fb-pixelNuclear plant’s foes might want to consider gap it would leave behind - The Boston Globe Skip to main content
letters | Pilgrim plant’s owner faced with a choice: fix it or close it

Nuclear plant’s foes might want to consider gap it would leave behind

So Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station may close if improvements required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission prove too expensive (“Pilgrim needs costly fix, but cheap energy may be its undoing,” Page A1, Sept. 27). This review proves the NRC’s high standards. Other plants have done this and are on top again. People who want Pilgrim closed regardless, including those pushing bills to punish the plant, are wearing blinders and ignoring New England’s energy situation. They seem to hope someone will do something to keep the lights on.

New England is stuck buying power generated by cheap natural gas. Advocates of wind and solar power, and opponents of nuclear energy, call cheap, carbon-emitting natural gas a “transition” fuel. Cheap for how long, and a transition to what? The grid cannot store power from intermittent generators such as wind and solar. Work is underway on the batteries that are needed, but the so-called transition will continue to be questionable until they are invented and installed.

As pointed out by Marty Durbin (“Time to end New England’s energy isolation,” Opinion, Sept. 28), we have been backed into relying on natural gas by various energy interest groups. Other groups oppose new pipelines.


The Legislature must tell people they can’t have everything they want. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, lawmakers should stand behind Pilgrim, and do it soon.

Howard Shaffer, Enfield, N.H.

The writer is a retired nuclear engineer.