Please sign this petition
krzzzymary
Posts: 458
o.k. dating myself but I attended the original "no nukes" concerts way back when.
Please sign this petition if you agree with this.
There is a clause in the Energy bill before congress containing a clause that could force taxpayers to pay for an unlimited number of nuclear chemical plants.
http://nukefree.org/
sorry if this has already been posted.
I see Pearl Jam has signed this (look on right hand side who supports)
Please sign this petition if you agree with this.
There is a clause in the Energy bill before congress containing a clause that could force taxpayers to pay for an unlimited number of nuclear chemical plants.
http://nukefree.org/
sorry if this has already been posted.
I see Pearl Jam has signed this (look on right hand side who supports)
"You can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb into peace"
Michael Franti
Michael Franti
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Nuclear power is probably our best option for replacing fossil fuels for the energy we need to power our cities, homes, and businesses.
what other options for energy do we have? coal burning plants are the LEADING cause for the hole in the ozone layer and global warming. did you know that?
Amen.
But I wish private companies would be the ones opening them instead of the government.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Michael Franti
Agreed.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Michael Franti
I'd consider it if you gave me a reason to. but you havent.
nuclear is one of the most expensive forms of new energy production ... don't be fooled by the lobbyists ...
of course if everyone wants to continue to live a life of excess and leave inefficient appliances on all the time ... then - there may be no alternative but don't be fooled into thinking it's a necessity ...
look what LED lights have done ... from 100 w light bulbs to 3 watts ...
Trust me I will not sign the petition, but I do find it funny that people will protest our dependency on foreign oil, how gas emissions and coal emissions are damaging our environment, but when a clean viable option is presented such as nuclear power they protest that as well. Solar, wind, and hydro power are not going to cut it so the otnly other viable option is nuclear. At this point we probably could have reduced our dependecy on oil to some extent if every damn granola eating, Birckenstock wearing, tree hugging environmentalist wasn't always protesting the building of a new nuclear power plant.
Tell me how many accidents have occured world-wide in a nuclear power plant that have caused an environmental hazard?
The answer 2. Since 1954 there have only been two meltdowns Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I don't know about you but that is a pretty damn good safety record.
Michael Franti
The reactors are expensive to build yes but the costumer pays less per month in electricity than with traditional coal burning electricity plants. One of my older brother's lives near a nuclear plant and his electricity bill is half of what I pay plus the plant pays so much in taxes to the town that his property taxes are non-existant. So in the long run it is cheaper and saves you money in other areas of your life as well, like property taxes.
Especially when you consider how many people end up with serious respiratory diseases from living next to coal fired generating stations.
the classic not in my backyard syndrome. have you traveled around this country? there are many places a power plants could go and still be hundreds of miles away from the nearest large town or city.
and dont ya think they might use some of those billions on safety?
regardless, we dont have many options.
Go right ahead. My electricity bill will go down. I can then switch my heating from natural gas to electric further lowering my expenses. Also my landlords property taxes will go down so that elminates the possibility of my rent going up. I would rather my tax dollars went to weening us of oil and natural gas to a reusable energy source like nuclear than it going to fueling wars for the sake of protecting oil reserves.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Do you think they can be protected from terror attacks.
That will be real nice - radio active mass destruction
Michael Franti
the only reason it is viable is because it is subsidized - the same reason as oil ... gov'ts do NOT subsidize renewables like they do oil, nuclear and coal ... our province has a huge debt because of our financing of our old nuclear reactors ... they take like 10 years to build and billions of dollars ... then they are running for like 3 before they have to be repaired ...
the ones we have go offline for repairs often and that again is tax payer dollars ... we still haven't paid for our reactors and we're gonna build new ones ...
those billions of dollars can be put into conservation programs and renewables with more payback and less risk ...
we are not even factoring the environmental consequences of mining uranium nor what we do with the waste ... right now, we store them in swimming pools - how long can we do that for?
we already have over 100 nuclear power plants and they havent been attacked. and they have tighter security around them then the white house.
this is where you lost me. most of your stuff is just made up propaganda anyway but this one is up there.
It doesn't need to compete with wind and solar because wind and solar can never replace fossil fuels on a large scale. Nuclear power is the only form of energy, that we now possess, that can replace fossil fuels.
Nice use of fear mongering by the way. Can we protect our large oil refineries froma terrorist attack? That would be reeal nice - giant explosion fueled by thousands of gallons of oil consuming towns in the vacinity. Toxic fumes blowing into the air while oil seeps down into our water table contaminating the areas drinking water.
Also yes we can protect our nuclear power facilities.
The main reactor in a nuclear plant is usually in a building surrounded by a ton (well many tonnes actually) of concrete. How exactly would you attack it? If you are going to talk about power plants and terrorist risk, a terrorist would have about a good a chance blowing up the Hoover dam, and now that would cause mass distruction. Besides a nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb.
feel free to back up your statement ... i can make silly accusations in a post as well ...
do you know how much a new nuclear power plant costs?
Ok find me a better alternative then. Until we come up with something better nuclear is what we have to fall back on because face it people are not going to turn the lights off, turn the Ac's off during the summer, or turn down the heat during the winter. It would be nice if they did but they will not so wind and solar will never be a suitable replacement for oil. We need something else and that something right now is nuclear.
billions. and it will provide energy to millions of people for many years.
why not? ... why won't people turn off the lights? ... if you are left with the option of no electricity or conservation ... people will do it ... we saw it during the oil crisis back in the 70's ... the solutions to our problem are already available ... we do not need to wait for some super new invention ... it's available right now!! ... my home is completely powered by renewable energy ... but at the same time - it uses very little power ... just by being conscientious and investing in current technologies ...
there are people who have homes that can be off the grid ... it is an absolute myth that we NEED nuclear ... these are the constraints by which certain interests want you to operate ...
so ... what part of my post was made up then?
do the math on the energy produced and the cost to run and operate and maintain a nuclear reactor for 10 years and find out what would need to be charged per kwh for it to break even ... WITHOUT subsidies ... it can't beat wind ...
Even with conservation, which I am totally for, the current power plants still all have a limited life cycle and will eventually need to be replaced. For replacing those plants I think nuclear is the best option. Renewables are good too, but do not deliver as constant power.
Great Post, you pretty much stole my thunder---but that's ok because it saved me from having to type it all out.... Haha!!
Also, I'm not sure 3 Mi Island technically melted down, most who I've talked to about that say it was a "near" accident, that it was averted.... I don't remember, I was to young.... Based on that you can cut the meltdown/accidents down 50%.....
I think that depends. Yes - to produce a small amount of energy, wind is far cheaper.
But - how costly is it to use wind to produce as much electricity as you can with the power plant?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.