Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tim Landis: Election May Have Bearing on Nuclear Power Plants
The State Journal-Register ^ | Posted Sep 14, 2008 | Tim Landis

Posted on 09/14/2008 11:57:29 AM PDT by kellynla

It has been quiet for several months at the CLINTON POWER STATION, 45 miles northeast of Springfield.

That could change with the November presidential election.

Both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama have consistently included nuclear power — along with coal, wind, solar and biofuels — in their promises to wean the country from dependence on foreign oil.

There are variations, but the climate does appear to have changed, so to speak, when it comes to nuclear energy.

It has been 3 1/2 years since about 300 people, mostly for but some against, attended a public hearing at Clinton Junior High before representatives of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a request from Exelon Corp. for an “early site permit” in the event the company decided to build a second nuclear reactor at Clinton.

Permit approval from regulators came in early 2007. An early site permit is not a construction permit. It merely gives the company 20 years to apply for a construction and operating license, with a 20-year renewal option. But Exelon did just receive a construction and operating license for a nuclear plant in southeast Texas and is considering its other options, said spokesman Craig Nesbit.

“Those are the only two things we have going right now, and there is no plan to do anything with the Clinton ESP, at least in the foreseeable future. But if we we’re to ever build another nuke in Illinois, Clinton is where it would probably be,” Nesbit said.

As for the presidential candidates, Nesbit said McCain has the strongest commitment to nuclear energy while Obama is “a little less certain.”

(Excerpt) Read more at sj-r.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: 2008; election; energy; il2008; issues; nuclear; nuclearpower

1 posted on 09/14/2008 11:57:29 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kellynla

I remember years ago when they destroyed Shoreham, on LI.

Granted, I’m not sure Long Island is the best place for a nuclear plant. It’s crowded in a way you can’t appreciate unless you drive there.

But I remember it. There was nothing but liberal press then, and you would have thought from the news that every living things, birds and pets included hated Shoreham and wanted it out of existance.

My mom and I looked at each other and said, “They’ll be sorry”. The first thing I remember happening was the school districts in the area lost all their tax support, so everyone’s taxes jumped. It cost us millions to dismantle, and now everyone complains about oil prices.


2 posted on 09/14/2008 12:18:08 PM PDT by I still care (A thousand screaming Germans, some fake columns and swooning girly-men does not a campaign make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
“Both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama have consistently included nuclear power — along with coal, wind, solar and biofuels — in their promises to wean the country from dependence on foreign oil.”

Huh? I have never heard Obama speak of supporting nuclear power or coal.

3 posted on 09/14/2008 12:36:54 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

ROTFLMAO

Nuke-U-lar power to replace oil??? Where? Less than 3% of US electric power is derived from hydrocarbons, and most of that is like “Bunker C”, a small step up from tar.

Maybe they think we will be able to buy “Nukemobiles” that only have to be refueled every 100 years..... and are safe because they are made completely of lead.....
\
Oy!


4 posted on 09/14/2008 8:31:24 PM PDT by ASOC (Have a nice day, just don't have it around me (bumper sticker))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
The need for nuclear power plants arises from the growing economy, lack of new large generating station construction, interest in an environmentally benign way to generate electricity, and the resulting stress on the power-grid trying to deliver power from where it is made to where it is used. Ideally, large generators are located near areas with a large demand for electricity; Indian Point and the City of New York is an excellent example. As the commercial nuclear industry reached technical maturity in the last 15 years, its low operating cost and high reliability/availability has made the nuclear option attractive to utility executives.

Whatever form the heat generation takes, America needs to add many large generators to keep up with an economy that grows "another New Zealand" every year as well as addressing the need to replace the existing large generators, some of which have been in-service for over 50 years (think about getting spare parts).
5 posted on 09/14/2008 11:14:31 PM PDT by sefarkas (Why vote Democrat Lite?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sefarkas

Thank you.

I get tired of responding to the inane posts on this forum.

Semper Fi,
Kelly


6 posted on 09/15/2008 7:36:04 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson