Print 46 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Jun 22 at 12:01 PM

Oyster Creek Plant, the nation's first large commercial reactor  (Source: NRC)

Plants must go through an extensive multistep license process that ensures environmental and safety compliance. Despite this, environmentalists claim that the operators haven't given adequate information, and are suing to try to prevent the plant's reopening.  (Source: NRC)
Its the same tired tactics and hot air from radical environmental groups

The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station sits near the shore of New Jersey, in Lacey Township, a small town in Ocean County.  The single boiling water reactor, commissioned in 1969, was the first large-scale commercial nuclear power plant in the United States.  It has a capacity of 625 MW, producing over 5,000 GWh in 2007, about 9 percent of the state's energy.

The benefits of the plant are numerous.  It reduces reliance on unstable oil sources, it provides clean energy, and it’s far cheaper than wind or solar, rivaling even fossil fuel generation in cost per kilowatt-hour.  The plant also is a boon for the local economy, creating over 900 jobs and donating over $100,000 yearly to the charity United Way.

This spring the plant won a 20-year extension of its operating license.  That's when the environmentalists reared their heads.  A plethora of alarmist groups, including the
New Jersey Environmental Federation, the New Jersey Sierra Club, the Public Interest Research Group, the Nuclear Information Resource Service and Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety (GRAMMES) appealed the decision, taking it to the federal court system. 

The coalition's attorney, Richard Webster, of the Eastern Environmental Law Center, claims that the suit is over lack of information about how the plant will continue to operate safely.  This claim is flat-out false.  The plant submitted a bit of light reading -- a 462-page licensing application and a 59-page environmental impact report.  Both reports extensively detailed the safety precautions and environmental safeguards the plant would take.

The environmentalists' complaints center around two topics.  The first is Barnegat Bay.  The plant dumps controlled amounts of non-radioactive cooling water into the bay.  The water has little if any impact, raising the temperature at most a couple degrees in a small localized region.  Solar warming and currents can create similar heat pockets in ocean water without human intervention.

The second complaint concerns the 650 tons of radioactive waste that sits in a holding pond outside the plant.  Again, while the lobbies are eager to alarm the public, this pond, carefully constructed with concrete, poses no threat to the populace.  In the first place, this is low-grade radioactive waste, and secondly it has been carefully maintained.  And it is important to remember that these are the same lobbies that blocked applications of new plants that could remove and reprocess this waste.

If the people want something to protest about, protest the Environmental Federation, the Sierra Club, and these alarmists.  They are hurting the environment, their community, and our nation.  Worst of all, by forcing power companies to lose productivity and spend funds on legal defense; they're raising the cost of power for New Jersey citizens.  Let's hope this one sees its way swiftly through the Justice System and that people -- and our government representatives start standing up to this kind of behavior.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

As you say
By FITCamaro on 6/5/2009 10:01:48 AM , Rating: 5
More of the same.

Perhaps one day the mainstream media won't be the insanely biased pile of sh*t that it is and will tout the benefits of nuclear power to the masses. I won't hold my breath though.

RE: As you say
By Tsuwamono on 6/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: As you say
By kattanna on 6/5/2009 2:25:24 PM , Rating: 3
i prefer the colbert report damn funny

and yes, one needs to have multiple news inputs to get a more accurate story

RE: As you say
By Tsuwamono on 6/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: As you say
By johnsonx on 6/7/2009 11:45:28 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, probably the implication that one should get their news exclusively from array of left to far-left sources with nothing at all from the center-right earned you a down-rate.

RE: As you say
By MrPoletski on 6/9/2009 9:05:09 AM , Rating: 2
He is right and he did not imply that at all...

unless you consider CNN, BBC, CNBC and THE DAILY SHOW as 'left to far left' news outlets which is of course total claptrap.

And when you say 'nothing at all from the centre right' do you refer to Fox news? which has so much right wing bias it's an insult to anyones intelligence to use the word 'centre' anywhere near its description.

