Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8268Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

Expand Messages
  • texasblessings
    Oct 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm sorry if my choice of words belittled, again, it is JMO. I have
      to say, though, unless some major factor in the energy crisis has
      escaped me, what does nuclear have to do with fossil fuels? It is
      my contention that particular argument is one of the greatest smoke-
      and-mirrors tactics the nuke industry has pulled off: Their mantra
      has long been "Nukes will get us out of Iraq" "Nukes will make us
      independent of foreign oil"

      How?

      TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
      homes/businesses/industry do.

      Fossil fuel consumption, basically, does not compete with
      electricity generation in any form, yet we are led to believe it
      does.

      Do we need to cut down on fossil fuel comsumption, develop
      alternatives? Of course...

      Do we need to develop efficiency technologies, alternative power
      ideas, and cut down on electrical usage? Of course...

      But they are seperate crises, are they not?

      And once again, my husband works out there, the industry is my bread
      and butter, and I'd like to see it cease to exist, at least see it
      cease to expand. It took a lot to get my thinking to this point,
      but with the nukes, the more you learn, the more sickening it is. I
      have seen where the land of Native Americans was strip mined for
      uranium (with the threat of losing government funding if they
      resisted), I have stood in front of company execs and spokespersons
      and repeatedy been
      told "Its all about the money". And it is. And if they were making
      widgets that's be okay. But they're making an extremely dangerous
      situation even worse by the sole focus on profit, and we, via our
      gov't, are being forced to participate in our own demise.

      Thank you for engaging me, caring enough to discuss it. If you have
      a spare minute, go to www.mccnia.homestead.com "Food for Thought"
      page. And please, let me know what you think.

