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

8271Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....

Expand Messages
  • texasblessings
    Oct 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "texasblessings" <texasblessings@...>
      wrote:
      >
      >
      > 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" (And I/we are loosely using the
      term 'fossil fuel' rather that petroleum products, that's where it
      gets slippery)
      >
      > How?
      >
      > TRANSPORTATION relies on fossil fuels, less than 2% of
      > homes/businesses/industry electricity consumption does.
      >
      > 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 (petro) 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