Springfield Business Journal_2019-07-29

SPRINGFIELD BUSINESS JOURNAL · 37 JULY 29-AUG. 4, 2019 NEWS A esop vividly illustrated the foolishness of killing the goose that lays golden eggs. Some of us feel we are observing the modern-day version of that fable when it comes to the Green New Deal. The GND proposes to decommission all U.S. nu- clear power plants within 10 years. In 2018, nuclear power generation accounted for 19.3% of our na- tion’s electricity. To further confound matters, the GND calls for the elimination of fossil fuels for both power pro- duction and transportation in order to combat cli- mate change. Ironically, nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gases – none, nada, zilch. Additionally, they emit none of the traditional air pollutants, and the trace amounts of radioactive emissions are less than those emitted by coal-fired power plants. As an environmentalist with a lifelong career in air quality control, that sure sounds like a golden egg to me. It appears the GND backers are putting all of their eggs in just two baskets: solar and wind. Both are intermittent power sources. Solar contributed only 2.3% of U.S. power in 2018. Wind contributed 6.6%, but presents its own unique problem for ru- ral Missouri. The East Coast will soon face a huge energy deficit, but the major wind sources are west of Missouri. Many major transmission lines will be required to move the wind power to the users. The battles over the use of eminent domain to construct those power lines across Missouri already have be- gun. Any discussion about the future of nuclear power generation leads to the topic of disposal of high-lev- el radioactive waste. A permanent waste depository has been partially constructed in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. However, funding for the Yucca Mountain project was blocked by former President Barack Obama’s administration in 2012. Former Nevada Sen. Harry Reid led the fight that doomed the proj- ect. Missouri has one nuclear power plant located in Callaway County. For 35 years, it has provided power for 800,000 households, representing 9.7% of Missouri’s power production. Ameren, owner of the facility, considered building a second unit at the same site, but Missouri’s construction-work-in- progress law prohibiting cost recovery during con- struction has been blamed for sinking the plan. The Missouri legislature should re-examine that statute.  I believe Missouri Farm Bureau policy on nuclear energy is squarely on target. It calls for expansion of nuclear energy, advanced research on waste dis- posal and legislative action to allow cost recovery during construction of new power plants. Electric vehicles, robots, cryptocurrency mining and electric gizmos yet to be invented will continue to intensify energy demands. Nuclear power has to be part of the answer. For- tunately, signs of renewed interest in nuclear ener- gy seem to be emerging. The U.S. Senate and House both introduced pro- nuclear legislation this summer. The legislation is known as the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act. Let’s hope it jump-starts a more serious discus- sion about the use of nuclear technology to help shape a strong and prosperous future for our great nation. Ron Boyer is a member of the Greene County Farm Bureau and serves on the Missouri Air Conservation Commission. He can be contacted through the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, MOFB.org. OPINION FaceApp fails risk-reward test Power Play Nuclear energ y is green solution for Missouri I broke my own cardinal rule. For years, I’ve preached constant vigi- lance when perusing the internet. But I, like many others, became a digi- tal victim when I was tempted into using the now-controversial FaceApp in order to see my- self as an old man. What harm could come of that, I thought to myself, quickly downloading the photo editing app to my iPhone. Turns out, potential harm to my likeness – and that of my wife and children – is at stake. Through FaceApp, users can upload pictures eas- ily edited in a number of ways: the most popular being a feature that ages someone, gray hair and wrinkles included. The results were amusing – par- ticularly seeing my wife and daughters as old wom- en – but upon discovery of the true intentions of the app, those few seconds of glee clearly weren’t worth the price of admission. As with many things on- line, this comes down to the fine print. FaceApp’s terms of ser- vice state use of the app grants the company “a perpetual, irrevocable, non- exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid, trans- ferable sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform and dis- play your user content and any name, username or likeness provided in connection with your user content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed, without compensation to you.” That’s a tough pill to swallow. Upon reading about these concerning terms of service in media reports, I quickly deleted the app. Further, the app was de- veloped by Russian compa- ny Wireless Lab, spurring national security concerns. It was enough for Sen- ate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to call for an investigation into FaceApp. Others are downplaying the issue. “While your data has the potential to be used in a way you might not like, it’s not significantly more likely than all of the other ways in which your data is currently shared, used or sold,” said David Inserra, a policy analyst at The Heritage Founda- tion think tank, in an article by The Daily Signal. The terms of service for Facebook and Twitter have similar language regarding content its users share on the social media platforms. Far from being reassuring, Inserra’s comment about other companies doing the exact same thing is a stark reminder: If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product. In the current era of the internet, services – es- pecially the freebies – tend to present a risk versus reward scenario. How valuable is your privacy com- pared with the entertainment or information you garner from an app? For me, the ability to keep in touch with my fam- ily and friends on Facebook is worth it. But the FaceApp controversy does have me thinking twice about uploading new content online. Consider the risk-reward test. If the risk out- weighs the reward, the app isn’t worth keeping. As other apps are sure to emerge with similar policies, do as I say, not as I do. Remember to be vigilant. And if you don’t have time to read the terms of service, at least do a Google search to see if any- thing concerning pops up. A few seconds of entertainment generally aren’t worth even a moment of grief. Springfield Business Journal Web Editor Geoff Pickle can be reached at gpickle@sbj.net. Send letters and comments to sbj@sbj.net FROM THE WEB Geoff Pickle FaceApp is a stark reminder: If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product. GUEST COLUMN Ron Boyer IN PERSPECTIVE