Comment from Madison, Bartley N.

Puget Sound Energy has hit the nail on the head. They said in their comments: "The council should consider "responsible" Nuclear generation. Additional coal plants without carbon capture and sequestration are not considered responsible by many states. Building nuclear power plants without long term waste processing also seems irresponsible in the long run. Similar to the value of carbon sequestration it may be helpful if the Sixth Power Plan were to estimate the value to solving the fuel cycle issue, if other risks (such as long-lead construction cost and operation risks) would not otherwise eliminate nuclear power from consideration. Without a solution to the fuel cycle, nuclear power should conceptually be treated similar to coal without carbon sequestration." Solving the fuel cycle issue for Nuclear should be the Council's first priority. The solutions are at hand and it will take an it will take a tremendous public education effort to inform the American people about the gigantic strides that have been made in Nuclear generation and the science that exists and is evolving concerning waste treatment and safety. It is basically unfair to the American people and to all those dedicated souls who pursued and attain these strides for lo these many years to bury our heads in the sand, ignore progress and deprive our nation of the only existing generation scheme that will have an immediate and lasting impact on our efforts to eliminate carbon in our atmosphere. It is also a shame that the nuclear waste issue has turned into a political football. Our politicians either reject the idea out of hand or doggedly fail to keep our nation appraised of the improvements made to insure safe, reliable and efficient nuclear generation. Few really understand it and most do not even want to talk about it. This position must change. It begins with the Councils, Advisors and Industries that offer advice and counsel to these leaders. Our leaders, who on one hand espouse unfettered support for clean air, and on the other dither, debate and prolong any serious full blown move toward clean renewable energy. This Plan is one of the places that advice and counsel can begin. While the plan gives cursory attention to renewables, its focus is centered on the complexities and economics of sequestration and trading. These are technologies and techniques that also suffer from bad press and incomplete proven science. While a possibly viable short-term treatment, it is not yet a scheme that demands exclusive attention. The Council is doing the country and the world a disservice if it does not lend greater focus on all the renewables, the needs of the grid and the most effective and environmentally benign energy production system we can attain. A good place to start is to develop a long term plan to reduce or eliminate our reliance on carbon based fuels. Improving our ability to create clean reliable energy and focusing our attention to this effort is the key. If this is to be a Plan, then let's devise a whole plan. If it is not, then re-title it to reflect its narrow shortsighted focus. Thank You for the opportunity to comment. Bartley N. Madison 4611 N. 25th St. Tacoma, Wa 98406-3925 (253) 752-5392