Questions about fuel alternatives

Donald Chung's letter of April 4, 'Cheaper forms of energy for Jamalco, Ja ...' was quite interesting and addresses our nation's energy needs. However, I am sure the readers, as well as myself, would like to know how the spent 'pellets' would be disposed of and where? Also, what would be the cost of disposal.

On the matter of coal, I saw where this was considered as fuel in Jamaica. Now coal is dirty, it spoils the atmosphere, causes acid rain, blackens clothes and I suspect our lungs. In addition, how would the ash from the burnt coal be stored? Is the ash toxic?

I am far from being a scientist, but I can imagine that there would be a reaction between the caustic dust from the bauxite and the acid rain and coal dust or ash. What would be the effect of this on our water supply, our animals, our houses and our people? How do we address these attendant anomalies?

Louis A. Hemans, lahemans@aol.com, Hyattsville, Maryland

Replacing outdated power capacity

'Cheaper forms of energy for Jamaica ...' was an excellent choice for the letter of the day. Reducing power costs is one way of doing something that is truly transformational for the Jamaican economy.

By replacing our old and outdated power capacity, with more efficient capacity Jamaica could save billions of United States dollars over the next 10 years. The project will pay for itself while improving our competitiveness.

Christopher Berry, chrisberryja@gmail.com, Kingston 5

Minister's illogical reaction

I write to question the reaction of the transport minister with regard to statements made by the president of the Airports Authority of Jamaica.

No matter what the policy of the Government is, is it not prudent to ensure that the projects to be implemented are technically and economically feasible? From your report, I understand that the minister had issues with the statements made by Richards.

If the expansion at Ken Jones is not feasible due to the mountainside obstacles, and after carrying out the technical, environmental and economic feasibility study for Duckenfiled, it shows that the project is not viable, is the minister saying that because the policy of the Government is to "open and not close aerodromes" then the projects must still be implemented?

That type of thinking is illogical. Where are the policy of the Government that will guide development? It must be the viability of a project that determines whether it should be implemented. In these difficult economic times, we cannot be wasting taxpayers' money to implement policies that are not economically feasible!

Ann-Marie Charles, annmarie1964@yahoo.com