Being 100 percent independent of fossil fuel will never happen, nor should it. So standing up for oil and gas is as understandable as arguments for alternate energy; wind, hydro, tidal and "all-of-the-above" solutions. But when nuclear power is offhandedly tossed in as a piece of the energy puzzle for Alaska, one must be skeptical, especially following the Japanese disaster. A nuclear accident is not "put behind us, so we can move on" as spouts the treasured saying of politicians from all parties. Things swept under the rug turn up to haunt us. A quarter century after Chernobyl, a vast area is still contaminated. The world is a finite system. Engineering designers spout "infallibility," but nature is infinitely powerful. It is something to ponder when planning 21st century mega "solves-everything" projects.
Still, Alaska should build its own gas pipeline to fuel electrical generation needs for the foreseeable future and thereby buy the time needed for truly responsible alternative planning. Has the Legislature intentionally made Alaska appear dysfunctional by not doing so for over 50 years?
-- Ken Green