Readers Write: Racial covenants, nuclear power, Joe Biden

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I cannot disagree more with the editorial promoting the disavowal of racial covenants that once barred people of some ethnic groups from buying a home in various neighborhoods (”Out with remnants of racial covenants,” July 11). Mounds View Mayor Zach Lindstrom said: “It isn’t something that I want to have to explain to my kids.” While uncomfortable truths are hard, this is something that he, and we all, must explain to our kids. We don’t want to. We have to. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “merciless Indian Savages.” Should we also edit around those uncomfortable words from one of our most revered founding documents? I am against any form of revising history. It is important not to whitewash — or worse, erase — truth. It is important to show future generations what progress has and has not been made, so that they can know that while progress is possible, it is not inevitable. Let them know that once, white supremacists were able to dictate basics such as where an American citizen could and could not live. That Catholics, Irish people, Chinese people, Native Americans and homosexuals among others once faced blatant legal discrimination. It is important to remind people that “the good old days” were not good for everyone. The sins of the past must not be erased. Much like the Holocaust, we must keep the memory of the “bad old days” alive. Never forget.

Dan Solarz, Minneapolis

Regarding “New fission reactors a dangerous folly” (Opinion Exchange, July 8): An article bulging with misleading information. Where to begin?

The author advocates for “strategic sizing,” i.e., locating electricity generation near consumption. However, unlike nuclear energy, renewables require a much larger footprint than the fossil fuel plants they are replacing. Locating them near cities becomes problematic.

The article extols the virtues of supporting energy efficiency. Everyone agrees, with the marketplace supporting this trend through countless innovations. Still, Minnesota electricity consumption will grow 2% annually due to data center expansion, EV growth and the electrification of appliances. With the elimination of fossil fuel plants, we need a variety of carbon-free sources generating electricity, including nuclear.

Is the per watt cost of new nuclear higher than renewables? Yes, but it will drop as nuclear is mass produced. Where would the cost of solar or wind be if 30 years ago renewables’ detractors had their way and efficient mass production was never allowed to materialize? Costs would be much higher today.

What about the unspent nuclear fuel storage problem? The Department of Energy is currently creating a process to locate a new temporary storage site for unused nuclear fuel. While this initiative plays out, the casks at the nuclear plants are safe and not deteriorating.

We can’t allow alarmists, who are prisoners of the past, to steer Minnesota’s energy policy. The most reasonable approach includes new nuclear, along with renewables, in a carbon-free energy production mix that best serves the interests of this state.

Joe Spartz, Ham Lake

•••

“New fission reactors a dangerous folly” paints a misleading picture of nuclear energy, relying on fear rather than facts.

While George Crocker touts falling costs of renewables, he ignores the hidden expenses of an all-renewable grid. Denmark, Germany and California, heavily dependent on these sources, now face some of the world’s highest electricity costs due to storage and backup needs. It’s like getting a year’s supply of free groceries in one day, only to realize you need an expensive garage full of freezers to make it useful year-round.

His alarmist stance on tritium leaks at Monticello is detached from reality. The radiation in an ordinary banana packs 70 times the punch of tritiated water — drinking a cup of which would deliver a dose akin to being at cruising altitude for 15 minutes.

Crocker further discredits himself by linking death rates to the Monticello nuclear plant, ignoring the well-documented health effects of Minnesota’s largest coal plant just a few miles down the road.

Nuclear power has proven its worth in decarbonizing grids. France and Sweden boast clean and affordable electricity thanks to nuclear. Our neighbors in Ontario demonstrated North America’s fastest greenhouse gas reduction by transitioning to nuclear, burning their last coal in 2014. They’re now planning an aggressive buildout of new nuclear to meet growing demand.

The true folly? It’s not nuclear power. It’s Minnesota sacrificing our clean energy future on the altar of outdated fears.

Eric Meyer, Falcon Heights

The writer is executive director of Generation Atomic.

President Joe Biden is increasingly at odds with and isolated from his own party following his calamitous debate performance and middling efforts afterward to change the widespread perception that he no longer possesses the mental acumen and fortitude to be president. The prevailing wisdom is that party officials and leaders all want Biden to drop out, voluntarily, even if they are not full-throated or in unison on it.

But for Biden, the lack of support among party pooh-bahs means little. He is, after all, the president and the leader of his party. In “Lincoln,” the movie about our 16th president, Daniel Day-Lewis’ Abraham Lincoln emphatically tells his naysayer Cabinet members: “I am the president of the United States of America, clothed in immense power!” True then and today.

As of now, Biden has the delegates, the campaign funds, the name on the ballots and polling figures within the margin of error (albeit anemic compared to 2020 at this time). He has Air Force One and the command of the media. Biden is also on the verge of a major diplomatic breakthrough if reports from the Israel-Gaza conflict are accurate.

Biden will not go quietly into that good night. And there is no serious discussion (yet) of activating the 25th Amendment, the provision of the Constitution that provides for removal of the president. The Democrats cannot afford open warfare against their chief and they know it.

All Biden is facing now is all Biden has always politically faced: adversity, doubters and vocal worriers. Biden will go on to face the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with or without full support of his party. We are all likely in for a bumpy ride to election night.

Phillip Trobaugh, St. Paul

•••

One aspect of the conversation about Biden’s capacity for re-election has been ignored by letter writers, editorialists and media outlets. I refer to the vote of “uncommitted” in the Democratic primaries over the devastation in Gaza, with voters waiting for change in Gaza before committing to Biden. The uncommitted campaign began when over 100,000 people in Michigan, followed by nearly 50,000 from Wisconsin and 45,000 from Minnesota, and ultimately over a half million, voted “uncommitted” across the country. This is enough to close the gap between the Democratic candidate and Donald Trump.

These votes represent large numbers of young people, people of Arabic or Muslim identity, and many others who simply do not go along with Biden’s unbridled support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s devastation of Gaza, where 38,000 people have died and 95% of all children are facing starvation. They’ve been waiting for Biden to change things around. He has not.

Biden seems oblivious to the devastation of Gaza and the betrayals by Netanyahu. He is delusional insofar as he still thinks he can still broker a cease-fire. So many of his red lines have turned pink. He has entirely ignored our uncommitted votes. These, along with his delusion he can win against Trump, are the most obvious signs of his increasing dementia and incapacity to serve as president. I will vote Democrat, but unless it is for Kamala Harris, I will not be happy.

Jacqueline Murray Brux, River Falls, Wis.

•••

Eureka! My fellow Americans, there’s a solution to our presidential candidate situation for both parties: A large online recruiting firm advertises that 80% of their clients get a qualified candidate within the first day a position is posted. Who wants to split the posting fees with me?

Daniel Patton, Minneapolis