Posted on 09/06/2008 6:50:59 PM PDT by Clairity
Moore, founder of environment watchdog Greenpeace, said since the '70s, activists have overreacted to the threats posed by nuclear energy, while ignoring its benefits "as if all things nuclear were evil."
Even the infamous Three Mile Island incident near Middletown, Penn., is no reason for irrational fears, said Moore, whose group is a grassroots movement that aims to unite business, environmental, academic, consumer and labor communities to support nuclear energy.
As a result, there are some 104 nuclear plants safely operating today in the United States, Moore said.
"Nuclear energy is not a nuclear weapon," he said.
And unlike fossil fuels, producing electricity with nuclear technology doesn't release greenhouse gases that pose health risks to people, Moore said.
Other alternatives, such as wind turbines and solar panels, are "unreliable" because he said they depend on the elements and can only operate part of the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at mlive.com ...
It was only after demonization of atomic power by Ralph Nader, Jane Fonda, and the takeover of the enviro groups by the Communist Watermelons that nuclear came to be seen as "anti-environmental".
Some of the older heads in these groups came to their senses, like Moore.
Because it never can get hot enough to melt down. And thus, containment is MUCH less expensive for equivalent safety. Reactor pebbles are road-safe: fuel rods are not. . .
Yes, it is!!
Let's get off of foreign oil and billions of US $$$$ sent to our enemies in the Middle East and Venezuela.
I’ve read really good stuff on what it would cost to get us up to speed.
If the Feds did a trillion dollar investment in our power grid infrastructure, meaning building the needed nuclear power plants and the wiring, combined with the refinery expansion and drilling, expanding our coal use and mining, and processing our shale, we could easily be free from foreign energy dependence and actually be an exporter of both oil and electricity. Not to mention all of our natural gas that is untapped.
In doing this we would also exponentially expand our manufacturing base and build up an incredibley strong skilled labor force. Just a win win situation that needs to be put forward NOW, and we all know a Democratic ticket will never touch any of that. $4 a gallon needs to be viewed as an opportunity to get our act together once and for all.
The French can build nuclear reactors in 5 years, why couldn’t we?
70% of our oil use is in transportation. We need to shift to electricity and use clean & environmental nuclear power as the source to supply this need. The sooner the better.
I saw the CEO of a midwest utility on CNBC being interviewed about his company’s decision to build a second unit at a site where they have one plant operating. There is a lot of existing infrastructure that will not have to be constructed. Even so, this plant will cost $9 billion when the cost of financing are included.
>>
Ameren has been working for more than a year with UniStar Nuclear of Annapolis, Md., to prepare the 8,000-page construction and operating license application delivered to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington.
The NRC staff will take 60 days to examine the application to determine whether it is complete and then begin a formal review that will take 30 to 42 months, agency spokesman Victor Dricks said. The commission conducted a public hearing earlier this month in Callaway County, and additional hearings will be planned.
<<
from:
A newspaper article on the announcement that an additional unit will be added to the existing Callaway (Missouri) Nuclear Plant said that the NRC will take between 30 and 42 months to review the company’s application which has taken more than a year to prepare. So, we are about 4 years into this project before the company can even commit to building it.
“A newspaper article on the announcement that an additional unit will be added to the existing Callaway (Missouri) Nuclear Plant said that the NRC will take between 30 and 42 months to review the company’s application which has taken more than a year to prepare. So, we are about 4 years into this project before the company can even commit to building it.”
THAT is the problem. 4 years to review and 5 years to actually build it.
In the article I cited, the statement was the plant could be operating in “as soon as” 10 years. And this is for a unit being added at a site where the initial burdens of application and litigation have already been overcome.
For years, the Goshute tribe of northern Utah has been lobbying to get permission to use 800 acres of their own land to store nuclear waste, but the flaming arrows of roving bands of lawyers have kept them from controlling their own destiny.
Nice chart. Shows the dramatic growth and market share of Transportation.
Nuclear power would drop the need (and price) of using oil because it is a substitute (#2) in stationary power production. And most importantly, a swing to nuclear power (besides its lower costs) would drop the price of natural gas, which could be used in Transportation. Low cost nuclear power would also allow the use of electrical Transportation (rail or cars).
It’s nuclear power or high priced natural gas (and oil).
Charlie Maxwell predicts $300 oil in Barron’s this week. Great interview. We only have a few years to extract our collective head from rectrum. Hopefully we choose wisely.
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.