It appears that the prime minister is leading us down a garden path which is not only expensive but also wrongly advised, and feels compelled to do it quickly.

His knee-jerk response to Portia Simpson Miller's call for examining the nuclear energy alternative and dispelling the possibility based on the fear of nuclear fallout is not only alarmist but ill-advised because the new fifth-generation Pebble Bed Modular Reactors developed during the last 20 years since Chernobyl have eliminated this possibility altogether.

Practical implementation

The alternative of compressed natural gas (CNG) which he and Don Wehby are pushing is quite expensive, both in terms of practical implementation and economic sense.

What facilities do we have to handle CNG and who is going to pay for it? How do we berth a vessel with one million cubic feet of CNG, discharge it, distribute it and store the product? Where will the money come from, and what shall we pay the investors in return?

Since the nuclear alternative has been ruled out, apparently because it was suggested by the leader of the Opposition, why does the Government not concentrate on more practical and cost-effective alternatives like methanol and biomass?

These alternatives are much quicker and cheaper and more practical to handle and implement, produce other by-products which can be sold to offset the cost of energy generation and employ abundant labour outside of the municipalities of Kingston and Montego Bay. Furthermore, there are thousands of tons of garbage which are not recycled which can be used to produce energy and other products if 'netmetering' is allowed, which would also make solar and wind energy production more viable.

I am, etc.,

DONALD CHUNG

canjamma@yahoo.com

Kingston 6