Renewable energy
Re: “Bad start for Bush on energy,” Feb. 7 editorial.
The Denver Post’s editorial claims that the president’s proposed 2007 budget shortchanges renewable energy. This could not be further from the truth.
In the proposal, $1.176 billion goes toward energy efficiency and renewable energy. That is a $2.5 million increase over the current year’s funding for that purpose. A specific breakdown of the funding request shows us that the president requested $195.8 million for hydrogen research, versus the 2006 funding level of $155.6 million. He requested $148.3 million for solar research and $149.6 million for biomass research. They are funded at $83.1 million and $90.7 million, respectively, this year.
Regrettably, the budget request ignores funding for geothermal research, but Congress can ensure that funding is saved. Aside from geothermal, it is difficult to identify the gross decreases in funding your editorial claims. The president’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2007 has obviously recognized the importance of renewable and alternative energy sources. He has proposed dramatically increased funding for solar, wind and biomass research. The National Renewable Energy Lab should expect to get the lion’s share of these increases. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will continue to work as I have for several years to keep funding at NREL in Golden at the highest level possible. It will remain the leader of renewable energy research and integration of these new technologies into the marketplace.
The Post’s editorial also found fault with the fact that the president dedicates a substantial amount of funding to “clean up old nuclear sites.” But that is the precise funding category of which we benefited from in order to clean up Rocky Flats. The Environmental Management program, which addresses nuclear pollution sites, is very important and we can’t afford for it to be under-funded. As we move forward to clean up these nuclear sites around the country, cutting such funding would be short-sighted.
U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, Loveland
Editor’s note: While the budget increases cited by Sen. Allard are correct, some of them come at the expense of reduced funding for other programs, such as the Energy Star efficiency program. Overall, the president’s budget proposal is less than the renewable-energy funding Congress approved last year.
Second opinions
A few months ago, my dentist discovered a cavity in a tooth supporting one of my bridges. He indicated that because of the difficulty in accessing the cavity he would have to replace the entire bridge at a cost of $2,600. So I went to my wife’s dentist to see what he thought. He was able to repair the cavity, and did it for $300!
We all fall in love with our professional caretakers and never question their judgment. You might not have noticed, but the cost of dentistry, medical care, chiropractors, you name it, have skyrocketed. Don’t let them do it. As far as I’m concerned, they work the same way as our garage mechanic does and will charge whatever they can.
It’s uncomfortable to suggest to your beloved dentist that you would like a copy of your X-rays so that you can obtain a second opinion. Get over it. I was able to and saved $2,300.
Sam Sirkin, Boulder
Cheney’s accident
Gosh, that Republican in-fighting has gotten nasty. Now, according to dubious media reports, the vice president has been out hunting Quayle. Is that spelled right?
George L. Brown, Wheat Ridge
