I wholeheartedly agree with The Pilot that a “Manhattan type project” is necessary to solve or at least diminish our insatiable appetite for foreign oil. But realistically, I doubt the Manhattan project would have gotten off the ground if it had been subject to today’s environmental impact concerns, health concerns, and God knows what else.

The Pilot states that “our oil addiction has us over a barrel” and “fossil fuels foul our Planet.” OK, let’s fast forward and try to solve that addiction with alternative energy sources.

Nuclear power, not once mentioned in the editorial, generates about 80 percent of the electrical power in France. Not one new nuclear power plant has been commissioned in the U. S. in 20 years. Progress Energy is just starting the paperwork for another generator. How many years away is that plant before it generates its first kilowatt of energy?

Ethanol produced from sugar could help reduce our dependence on oil. Take Brazil, for example. Eighteen percent of their transport fuel comes from ethanol and another 55 percent comes from diesel. But wait, sugar imports (to U.S.) are blocked by tariffs and quotas, thanks to the farm lobby and congress.

Wind-powered turbines are a great idea, but just don’t put them off the coast of Cape Cod because they are ugly and might kill the seagulls that fly by.

The second largest proven reserve of oil is in Canada in the form of the tar sand. At 60 dollars a barrel this supply is now profitable to extract and can be done in a fairly short period of time.

I am all for a Manhattan Project. Just convince congress, the lobbyists, the environmentalists and private industry that we need to get this done sooner rather than later.

Larry Townsend