I lived in Stony Point, NY for 15 years. It is right across the Hudson River from Indian Point nuclear power plant.
As you can see, there have been no ill effects:
Seriously, we never thought twice about it.
Posted on 08/08/2008 4:51:45 PM PDT by kellynla
PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain has ramped up his longstanding call for building more nuclear power plants -- 45 new ones by 2030 -- drawing the sharpest distinction between himself and Barack Obama on energy policy, but also, to some degree, throwing the political dice.
According to a July USA Today/Gallup poll, the impact of a candidate's favoring greater use of nuclear power is mixed. Forty-seven percent of Americans say they are more likely to back a candidate who favors expanding nuclear power, while 41% say they are less likely to back such a candidate. But on a relative basis, the nuclear option is near the bottom of a list of possible solutions to the energy situation.
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...
I'd like to see this poll again of LIKELY VOTERS.
Anything’s better than those gawd-awful giant windmills that are infesting every hilltop and formerly pristine view in the US nowadays. I don’t believe they’re even particularly efficient power generators.
I’ve never understood the hysteria about nuclear power. It is clean, as safe as anything else, and efficient. But the hippies who want the ugly windmills have always hated it.
Just shows how much of the population is brainwashed.
...But will McCain revoke Peanut Man’s executive order banning spent fuel reprocessing?
BTW, why the he!! hasn’t W done this already?
I’m with you. I’d rather have a nuke plant than a “wind farm” next door to me anyday.
BINGO! I'm amazed that you posted this.
Another poll Fabricated to support a position.
Nothing wrong with either one, provided it is sited well. I drove across this great big land back in April, 2007, and there are a lot of places where a wind farm would do no violence to the scenery. Same goes for a well-managed nuke plant.
Even the French are generating ~80% of their electricity with nukes.
After over 40 years of lies regarding nuclear power and our ability to safely dispose of nuclear waste, perhaps the poll results would be different if the public had more accurate information.
His focus is on combatting AIDS in Africa, and inviting terrorists (think amnesty for illegals) across our Southern border.
I lived in Stony Point, NY for 15 years. It is right across the Hudson River from Indian Point nuclear power plant.
As you can see, there have been no ill effects:
Seriously, we never thought twice about it.
btt
hanoi jane’s movie “the china syndrome” and
3 mile island, the tv account,
destroyed any rational discussion of nuclear power.
The hippies are against everything. They have this theory that the blades of the windmills will chop the little birdies in pieces. As for the nuclear plants, they still live in the dark ages.
I think we should give each of them some beads and shiny baubles and sent them off someplace where they can meditate.
The fricasseed birdies are no myth.
So between the registered Republicans & Independent, nuclear power is a winning issue with a slight majority of Democrats against.
Relax, if you have a very small piece of land, you have nothing to fear.
On the other hand, If you happen to own (control) several thousand acres, don't be afraid to get involved.
The developer will provide for the installation of the equipment and negotiate a contract with the customer (most likely a power company)for delivery of the energy. As the lessor, you can just sit back and count your coins, which will come to you every time the wind blows.
In quantity? I think there is a market for small chopped up birds. They would make great dog food.
The enviro and nimby wackos are the ones we have to win over (or defeat) kelly. So much for your public opinion argument.
I wonder why Pickens didn't go for nukes instead of wind. It's probably because he knows a helluvalot more about the energy business than you, me or any of the ankle biters slamming him on these threads. It must be because he knows nukes are a NONSTARTER and wants to do something for America that will work in his lifetime. Jeeze, I want him to do something that will work in my lifetime and I'm 11 years younger than him.
Modern wind-turbines are probably better than the ones built a couple of decades or so ago. Since wind-turbines are “green”; they aren't scrutinized as much as (say) nuclear, or oil. For instance, a great hue and cry went up over a few hundred waterfowl that died at a settling pond in the Alberta oil sands (not a routine event). Greenies screeched and squawked about the event & cawed for closing the oil sands. Far more birds are killed by wind-turbines — but, those birds are just dying for a noble cause.
Here's an interesting article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm
kelly
Did you happen to watch the energy boss lady from Wash or Oregon (I forget which) on CNBC this morning? Nukes are not an option in her dominion.
“nonstarter?”
Hey, genius, if you spent a little more time READING my links & threads instead of blathering you might learn something ... for instance,
after RESTARTING TVA’s oldest reactor last year through a five-year, $1.8 billion upgrade at the Browns Ferry plant near Athens, Ala., TVA is spending $2.5 billion to finish a SECOND reactor at its Watts Bar plant by 2012.
Even more ambitious are TVA’s preliminary plans for TWO of the next-generation nuclear reactors at its Bellefonte nuclear site in Hollywood, Ala. The reactors, to be built by Westinghouse, are expected to cost about $3 billion to $5 billion each.
