A trillion dollars ????

Dear Editor, Big numbers are being reported with regard to proposed infrastructure spending. We also hear that we should all be purchasing electric powered transportation because it will be good for the environmental effort to reduce global warming. Global warming, per the scientific community as caused by Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere. Let us look at needs and numbers. One trillion dollars could purchase quite a large amount of electric power. The problem is, could we build sufficient generation to stop or reduce the generating source of CO2. Wind mills, and nuclear power are the only non-CO2 sources that can operate twenty-four hours per day. Provided the wind does not slow. Do we need a trillion dollars of electric power generation? During the late nineteen-seventies plants were budgeted at about ten billion dollars ($10,000.000.000). At twenty billion dollars each we could build a long-term program of electric power. Nuclear plants operate at over ninety percent of the time in a year. A pellet of nuclear fuel weighs approximately 0.1 ounce (6 grams). However, that single pellet yields the amount of energy equivalent to that generated by a ton of coal, 120 gallons of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, making nuclear fuel much more efficient than fossil fuels. This represents a substantial reduction in CO2. With a problem remaining waste. Possibly not as large as battery waste or contamination. Is our Congress capable of grasping the problems of CO2 or bird killing wind mills or waste treatment? Or would they rather position proselytize or tax and spend?