      --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Ring" <txses@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I am generally pro-nuclear.
      >
      > I certainly don't mind hearing from people with differing views -
      > although I don't consider myself "being led thoughtlessly". I
      would
      > have phrased that differently. :) Personally I am leading the
      charge
      > because I believe it is the right thing for the country, despite
      the
      > significant issues.
      >
      > I don't know if I would consider it renewable, but it's in much
      > greater supply than fossil fuel. In the long run, when the sun
      burns
      > out in 5 billion years solar isn't really renewable either. What
      I do
      > focus on is the combination of cost-effectivness, low carbon
      output,
      > low environmental impact, and high energy output.
      >
      > No plan is without it's issues. If we don't change to something,
      we
      > will continue with the status quo. Right now, that means massive
      use
      > of fossil fuels. Empirically, being anti-nuclear is no different
      than
      > being pro-coal.
      >
      > Solar is expensive! Lets say you wanted to "go solar" nation
      wide.
      > Well we generate wealth at a certain rate, our income measures
      this.
      > It takes a certain about of time to get that money invested.
      Believe
      > me, I am saving for them right now and I can tell you, it takes a
      long
      > time to put away that sort of cash! Making this plan national
      doesn't
      > make it any faster, it's actually a lot slower because most people
      > don't make as those of us who can currently afford them. That
      whole
      > time, not only are we living poor (saving), we are continuing to
      use
      > the existing power generation - coal.
      >
      > The best plan is a managed transition. Go to plug in electric
      hybrids
      > to eliminate those fossil fuels. Then move power plants from coal
      to
      > nuclear (Possibly wind too), removing more fossil fuels. Thats a
      much
      > better position to be in when you start the long investing phase to
      > being the move to solar.
      >
      > If you don't let us move from where we art to the next step simply
      > because we aren't jumping directly to the final square in the
      > sequence, then you are stopping us from moving at all and insures
      that
      > we stay right where we are. Hence, being anti-nuclear is
      empirically
      > no different than being pro-coal.
      >
      > Of course.... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong :)
      >
      >
      > - Jay
      >
      >
      > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@>
      wrote:
      > >
      > > My point exactly, and I should have focused on it more:
      The "free"
      > > market can't function, and therefor renewables can't compete so
      long
      > > as our gov't officials are so in-bed with the nuke proponents
      and so
      > > long as citizens remain apathetic and uneducated about their
      well-
      > > being and safety. Plus, with roughly 100 units nationwide, the
      > > Three Mile Island incident grants the industry a 1% catastrophic
      > > failure rate. That's pretty darn high to consider it "safe"!
      > >
      > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Wagner (HSN)" <jack_wagner@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I don't have a problem with nuke power per say as long as it's
      > > safe and
      > > > is not unfairly subsidized by the government. Of course, that
      > > brings up
      > > > the whole question about what are fair taxpayer subsidies for
      the
      > > > renewable sector. In a perfect world, the free market would
      decide
      > > but
      > > > that's probably not going to work this time around. With any
      luck,
      > > when
      > > > the Fed gets through with the banks, they'll throw a few
      billion
      > > our way
      > > > :-).
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ________________________________
      > > >
      > > > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf
      > > Of
      > > > texasblessings
      > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM
      > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Subject: [hreg] Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I posed a question on here last night whether it was the
      general
      > > > consensus of folks on this board to consider nuclear power
      > > > reasonable within our acceptance of "renewables". Seems the
      > > general
      > > > consensus is "no". Good.
      > > >
      > > > I have a unique perspective on nuclear power which I hope you
      all
      > > > don't mind my posting here for your consideration. My husband
      is
      > > an
      > > > Engineering Specialist at the South Texas Nuclear Electric
      > > > Generating Station; On the other hand, I loathe the industry.
      > > >
      > > > It was not always so. I worked a stint at the pair of reactors
      > > > myself; I once fell for the deception. One of nuclear power's
      > > > biggest lies is their "benefit" for the local community. CNBC
      > > aired
      > > > a special highlighting this about two weeks ago. They say its
      > > > safe. They say it makes us independent of foreign sources.
      They
      > > > say the waste issues will work themselves out. For the longest
      > > > time, I did the easy thing: I ate what I was spoon-fed by the
      > > > industry.
      > > >
      > > > And then in 2005, STPEGS dropped a figurative nuclear bomb on
      our
      > > > community: they, as many other nuke plants had already done,
      > > > were "outsourcing" the jobs that had long been the backbone of
      > > > nuclear energy's acceptance in our community.
      > > >
      > > > Now one might argue, "That's just good business", and for a
      moment
      > > I
      > > > could agree, but then you have to acknowledge the hundreds and
      > > > hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies the
      industry
      > > > requires (read: YOUR tax dollars being spent to fund overseas
      > > > jobs). And that brings up the issue of how many $$$ should we,
      the
      > > > American people, be required to feed into a fat, extremely
      > > > profitable industry that uses up our water resources, creates
      > > > hundreds of metric tons or radioactive waste, constantly emits
      > > > radiation? And as proponents of safe, renewable options, how
      can
      > > we
      > > > NOT fight an industry that uses up funds that would otherwise
      be
      > > > available to develop efficiency technologies and true
      renewables?
      > > >
      > > > Just last week STP had a terrorist scare: A small plane flew
      into
      > > > the designated "no fly zone" that surrounds the plant (due to
      its
      > > > inherent risk as a terrorist target and general riskiness)
      > > > initiating a security call which brought a fighter jet in to
      run
      > > the
      > > > smaller plane off. Late in the same day (being huntin' season
      &
      > > > all), an employee was leaving the building with a rifle case
      he
      > > had
      > > > just purchased FROM THE ON-SITE COMPANY STORE!! when security
      over-
      > > > reacted and called ALL available local law enforcement in from
      > > > around the County, locked the plant down, S.W.A.T teams
      searched
      > > the
      > > > building. Geesh! Its like living in a war zone. We have huge
      > > > sirens scattered across our county to notify us "just in
      case". In
      > > > fact, this week unit 2 lost its cooling ability for a full 14
      > > > minutes. Just like the radioactive boron leak a few years
      back, it
      > > > was an unforeseeable event until after it happened.
      > > >
      > > > Most of nuclear's risks are more insipid. Our cancer rates
      have
      > > > risen 22% since fuel load. I lost both my great grand-mother
      and
      > > > great grand-father to breast cancer. We have had to educate
      > > > ourselves about how to shore our bodies up so we'll absorb
      less
      > > > deadly radioactivity in the event of a leak (although the
      industry
      > > > had failed to supply us with Potassium Iodide to protect
      ourselves
      > > > even though federal law requires it). And the waste. Yucca
      > > > Mountain is a joke. Nevada plainly doesn't want it and even if
      it
      > > > were licensed and built, there are about 83 metric tons of
      waste
      > > > awaiting disposal NOW. Yucca's capacity is 80 metric tons. Of
      > > > course, the waste in Matagorda County won't be going to Yucca.
      Our
      > > > fuel rods are a non-standard 14' long, the industry standard
      is
      > > > 12'. There is not a manufacturer in the world making storage
      or
      > > > transport casks for 14' fuel rods. And guess what? The nuclear
      > > > industry sued the federal government a few years back and WON
      a
      > > suit
      > > > that alleged that it's the fed's responsibility to deal with
      > > nuclear
      > > > waste. Now, in addition to operating subsidies, employee
      training
      > > > subsidies, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and the
      tax-
      > > > payer funded catastrophic clean-up subsidy...now we're paying
      them
      > > > to store their own waste! If we, the tax-paying public will
      pay
      > > > them to store their own waste for eternity, why the heck would
      > > they
      > > > want to miss that money-making opportunity? Not to mention,
      the
      > > > citizens of Matagorda County (and you Harris County folks who
      are
      > > > down wind) never got to have a radioactive waste hearing,
      never
      > > got
      > > > to be officially declared a nuclear waste dump, we got no say
      in
      > > the
      > > > matter at all.
      > > >
      > > > "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to
      do
      > > > nothing." (Edmund Burke) Please take a few minutes to educate
      > > > yourself about nuclear electricity generation and don't be
      led,
      > > > thoughtlessly, by the huge media campaign the industry would
      have
      > > > you follow. It's important that we band together and fight
      this
      > > > industry wherever opportunities present themselves. Talk to
      your
      > > > friends, neighbors, family members, and most importantly, talk
      to
      > > > your Representatives in local, state, and federal government.
      > > > Insist that this madness end.
      > > >
      > > > Sorry I got so long winded, this is very important stuff.
      > > >
      > > > Peace,
      > > > Susan
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic