To the editor:

This is in response to the 8-8-2025 ‘Nuclear power: Facts and myths.’ Under the notation, ‘Small Footprint, Big Results.’ I learned that one nuclear plant on 103 acres of land can put out as much power as a wind installation that would require 17,800 acres or, a solar installation that needs 3,200 acres.

Another advantage (not mentioned) is being able to locate closer to large centers of use like the metro area. This would cut down on the cost of transmission lines going clear across the state; in addition to reducing the number of irritated landowners who do not want them.

However, I disagree with the author’s view that we need to meet, “bold carbon free goals”.

Just from a commonsense perspective, how can man’s CO2 which comprises only 0.0016% of the atmosphere, jerk the whole global climate system around when there are over 43,000 under-sea volcanoes, and the hot 40,000-mile-long mid-ocean mountain ridges and rifts pumping lots of heat and CO2 into the ocean currents? We don’t monitor quantity at all those points of heat and CO2 emission; so how can we say man is causing global warming?

Man’s tiny 0.0016% CO2 input is a non-player for driving global warming.

Phil Drietz

Delhi