Zinke's energy platform needs major reform

I grew up and lived most of my life in Two Rivers, Wisconsin, on the shores of Lake Michigan. My family farmed and understood the value of good soils, clean air and water.

Early in my life, two nuclear plants were built nearby. In those days, nuclear plants were considered clean energy, though most townfolks were very anxious about our proximity to the plants. We never had a “Chernobyl” or “Fukushima” style disaster in Two Rivers, but there were several “occurrences” that were reported by the media. One plant was recently shut down while the other still generates electricity.

Ryan Zinke’s energy platform supports the expansion of fracking and the development of small nuclear reactors. These remedies to our nation’s energy needs are short-sighted and don’t address climate change and nuclear disposal issues.

Besides the issue of a nuclear meltdown, the downsides of nuclear generated power are 1) how to dispose of the highly radioactive fuel, and 2) addressing the decommissioned nuclear plants. Both remain radioactive for hundreds of years. Near my original homestead in Two Rivers, there are hundreds of concrete lined casks, which store spent plutonium cores adjacent to the largest concentration of fresh water in the world. If one of the Great Lakes were contaminated by radiation, it would be a disaster of epic proportions. Even though Montana is my home, and I’m thousands of miles away from Two Rivers, I still worry about it.

Any energy solution for Montana must focus on renewable energy strategies including wind, solar, less reliance on fossil fuels and perhaps nuclear. No nuclear plant should be built in Montana or America until there is a solution for disposing of the thousands of plutonium cores scattered throughout our country and addressing the decommissioned nuclear plants. —Betty Schneider, Kalispell