Some enviro groups have recently embraced nuclear as an alternative. Our nation is a HUGE consumer of electricity. Nuclear is an alternative to fossil. Solar is another alternative but doesn't deliver the megawatts demanded by consumers. Asner is just a mouthpiece. He speaks some truths and some myths. I'm not opposed to nuclear. What I am opposed to is that rate payers will fund the project yet have no stake in the profits. That is inherently wrong. If FPL wants to charge me for development of new generating facilities, that's fine. Sell me stock in the form of an uprate and reward me appropriately, i.e. give me a stake.
Some enviro groups supported nuclear because it was thought to be a "short term" answer - and only if the worst coal power plants were shut down in concert with new nuclear coming online.
The "short" solution has been a decade on the drawingboard already - even with huge subsidies from the government and cheerleading from the Nuclear Regulatory Agency.
Another left wing look who is anti-nuclear because it's "cool". Like most of the general public, Asner is completely ignorant of the technology and why nuclear energy; combined with natural gas", are the answers for the immediate future, in combination with petroleum to power military ships and vehicles, commercial shipping and trucking, and the airline industry. Wind will never be commercially viable although it is "cute", and until solar technology is upgraded, it will never be commercially viable either. A good start is to require all future construction of commercial and residential improvements to incorporate solar to the maximally reasonable economic extent; and go from there. To protest and not acknowledge the scientific and technical realities necessary to generate electricity on a commercial scale is folly. The true measure of quality of life is consumption of electricity. Look at satellite photos of the earth at night. Those that are lit up the brightest have the highest standard of living, with that measure dropping in concert with the level of brightness. I don't know about you, but I want the power available any time I feel like or need to charge my iPhone or iPad.by the way, how is it more environmentally friendly to drive an electrically powered vehicle when the electricity required to charge the car's battery was most likely generated by burning petroleum or oil? Hybrids are great, but anyone that thinks anyone is going to drive (as their sole mode of transportation) a vehicle that will only go 100 miles and then takes hours to refuel? In the words of ESPN, come on man!!
7 comments:
Posted this to my facebook page. South Floridians seem to only be concerned about the power lines. They need to be aware of the whole truth.
isn't ed asner a left-wing nut?
I do not have to rethink it, I am against it.
Ed Asner was Mary Tyler Moore's boss on a fictional TV station. Left wing nut? Nope all the wingnuts are on the right.
Some enviro groups have recently embraced nuclear as an alternative. Our nation is a HUGE consumer of electricity. Nuclear is an alternative to fossil. Solar is another alternative but doesn't deliver the megawatts demanded by consumers.
Asner is just a mouthpiece. He speaks some truths and some myths.
I'm not opposed to nuclear. What I am opposed to is that rate payers will fund the project yet have no stake in the profits. That is inherently wrong. If FPL wants to charge me for development of new generating facilities, that's fine. Sell me stock in the form of an uprate and reward me appropriately, i.e. give me a stake.
Some enviro groups supported nuclear because it was thought to be a "short term" answer - and only if the worst coal power plants were shut down in concert with new nuclear coming online.
The "short" solution has been a decade on the drawingboard already - even with huge subsidies from the government and cheerleading from the Nuclear Regulatory Agency.
Another left wing look who is anti-nuclear because it's "cool". Like most of the general public, Asner is completely ignorant of the technology and why nuclear energy; combined with natural gas", are the answers for the immediate future, in combination with petroleum to power military ships and vehicles, commercial shipping and trucking, and the airline industry. Wind will never be commercially viable although it is "cute", and until solar technology is upgraded, it will never be commercially viable either. A good start is to require all future construction of commercial and residential improvements to incorporate solar to the maximally reasonable economic extent; and go from there. To protest and not acknowledge the scientific and technical realities necessary to generate electricity on a commercial scale is folly. The true measure of quality of life is consumption of electricity. Look at satellite photos of the earth at night. Those that are lit up the brightest have the highest standard of living, with that measure dropping in concert with the level of brightness. I don't know about you, but I want the power available any time I feel like or need to charge my iPhone or iPad.by the way, how is it more environmentally friendly to drive an electrically powered vehicle when the electricity required to charge the car's battery was most likely generated by burning petroleum or oil? Hybrids are great, but anyone that thinks anyone is going to drive (as their sole mode of transportation) a vehicle that will only go 100 miles and then takes hours to refuel? In the words of ESPN, come on man!!
Post a Comment