Now, quit bothering me with your mindless posts!
The nuclear power industry has to do a better job of talking about recycling the waste until it is reduced to a much more manageable “danger” etc.
Also, what a good job it does of providing electricity - the French make enough to sell to the Germans.
They need to stress that French connection - sorry couldn’t resist - if the French can generate electricity with nuclear power plants, we certainly can.
And overall:
47% % are more more likely to vote for someone who proposes building more nuclear plants, vs. 41% less likely.
And 57% are more likely to vote for someone who proposes relaxing restrictions on oil drilling, vs. 31% less likely.
Basically people seem to want to government to do everything.
Get back to me when those projects come on line. You post, I reply. Get your own forum then you can make the rules, sonny.
“sonny?”
hey, moron, I’m not your “sonny”
the Browns Ferry reactor is ALREADY ONLINE, genius.
so go “f” yourself.
So, the media ill-informs the populace on important issues like this, and then polls get results of this nature.
How surprising.
ping
There's also a real good chance that he is betting strong that there will be significant government subsidies for wind power, and he wants to capitalize on those subsidies. I don't know for certain, but I would guess that his windmill corporation is separate from his other entities so that if the subsidies don't occur, those others will not be effected.
This is true - all 3 generators and reactors are in service at Browns' Ferry. And work is being carried out at Watts Bar for the completion of the second reactor.
I'm not quite up-to-date on the Bellefonte project - last I heard, TVA, Duke, and Southern Company were all going to have a stake in this new operation. They are looking at new Westinghouse reactors, though.
I'm still a strong coal afficianado, but there's room for some nukes as well. Coal has the advantage of lower construction costs, and output can be more easily regulated to match load. LG&E/KU is building a clean-coal generator in Kentucky, as is EKPC so coal isn't quite dead. It's just that the greens are hampering efforts to build any coal-fired generation.
Here’s a little bad news for you, sonny: http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/08/one_reactor_shut_down_at_brown.html
That’s an old plant that was shut down in 1975 by a fire and its still got problems after working on it for 33 years. NONSTARTER sounds about right for any reasonable person.
You’ve got a real bad mouth and an anger management problem that needs help.
"Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy.
Just goes to show what people can do when they pursue profits. Everybody wins except for my poor old dog who really likes to eat birds.
Excellent point! Not to mention rationing of food clothes, fuel, tires, etc. to win WW2.
p.s.
sonny, read the comments at the bottom of the article.
The recent fire that your link reports was due to a malfunction on a transformer that feeds the cooling towers. Unit 3 tripped off line due to this event, and units 1 and 2 are temporarily de-rated (operating at reduced output) until repairs are completed after which all 3 units will be brought back to full power.
Despite the hoopla surrounding this being a nuclear plant, it is a typical event that we in the power industry see from time to time. Coal-fired plants are not immune to these incidents, but we don't hear about them since they aren't in the crosshairs of the news media (and the anti-nukes).
In reply from Mr. Pickens in his own words: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/a-mighty-wind.html?page=0%2C0
You gotta’ love this salty old guy, a true American patriot.
I think you're right. The nuclear power industry as a whole has been keeping its head down in this country, and I really think it should be more aggressive in trying to get the facts out.
Me2!
We have enough COAL to supply our energy needs for HUNDREDS OF YEARS!
I'm for using ALL of our resources so we can tell the camel jockeys & tin-horn dictators to go-to-Hades! I've seen enough dead Marines (from "taking out the trash" in the Middle East) to last me a lifetime, thank you!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Does anyone have any information as to the long-term outlook on the availability of fuel for our conventional nuclear reactors? Related question: once you build one and fuel it, how long does that fuel last?
I guess it depends on how many there are. When there are just a few, they may be an interesting landscape feature. When you have ten on every hilltop, along with their roaring noise and their bird-chopping, you’ve essentially ruined the view and the environment. BTW, birds can’t see them when the blades are moving, so the birds fly into them and sometimes entire migratory flights will appear chopped up at the bottom of the windmills.
I just got back from Spain, and windmills are all over socialist eco-freak Spain, which also refuses to add nuclear power. The windmills have essentially devastated the landscape and the migratory patterns (Spain is important because birds return from their southern migration to Africa by flying over Spain).
Typical hippie stupidity, IMHO. Hippies and ecofreaks always go for the short-term answer and never think of the overall picture.
Even so called clean coal is filthy. Go Nuclear. Save coal for conversion to liquid fuels for transportation.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with good, old-fashioned "dirty" coal-fired power plants. They're much cheaper to build and operate than most alternatives. We've given in to enviromental extremism one time too many. I want whatever will make my price per kilowatthour the cheapest. And so far, that's been coal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.