WHY?  As far as I know, there is no such thing.  The recent articles that have appeared citing comments made by Craig Mead have set the stage for a controversial debate between what is better for the CNMI: nuclear or wind.  But such should never occur; after all, aren’t we all just trying to help find a solution to the crippling mess of the power condition in the CNMI?
Everybody is looking for solutions, big, little; long term, short term; point is, it doesn’t matter as long as whatever comes about is BETTER; safe, affordable and quick.  Well, almost everybody that is.  The legislature woke up to the problem some time ago and nearly all of them are frantically searching for solutions everyday — just look at the presentations that have been made.  On the other hand, there does seem to be a few individuals who appear to want to lock the CNMI into a disastrous long term commitment to fossil fuel for at least the next 25 years — and to the inevitable price increases that will continue their upward spiral ad infinitum.
To argue about which is better without citing the relevant scientific and technological sources or the facts resulting there from — and then to top it off with irrelevant and medieval scare tactics is less than professional and serves no useful purpose to the final decision for the CNMI power solution.
Then we must also consider the sources.  Mead is paid (?) to represent the self interests of a businessman who wants to sell his product.  Have you ever heard of anyone trying to sell a product that presents both the positive AND negative sides of the product?  I have no interest in any such activities surrounding any source of power.  The product must stand on its own merits and the CNMI leaders must take great care and caution to avail themselves of all the non-biased and published information there is in order to arrive at a safe, timely and economical solution to our crisis.
There is a plethora of information out there about wind, but it would appear that Mead has only availed himself of the positive stuff.  Don’t get me wrong — there is a LOT of positive stuff about wind and solar, but there are also limitations that must be explored before blind acceptance.  For instance, in papers published by a world renowned watchdog group (UIC — white paper # 38, 2006 among others) out of Australia, it is noted that if you replace 20 percent of a fossil fueled grid system with wind turbines, the resultant fuel savings will be only 6.7 percent.  There is also the “20 percent barrier” for both wind and solar.  I’ll try to explain briefly:  In any normal city grid system, electricity demands ebb and flow based on customer usage; sometimes at a peak and other times at a low.  For the grid system to remain stable, whatever source generates the power should (ideally) be “load following.”  That is, able to produce more power when demanded and able to produce less power when the demand is low.  Wind and solar cannot do this!  They are both dependent on wind blowing and sun shining — neither of which may correspond to high or low demand periods.  Fossil fuel plants and nuclear plants CAN do this.  Another stability problem after reaching 20 percent is the fact that now you have a very large array of turbines or solar cells — each reacting to different levels of wind or sun over a wide expanse of terrain.  The electronic configurations to keep the overall grid system stable under such conditions have not yet been perfected.  Just ask Maui County in Hawaii.  They are the world’s leader in setting up wind turbines and have almost reached the 20 percent level.  They ARE now encountering the 20 percent “barrier” to stability and will solve it.  But it is expensive and time consuming to solve these problems.
After all, who wants to watch TV only when the wind blows?
Then there is the problem of periods when there is NO wind to spin the turbines or sun to shine on the cells.  How do you get electricity then?  Well, you could engage in a rather bulky and expensive battery storage system to hold the excess electricity from windy or sunny periods and release it during periods of no wind or sun.  But these are expensive (doubling the cost of any system) and wear out fast (five to seven years).  So you need a “backbone” system to take up the slack.
All we’re saying here is that wind and solar are GREAT supplemental and personal systems (at this time) — but they simply cannot do the job of a “backbone” grid power source — YET.
So let’s do some little comparisons.  Capitalization costs — Wind: $4,000 per kilowatt; Solar: $6,000 per kw; Nuclear: $1,400 per kw.  There are currently only three power sources that have no emissions whatsoever and are, therefore, considered environmentally friendly — no greenhouse gasses and no global warming: wind, solar and nuclear (generation III+ or IV only).  Efficiency:  Wind: 70-75 percent, Solar: 50-55 percent, fossil fuels: 80-85 percent (but with LOTS of unfriendly emissions); Nuclear: 96-98 percent.  Size: a single windmill of 10-kw size suitable to supply most of the power needs of a single average residence is recommended to occupy no less than a one acre open site; an array capable of supplying one half of Saipan’s grid (IF that were possible) would occupy hundreds of acres spread out over quite a  few miles of open terrain;  a typical solar array of 10-kw size would occupy a roof space of more than 1,600 square feet (40’ x 40’) and to power one half of Saipan’s need would occupy about  one fourth of the islands available surface; a new generation modular nuclear station would sit on less than one half acre and supply ALL of Saipan’s power need.
Then there is the long term cost comparison:  a diesel burning plant of 30-megawatt size (new, more efficient design than the current monsters) will cost about $40 million to build, about $2 million per year in O & M and roughly $50 million per year for fuel — at today’s prices, but we all know that oil isn’t going to remain at today’s prices very long.  Anyway, the twenty year cost of this plant will be somewhere between $400 and $600 million dependant on the increasing cost of oil.  The same size nuclear plant will cost about $40 million to build, the same $2 million per year in O & M and about $13 million every five years for a new fuel pod (don’t worry, we’ll talk about the fuel pod in another letter).  This adds up to a twenty year cost for this plant of about $132 million.  A wind turbine array capable of 30 megawatts (about 15-20 turbines) would cost about $80 million to build, the same $2 million per year in O & M and no fuel cost — but the rotating equipment must be overhauled about every five years which will add about $1 million to each turbine every five years for a total 20-year cost of about $180 to $200 million.  You choose.
Well, there are lots more comparisons to be made and I have left out three of the most important: safety, construction time and delivered electricity price, because this letter is already too long.  But not to worry as I’m sure that many of you, and especially Mead, will want more.  I would be very happy to answer questions and present facts backed by scientific and technical publications and the names of the experts and groups who contribute to these facts.  In a letter to follow, I will present — and compare — other data, especially safety considerations.  So please go ahead and present your questions — I’ll do my best.

DR. THOMAS D. ARKLE JR.
San Jose, Tinian