Regarding the April 17 letter, "B.L. England better as coal-burning plant":

I disagree with the letter writer's opinion that the generating station does not affect the environment. I know people who live near the plant and find coal tinders on their decks in the morning. In the summer, when usage is up and the wind comes from the west, the smoke smell lingers. Other people notice a white powder or dust on their decks.

Is the answer converting the plant to natural gas? The answer is raising consciousness regarding energy usage and connecting the dots that the bigger the house, the more energy is needed.

In Hawaii, everyone has solar power for their hot-water heaters and there are dedicated wind turbines to add to the power supply.

I am suggesting wider use of point-of-service water heaters, which are used extensively in Europe and decrease the demand on the energy grid. We should also require that any home larger than 2,000 square feet must have solar panels or pay a surcharge to fund more scrubbers for B.L. England. We should also develop more solar and wind alternatives. We have plenty of wind. I would like a wind turbine for my home.

There is such potential out there for the development of these alternative forms of energy. They are used in other states and countries.


Ocean City