Aging Nuclear Power Plants May Affect Emissions Pact

The New York Times ^ | September 14, 2005 | MATTHEW L. WALD

[raybbr]

.... Shutting down the two reactors would mean immediate, substantial increases in the emissions, because it would increase reliance on fossil fuel plants, probably tripling emissions in Vermont and doubling them in New Jersey.

....Some environmentalists say the goals can be met even without the two nuclear plants, Vermont Yankee and Oyster Creek, and without other nuclear plants whose licenses will expire in the next few years.

...."We just have to bust the myth that we need to be using more energy," said Rob Sargent, senior energy policy analyst for the State Public Interest Research Groups, a nonprofit consumer organization.

....The debate has been mostly hypothetical, since nobody in the United States has ordered a new nuclear plant since the 1970's, long before global climate change was widely perceived as an issue. It was also hypothetical because there were no limits on carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

[raybbr]

There is so much liberal blather in this article it's astounding. Note the only quotes and sources are those that back up the desire to close the nuclear plants.

Notice also, how the author claims that no nuclear plants have been ordered since the '70's? We all know the reason for this. No one can get past the environmental regulations.

[raybbr]

Ping to one your articles. I couldn't let this one get away.

The sheer stupidity of our nation's succumbing to the greens is one more cog in the wheel of our self-destruction.

[kidd]

A more correct title to this article is:

Aging Environmental Activists May Affect Emissions Pact

[Semper Paratus]

"We just have to bust the myth that we need to be using more energy," said Rob Sargent,

Bet Rob doesn't heat his house to only 50 degrees in the winter.

[Falcon4.0]

"Some environmentalists say the goals can be met even without the two nuclear plants"

Just turn out the lights!