Quote:
Originally Posted by
LarryO1970 
| ... and IF we are really, truly serious, why are we not following the lead on harnessing the tide for power?
... simply, in this economic climate, we need to use what we have to do what we need. Cleaner power sources will come when we actually have the money to invest in and build them.
... I will be willing to bet that this example I cited above is used as an example to deny the future build of any nuclear power plant in the near future. I hope I'm wrong on this ... but ...
Larry O |
NO ONE in this regime is interested in making America better--only in fostering their own power (or illusion thereof), trying to rule the world in their perverted way, and telling folks what to do. We have rules on paper--we have nothing whatsoever good done. Think about it--NONE of the health care "reform" bills do anything but throw a grenade into what is working in our health system currently, hike costs, intrude into lives, and expand gov't. Same as for cap and scam--it is a tax hike (based on a BS premise) which is also designed to develop a pseudo-currency (in carbon) making some special interests and politicians rich at the expense of us worker bees.
If we were really interested in health care reform, we'd be BUILDING HOSPITALS and TRAINING DOCTORS (as well as tort reform, opening up insurance sales unrestricted, etc.).
If we were really interested in energy, we'd be BUILDING REACTORS--as we've previously gone over, the TARP alone would've built 220 2000 MW Nuclear reactors; add even 1/2 the porkulus and America would've been TOTALLY ENERGY INDEPENDENT. Oh yes, this would have also CREATED jobs NOW AND paid off the debt we'd incurred as well--just like Hoover Dam. We'd be in the black; instead we blew the cash on lawyers, unions, and hats (as well as kickbacks to obama's pals). We'd also be building hydro dams and other alternative energy sources. So far we haven't even gotten windmills; we've gotten stories and studies about windmills.
BTW, a fully functioning 1600 MW (2x the older Westinghouse PWR's) plant--the size of the current Beaver Valley, PA plant (near the old Shippingsport site; first commercial nuclear reactor in the U.S.)--emits less radiation and fission products into the surroundings than a fully functioning 1200 MW coal plant--even with scrubber (and I'm fully supportive of coal as well). Just an interesting factoid. The radiation from the coal plant is due to the natural uranium and thorium (as well as other trace radioactive materials) in the coal itself which goes up the stacks.
Sorry for the MW vs. MVA but it's a ball park thing.
... a platform for the denial of future nuclear power? 
