Use of hydrogen as an energy source
Re: “The problems with hydrogen as a fuel,” Feb. 2 Open Forum.
Letter-writer Jim Bower suggests that hydrogen is not viable as an energy source, in part because it would require new coal or nuclear plants and because we lack a distribution system. Neither is necessarily true.
Currently, your local utility company figures out a “base” load of electricity that is required on a continuous basis. The utility then figures its peak load, meaning electricity that will be necessary when everybody turns on their air conditioners. The reason that utilities are reluctant to invest in solar, wind and wave power (aside from the cost per kilowatt) is that they cannot control when the sun will shine or the wind will blow or how high the waves will be. And since they cannot control those factors, they have difficulty fitting those sources into their base load/peak load model.
I would like to suggest that a different model would make more sense. If we are going to move to a hydrogen economy, then what we need is an oversupply of electricity so that the excess capacity can be used to produce hydrogen. If we built a grid based on massively parallel renewable capacity, and mass produced solar, wind and wave power plants that could be installed by individuals, businesses and communities, the cost per kilowatt would come down for those sources.
Further, we could install capacity in excess of peak load because any electricity not needed for current use could be used to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen would then be a natural to replace petroleum in transportation (assuming safety issues are solved) and it could be produced where it will be used, eliminating the need for a distribution system.
David Braden, Golden
U.S. policy on detainment of children
I consider myself a diligent reader of the newspaper. I also try to read books from many points along the political spectrum. But I was surprised to find the following passage in former President Jimmy Carter’s book, “Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis”:
“After visiting six of the twenty-five or so U.S. prisons, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported registering 107 detainees under eighteen, some as young as eight years old. The journalist Seymour Hersh reported in May 2005 that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had received a report that there were ‘800-900 Pakistani boys 13-15 years of age in custody.’ The International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and the Pentagon have gathered substantial testimony of torture of children, confirmed by soldiers who witnessed or participated in the abuse. In addition to personal testimony from children about physical and mental mistreatment, a report from Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib, described a visit to an eleven-year-old detainee in the cell block that housed high-risk prisoners. The general recalled that the child was weeping, and ‘he told me he was almost twelve,’ and that ‘he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother.’ Children like this eleven-year-old have been denied the right to see their parents, a lawyer, or anyone else, and were not told why they were detained. A Pentagon spokesman told Mr. Hersh that ‘age is not a determining factor in detention.”‘
If true, and Carter seems credible, then the issue – that the U.S. is incarcerating and torturing children – is front-page news. I would like to know, and see, more about this issue.
My son is 11, almost 12.
James LaRue, Castle Rock
Proposal to ban smoking in Colorado
I salute the Colorado General Assembly, especially Rep. Mike May and Sen. Dan Grossman, and for their actions to promote smoke-free environments in Colorado’s restaurants, bars and other public establishments. Supporting the Clean Indoor Air Act is an excellent way to protect all of Colorado’s workers, including those who work in restaurants and bars.
This is really a simple issue. Secondhand smoke claims almost 53,000 lives annually in the U.S. We all should have the right to go out to eat, drink and work without being exposed to toxic pollutants and carcinogens. In our state alone, tobacco use will result in thousands of deaths this year and be a costly strain on our health care system. Smoking is a major risk factor for the No. 1 cause of death in our state – cardiovascular diseases like heart disease and stroke.
It appears that some misguided folks would like to add an amendment that would exempt bars from the legislation. Should we also exempt bar employees from having to wash their hands after using the lavatory? It makes about as much sense. If we are truly committed to protecting the health and well being of the community at large, then bars should simply not be excluded.
Art Vertun, Lafayette
President’s budget
Re: “Bush tightens belt in budget,” Feb. 7 news story.
I found your headline to be grossly misleading. The budget proposed a 2.3 percent overall spending increase, not a reduction, as the headline implies. What the budget proposal accomplishes is a shift in priorities from education, Medicare, the poor and alternative energies into defense and fossil-fuel industries. Your headline implies that President Bush is being fiscally responsible, which the body of the article refutes.
Rob Cassady, Louisville
First, ban divorce
Coloradans for Marriage has it all wrong. What we really need is a constitutional amendment prohibiting divorce. With nearly half of all marriages failing, this is a far more serious problem than gay marriage. If, as Coloradans for Marriage contends, all children need a mommy and daddy for a healthy basic family unit, then by all means they should abandon their current effort and get behind an amendment to prohibit divorce. Of course, when we have this problem corrected in our constitution, then we should immediately propose amendments to prohibit adultery, premarital sex and other sinful sexual practices.
Paul Hesson, Loveland
Rivers and Mallard
Reggie Rivers’ column in last Friday’s Post (“George Bush’s Ministry of Truth”) was succinct, articulate, well-thought-out and thought-provoking. Directly below it was yet another insipid, mean-spirited and mindlessly partisan bit of Mallard Fillmore stupidity. Good writing and cartoons inspire thought and reflection. Thank you for bringing us Rivers’ column, which does lead to such reflection. Why not replace that stupid, ax-grinding Mallard Fillmore with something more deserving of op-ed page real estate?
Bob Herman, Crestone
Bush’s response to 2001 terror warning
Re: “Reasons to approve of President Bush,” Feb. 8 Open forum.
The first item on letter-writer Jim Kutsko’s list of why we should approve of George W. Bush’s presidency: “No terrorist attacks on American soil in more than four years.”
The only terrorist attack on American soil occurred during Bush’s presidency. He was warned about it more than a month before it happened in a Presidential Daily Briefing which was headlined “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” Bush responded by doing nothing. Do you really feel safer with this man watching over us (both literally and figuratively, it seems)? I most certainly do not.
Debra Meyer, Aurora
Colorado Voices
If you have good ideas and a writer’s touch, we hope you’ll apply for Colorado Voices. It is a den for part-time columnists, a feature we created in 1999 as a forum for contributors from across the state.
Send us two sample columns, 600 to 700 words each, along with a cover letter describing your background, your interest in Voices and whatever else you think we need to know.
Deadline for entries is 5 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 20. E-mail them to us at voices@denverpost.com (no attachments, please), or by mail to Mary Idler, Denver Post Editorial Page, 1560 Broadway, Denver CO 80202. Provide your address, phone numbers and e-mail address.
The Open Forum
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Fax: 303-820-1502
