Gov. Strickland: Nuclear Energy is NOT Green Energy
| By Doug - Jun 18th, 2009 at 12:45 am EDT |
I'm hoping to spark a discussion about plans for a nuclear power plant in Piketon. A front-page Dispatch article reported Wednesday that Governor Strickland, Senator Voinovich and Rep. Jean Schmidt support such a nuclear facility being built by Duke Energy and the French nuclear energy company Avena.
My opposition lies in the fact that nuclear power plants can't compete in the free market. No insurance company would insure a nuke plant. The Price-Anderson Act makes the government the insurer of nuclear power plants which is a gigantic welfare check to the nuclear industry. Without Price-Anderson, there would be no private sector nuke plants.
My understanding is that nuclear power is actually fossil-fuel intensive because of the massive energy required to extract uranium.
There's also the issue of the storage of radioactive waste and safety concerns. The Davis-Bessey nuke plant near Toledo very nearly had a catastrophic disaster just a few years ago.
Ohio would be much better off investing and encouraging clean, safe and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal. Doing so would put thousands of people to work.
My opposition lies in the fact that nuclear power plants can't compete in the free market. No insurance company would insure a nuke plant. The Price-Anderson Act makes the government the insurer of nuclear power plants which is a gigantic welfare check to the nuclear industry. Without Price-Anderson, there would be no private sector nuke plants.
My understanding is that nuclear power is actually fossil-fuel intensive because of the massive energy required to extract uranium.
There's also the issue of the storage of radioactive waste and safety concerns. The Davis-Bessey nuke plant near Toledo very nearly had a catastrophic disaster just a few years ago.
Ohio would be much better off investing and encouraging clean, safe and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal. Doing so would put thousands of people to work.
Comments are closed for this post.
As a result, greenhouse gases are down, so is dependence on foreign oil. France actually exports power to other nations.
I agree that wind and solar should be major priorities as well, but I am reluctantly concluding that nuclear has to be part of the mix.
PBS did a good piece on the topic:
Link
Pike County where a new plant is going up is probably the most rural and economically depressed county in the state.
Would be nice if alternative energy sources could do the job, but the technology just isn't there yet. If it was, everyone would have solar panels mounted on their roofs. I'm not seeing that.
I'm glad Doug voiced his concerns, though. I believe the main problem with nuclear energy is hazardous waste disposal. I suggest they move it way out West, maybe send it to Alaska.
The energy companies are also required to buy excess energy from homeowners with solar panels at a cost that covers the cost of homeowners to pay for the panels.
WE COULD DO THIS HERE TOO!!! Think of the potential in the Southern and Western states!
The reason that solar, wind and other renewables aren't catching on in the U.S. is that fossil fuel energies recieve massive subsidies and have tremendous lobbying power.
If the ancient Egyptians had built nuke plants rather than the pyramids the waste would still be radioactive. Think about that.
France does generate a lot of power from nuke plants but the jury will be out on that program for thousands of years because all it takes is one nuclear meltdown and there's always an issue of the waste.
I would think that if the tax payers were made aware of the costs to them via subsidies from start to decommission costs (in the billions) they would swear off beyond recall. Every nuclear plant has increased costs to the consumer and then there are the stranded costs.
It was reported yesterday that California Edison was purchasing 726 MW from Solar MIllenium.
Link
Let's move into the future and stop living under the fear of another nuclear catastrophe waiting happen.
I have no trust in someone who plays with fire then claims the chances are small. If it goes wrong, we would NEVER recover.
It would take 10 years till completion and the billions invested for a penultimately DIRTY technology could be better spend on renewable infrastructure.
The quote for insuring americans with health insurance was a b0illion or so? How about the Billions spent in Iraq? Now billions for this?
We can't afford it.
Last but not least, the fear of a catasrophe is enough to relegate this primitive technology to the pages of history. One incicdent is avoidable if it is NOT built.
DON"T GIVE IT CHANCE TO HAPPEN!
NO NUKES