Warped Priorities of the Bush Admin: Build Nuclear Plants in Gulf States

[kerrygoddess]

The Warped Priorities of the Bush Administration: Energy Group Plans to Build Nuclear Plants in Gulf States

The NY Times is reporting this morning that “a consortium of eight companies said on Thursday that it would spend about $100 million to prepare applications to build two nuclear reactors, in Mississippi and Alabama, a step that seems to move the industry closer to its first new reactor order since the 1970’s.”

Maybe it’s just me, but aren’t there more important things to think about building in the Gulf States right now? Considering that this announcement comes with the promise of Government funding, the question arises yet again, of the priorities of this administration.

The announcement was made by NuStart Energy, a consortium of companies that has substantial government financing. The consortium selected a site in Claiborne County, Miss., adjacent to Entergy Nuclear’s Grand Gulf reactor, and another in northern Alabama, next to the Tennessee Valley Authority’s long-abandoned Bellefonte nuclear construction project.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=654

[Kagemusha]

1. You think blue states would allow this stuff?

They're following the path of least resistance in a rather literal sense here.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Republcans can only prey on the weakest and most desperate.

That's why they're turning this country into chaos.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Why don't we just all give them loaded guns to clean and lock them up

in a room for a day? These people are so stupid, they'll never come out alive.

[NNadir]

4. Nuclear power plants are far safer than their alternatives.

The hurricanes are the result of global climate change. Every spilled gallon of oil in New Orleans is the result to mystify nuclear energy.

We will NOT survive global climate change without nuclear power. It's clear and it's simple. There is NO other option that is workable - none, irrespective of what they claim at Greenpeace.

The Waterford 3 nuclear powerplant in Louisana came through the storm essentially undamaged - having shut down for precautionary reasons - it did not restart immediately because there was essentilly no grid to which connect it. Meanwhile there is very little natural gas - a fuel that feeds global warming - to fuel all the gas fired plants that have been frenetically built in the last several decades.

That single plant, Waterford three - has prevented the release of hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into our atmosphere.

How is it that people routinely stare at the tiny risk of nuclear power and completely ignore the vast risk of fossil fuels, especially when fossil fuels are actively killing people and nobody has died from nuclear power operations in the United States? I don't get it. It's irrational.

[JDPriestly]

5. Develop non-nuclear energy sources first.

Solar energy in Southern California could generate a tremendous amount of energy. We wouldn't need any other kind out here if we maxed out solar resources.

Energy from the tides and wind could also be harnessed.

The reason that nuclear rather than other alternative energy is favored by the big corporations is that nuclear energy provides corporations with a product to sell and allows them to make profits. Solar and wind energy don't produce big, ongoing profits. That is why there is relatively little investment in developing solar and wind technology. Trust me on this one. This is not just a theory. I know this for a fact.

[NNadir]

6. This is nonsense.

One of the biggest scammers in the solar energy business is BP Solar, one of those evil corporations. Solar energy sounds good but it doesn't work. If it worked, no one would be discussing nuclear energy, because nuclear energy is the subject of (unjustifiable) derision while solar energy is seen (inappropriately) as cool, sexy, blah, blah, blah.

I note that the environmental impact of solar PV electricity is three times as large as the environmental impact of nuclear power in the only place where the solar industry is even large enough measure: Germany.

www.externe.info

Global climate change does not call for cute solutions that have putative availability in "20 years." Global climate change requires immediate solutions with immediately available and time tested experience. The world has well over 10,000 reactor-years of experience with nuclear power. The solar business - flush with hype and expectation - is still saying what it is "going to do."

I see no reason to confuse some people's desire for vague socialism with the energy disaster confronting us now.

I don't trust you on this, because I have absolutely no reason to do so.

[jpak]

7. Typical of LaRouche pro-nuclear propaganda

There are no error statistics associated with those estimates and the PV "cost" assumes that coal is used to generate the electricity used smelt aluminum for PV module frames.

The vast majority of Al produced worldwide uses hydroelectricity (or in Iceland's case - geothermal electricity) - not coal-fired electricity.

In short, those numbers are bogus.

There are 225,000 PV equipped homes in the US.

Global PV production is growing *exponentially* at 20-40% per year.

This year, global PV module production will exceed 1250 MW.

It's a very lucrative multi-billion dollar-per-year enterprise.

PV works...

everywhere...

period.