Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / Oct. 17, 1978, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Page two/Carolina Journal/October 17, 197] Nuclear power not our only future energy alternative To the Students: In his letter to the students appearing in the Oct. 3 issue of the Carolina Journal, Frank S. Preston gave a favorable estimate of nuclear power. The letter was poorly? reasoned and con tained a number of outright falsehoods — failings that are chronic amongst the supporters of nuclear energy. Point by point, this letter I am writing now is an effort to set the record straight. 1. Preston makes the claim: "The U.S. nuclear industry has been a poor path to profits to date." This is an outright falsehood. The nuclear power in dustry is a multibillion dollar affair, and like any other multibillion dollar industry, it pro duces many millions of dollars in profits. For every dollar invested in nuclear power, a profitable return is made. When the cost of building an average size nuclear reactor is more than $1 billion apiece, it should be clear to everyone somebody is making a bunch of money. 2. Preston makes the claim: "The (govern ¬ ment) subsidy issue is a 'red herring' and not unique to the nuclear field." Let's take a closer look. Whiel it may be reasonable for the government to help private firms to over come the uncertain ties of a promising technology, it is not reasonable this help should be so vigorous and extensive it undermines free market competition and disguises the ac tual cost of a product to the consumer. The Federal Energy Research and Development Ad ¬ Nation affected by Bakke decision By Michael D. Evans The Supreme Court has proven once again to be inept and unable to steer in any one consistent direc tion. Warren Burger's court has failed to follow up on the initiatives set forth by the extremely pro gressive Earl Warren court, even to the extent of destroying what the Warren court accomplished, as is the case with the landmark Allen Bakke decision. The Bakke decision has set the civil rights move ment back intolerably once again. Justice Thurgood Marshall, who opposed Bakke's entrance into medical school, said, "I feel we have come full cir cle...Now we have this (Supreme) Court again stepp ing in, this time to stop affirmative action programs." The only way to save affirmative action programs now is to take advantage of the vague, noncommital attitude of the court's decision. After passing the Jimmy Carter School of Com promise with an "A." the Court must now look at what it has wrought. The Court's indecision means our elected representatives have a strong load left on their shoulders, in keeping equal opportunities available to the minorities of our nation. This is a task we cannot really afford to leave in the hands of a group of politicos. The decision should have been the Court's and the Court copped out on this one. The situation brought about by the Bakke decision is still unresolved. There are a number of cases now pending before the Supreme Court which could pro vide a clearer focus for some direction on the Court's feelings on the affirmative action issue. The nation's dedication to the affirmative action pro grams is at stake with each decision of the Court, yet the Court seems perfectly willing to ignore their own importance. Affirmative action is a necessary and vital con cern of the nation. We cannot expect to set our sights toward a progressive, agreeable society for all until we have provided available means of equali ty for all. Perhaps a rereading of our constitution's idealism would be proper for the Supreme Court justices, since they have shown ho desire to support the constitution in earlier decisions. Unfortunately, the fate of affirmative action lies with the Court. It would be better off in the hands of the people who would benefit, and would--benefit each and everyone of us in the long run. ministration has con servatively estimated the government has already spent $9 billion in nuclear technologies. If the utilities had paid these expenses, the cost of nuclear generated electricity would have increased by more than 50 percent. And as if these past ex penses were not enough, the govern ment continues its massive spending on nuclear development. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) routinely spends more than $1 billion a year doing research for the By Sammy Hamrick A few weeks ago a great event for America freedom occured: Allan Bakke went to medical school. Bakke's fight went all the way to the United States Surpeme Court, the landmark ruling ends the worst form of reverse discrimination: quotas. We still have a long way to go before this intolerable form of injustice is erased from our society. The Bakke case stems from an attempt by some to allow the less fortunate to catch up through various forms of "affirmative action" plans. No doubt the in tent of these programs are benign but their effects are not. The fact is many of these programs have kept students who are qualified from being accepted to various colleges, graduate schools and from being hired by various employers. These students are dis qualified only because they happen to be the wrong color at the wrong time. Many employers are in structed by government regulatory agencies to get that quota at all costs. These companies end up hir ing less competent employees. 'Therefore many "af firmative action" plans actually breed in competence. Incompetence in business causes waste. Waste will eventually result in a rise in prices which feeds the fires of inflation. Everyone is affected and in the end. all lose more than they gain. In my view it would be the lowest of insults to know I was hired not for my ability but to fill a (|uota. It makes me wonder: was I admitted to UNCC because I met the requirements or because I was left-handed? We must realize in our melting pot society, all of us are in some way a minority and have handicaps to overcome. There are too many rags to riches success stories in our heritage for me to believe it can't hap pen today. ’True, Bakke opened the way for an end to reverse discrimination. These will be more court battles. Also Representative Robert Walker (R.Pa) has in troduced a bill prohibiting the use of federal funds to require quotas for hiring or admissions. The Con gress should take this opportunity to insure freedom by passing Walker's bill and President Jimmy ''Human Rights" Carter should have no trouble sign ing. Americans have always improved themselves through hard work. It's no different today. The only place success comes before work is in the dic tionary. The nightmare of reverse discrimination must end. atomic industry, about five times what it spends on the development of solar energy or energy con servation. Perhaps the most significant federal subsidy of the nuclear industry is the Price- Anderson Act of 1957. This legislation limits the liability of a utility to $560 million in the case of nuclear acci dent. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis sion itself has admit ted a major nuclear accident could cause $14 billion in property damage, about 25 times what would be available as compen sation for the victims. But if it costs over $560 million, we lose, not the utility. It's no wonder, then, private industry balked on atomic power until Price-Anderson gave it the financial protec tion it needs to operate such an in credibly hazardous technology. We should all ask ourselves: "If it's really so safe as they tell us, why can't they insure us." 3. Preston gives lip service to solar energy, but warns us "...not to look for this to supply more than 10 percent of our needs." That is prettI pessimistic thinkinc considering the Pres dent's Council on Er vironmental Qualit claims by the yea 2000, 25 percent c our energy need could be provided fd by solar power, an more than 50 percer by the year 2020. 4. "Nuclear energ at present is our onl viable substitute fo fossil fuels." Again, Prestoi makes an outrigh| falsehood. Sola energy is on substitute, as note above. Another i energy conservation Dennis Hayes of thi Worldwatch Institut (Washington, D.C. estimates we can cm energy demand bl more than 40 percer if we spend monel changing equipmen and altering buildings to achieve energy effi ciency. These savings cost far less than get' ting the same amour of energy by buildin; additional nuclea plants. If Preston is so sun nuclear power is on only viable energ alternative, he shoul (continued on page 8) Carolina Journal “I must Create a System or be enslav’d by another man’s." — William Blake Nancy Davis Editor James Braswell Managing Editor Jeff Nash Business Manager Gary Nelson Advertising Manager Kim Burns News Editor Joyce Wright Arts/Features Editor Jim Dedmon Sports Editor Robin Colby Photography Editor Steve Swetnam Graphic Artist 1 Bob Mellnik Distribution Manager
University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 17, 1978, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75