[{
"name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle CC01 - 300x250",
"id": "AdMediumRectangleCC01300x250",
"class": "inlineCenter",
"insertPoint": "8",
"component": "2963441",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "12"
},{
"name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle LC01 - 300x250",
"id": "AdMediumRectangleCC01300x250",
"class": "inlineCenter",
"insertPoint": "18",
"component": "2963441",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "22"
},{
"name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle LC09 - 300x250",
"id": "AdMediumRectangleLC09300x250",
"class": "inlineCenter",
"insertPoint": "28",
"component": "3252660",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "32"
}]
This letter is in reference to John Zinkes’ letter in the Aug. 16 issue (“An alternative to Diablo”). I’m not even going to try to verify his findings about all his facts regarding other ways to fuel the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and to store the spent fuel. If he or anyone else believes that there is that kind of savings to be had and that PG&E wouldn’t change to using it you are sadly mistaken. Yes, PG&E is there to make electricity, but also money. As I have worked through my local pipefitter union during re-fueling outages, I know from a first-hand view that if there’s a better, safer way to get something done, they will do it, and according to him, saving 40 percent, they would have been all over that years ago.
Readers Poll
What's your favorite part of this year's SLO International Film Festival?
Latest in Letters
Readers also liked…
© 2024
New Times San Luis Obispo
