Florida Power and Light wrote The debate over nuclear energy in today’s business section. Oops scratch that. John Dorschner, Miami Herald Reporter, wrote it. There are also accompanying articles. The piece is hardly a debate. FP&L could have written this, I guess that is why I made the mistake. There is no mention of the recent leak problems in France and Germany for example. I don’t know, it just didn’t seem balanced, short shrift was given to anti nuke arguments (except storage). Don't the plants generate trillions of kilocalories of heat? What does that mean? Also, what about the water usage? We would be saving on one resource (oil) but using another (water). In Florida we have to think about hurricanes and sea level rise as we expand nuclear power plants on our coast. And, isn't there a finite supply of uranium?
Dorschner mentions Patrick Moore, formerly of Greenpeace who is the Nuke Plant’s best friend. Dorschner doesn’t mention that Patrick is making a bundle pushing Nukes around the country. I think getting money from the utility companies: I read that Moore is paid to espouse those views on behalf of the industry, through his company Greenspirit Strategies, Ltd. Heck, I met with him and he bought me lunch (or did the lobbyist escorting him?). He has been shaking the money tree but good with his transformation.
There is one scary photo from the article (see above) of a Maine Nuke Plant's Nuclear waste storage. These numerous above ground cement storage canisters actually house nuclear waste! They are kept behind a chain link fence. Pretty safe looking...NOT!
8 comments:
There was a link next to that article discussinf investment in nuclear versus renewable etc. What it left out - was the fact that those numbers reflect the fact that no new plant has been built since the 1970's.
Is there some solution for waste I haven't heard of yet?
Miami Herald strikes at lame reporting once again. I'm going to call the reporter and ask who they interviewed in opposition. Friggin pathetic!
Do we have numbers on what Moore is earning by selling out his credibility?
Nuclear power is a very expensive and dangerous way of boiling water to create electricity. The cost to produce this energy is enormous, the amount of security that is needed (due to terrorism & accidents) costly, and there is still no clear (read safe) way of dealing with the waste issues.
Would you want a train loaded with nuclear waste coming through your community? We have had enough train accidents in our country to make one think twice about the safety of how the waste will be eventually moved from the site.
Nuclear power only benefits the companies that build and run the reactors. For the consumers who wind up paying (and paying and paying) for it, it is truly NO bargain.
Governor Crist's Action Team on Climate and Energy is aware of the hazards associated with nuclear reactors and their waste sitting in the path of sea level rise. The state Dept of Health's Radiation safety division is acutely aware of this folly. What about the ground zero residents?
Patrick Moore left Greenpeace over 20 years ago. How long do you get to say that you were a former member like it is a new thing?
Now he gets funding from the Nuclear Energy industry, although I think he came to reverse his position on nuclear power before being directly supported by the industry. Now they just have a voice that can be quoted as "a former Greenpeace founder"
thanks for linking to the story about the under-reported nuclear waste leaks in France. That's the first thing that popped into my mind when I read the line about nuclear having "virtually no safety problems."
I guess as long as you only "virtually" drink the water near Avignon (The French Government says it is safe)
Also of note, the US operates 104 nuclear reactors. France, the most nuke-dependent country of all, has only 59.
Post a Comment