1 GW base load wind power at U.S. average capacity of about 22 percent would require 45,000 acres, plus another 5,000 acres for transmission corridors. Wind turbines the size of the LDS Church Office Building would be required every 240 feet along I-15 and I-80, spanning the entire state. Unfortunately at this spacing, the 250-foot-diameter blades of each turbine would intersect each other.

Continuing to quote Makhijani, "Keystone Center (anti-nuclear?) ... estimated nuclear costs at 8 to 11 cents" (per kw-hr?). Interestingly, official U.S. government published production costs for nuclear generated electricity (20 percent of U.S. electrical power) in 2007 is 1.68 cents/kw-hr), cheaper than coal and natural gas and much cheaper than wind and solar, which presently provide less than 2 percent of U.S. electrical power. The cost of nuclear- generated electricity has been below 2 cents/kw-hr for the past nine years. Perhaps anti-nuclear groups hope that new nuclear plants will be much more expensive than the present fleet to support their agenda despite significant economic and safety improvements for new plants.

Next quote: "Solar power is somewhat more expensive today, but costs are coming down rapidly." Somewhat more expensive is quantified by the DOE's Energy Information Agency at over three times the average cost of present Rocky Mountain electricity. A $100 monthly power bill would now be $300.

Next quote "New nuclear plants would add to the country's mountain of nuclear waste." The entire volume of all U.S. spent nuclear fuel would occupy a football field to a depth of less than 10 feet. This is a very small mountain indeed. However, disposing of 14,000 Utah wind turbines for the previous example with their concrete base pads, massive components, transmission towers, etc., would require about 20 square miles of disposal area to a depth of 10 feet.

Last quote: "... a renewable portfolio standard of 25 percent by 2025 would help." When the present federal subsidy of 1.9 cents/kw- hr lapses and Rocky Mountain Power is forced to purchase, regardless of cost to the consumer, renewable power to meet this legislative mandate, then Utah ratepayers will suffer. Rather than letting the free market determine the most economical electrical power supplier, the mandate will ignore costs. It is well known that U.S. automakers are in trouble competing with Japanese manufacturers. Perhaps we should also pass an "automobile portfolio standard" that mandates that Utahns purchase at least 25 percent of new vehicles in the state from U.S. manufacturers regardless of cost. This would certainly please a lot of labor unions and perhaps even expand the coffers of environmental, anti-nuclear groups.

Nuclear power is only one necessary component for electric power. No single entity -- including renewables -- will suffice.

Gary M. Sandquist is a former professor and director of the nuclear engineering program at the University of Utah.