All of this media is owned by coporate entities and these coporate entities have their own objective.

The exception is the BBC which is publicly funded. The BBC is actively policed for impartiality (unlike any of your american channels) and presenters/reporters can get in serious trouble for violating that policy (i.e. fired). Sometimes their 'maintained impartiality' is misguided in my opinion but no channel is perfect.

IMHO the best thing about the BBC is its tendency to concentrate on news instead of cool graphics, celebrity gossip and other timewastery.

Did you ever consider that you might find these news outlets 'leftist' because you are used to watching Fox news and consider it 'fair and balanced' instead of the right wing mouthpiece it is? Fox has been caught out with its bias MANY times. Just search on youtube, it's all there.

.... and if bill o'reilly, sean hannity, pat robertson and people like them are 'centre right' to you then what the hell is far right to you?

RE: As you say
By DigitalFreak on 6/9/2009 3:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
BBC America news FTW!

RE: As you say
By murphyslabrat on 6/8/2009 3:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I get mine from the Onion and the Onion Online.

RE: As you say
By FITCamaro on 6/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: As you say
By omnicronx on 6/8/2009 4:52:51 PM , Rating: 3
Its called the Daily Show WITH JOHN STEWART.. This is not uncommon for any late night show. 'Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien', 'Late Night with Jimmy Fallon' etc...

Either way, there is no reason to make a comment like that..

RE: As you say
By 91TTZ on 6/10/2009 5:22:44 PM , Rating: 3
He's probably referring to the fact that Jon Stewart's name is actually Jon Leibowitz.

RE: As you say
By Boze on 6/5/2009 2:51:11 PM , Rating: 4
Agreed. Nuclear power is one of the most regulated and safest power sources humankind has developed. On top of that, if the government will ever stop holding up Yucca Mountain, we have a perfectly safe place to store all this radioactive waste for the next 50,000 years or however long it takes to break down.

Besides, if humanity hasn't managed to move to different hospitible planets in FIFTY-THOUSAND YEARS from now, I swear I will come back to life and kick whoever's ass is responsible for that travesty. Hopefully 50,000 years from now, we will have found a new planet (or dozen) to colonize, and like Ron Perlman's character from Alien Resurrection said, "Earth... man... what a shithole."

RE: As you say
By FITCamaro on 6/8/2009 10:53:28 AM , Rating: 3
Obama isn't holding up Yucca mountain. He has closed it. And put several hundred people out of work in the process. His reason for doing so is he claims we should pursue reprocessing.

Of course anyone with half a brain would know you don't close the dump site before you have a method to reprocess the waste set up and working. So instead of waste being in a single giant, secure mountain facility, it will sit in holding ponds at nuclear sites around the country. That's why I have no hopes whatsoever that Obama will pursue nuclear energy regardless of what the man says.

RE: As you say
By omnicronx on 6/9/2009 5:13:23 PM , Rating: 3
Yucca mountain was heading down that road LONG before Obama was a glimmer in anyone's eye. Harry Reid the US senator from Nevada and the leader of the Senate Democrats has specifically said it will never happen, nor will he let it happen. Funding was reduced to almost nothing 2 years ago, the project was just waiting to be canceled.

Don't lump us all together
By oTAL on 6/5/2009 10:44:34 AM , Rating: 5
I'm an environmentalist...
That's why I *support* nuclear power!

BTW, I know this has been said before, but you really approach the exact same topics masher did... I bet that is not a coincidence ;).

RE: Don't lump us all together
By atomicrod on 6/6/2009 5:01:22 AM , Rating: 5
I am also an environmentalist who is strongly supportive of nuclear power. Whenever I read about efforts to shut down an operating reactor or to slow or stop the construction of a new one, I follow the advice of the guy in the movie "Follow the Money".

The main financial beneficiaries of any effort to reduce the production of electricity from atomic fission are the people who sell coal, oil and natural gas to the plants that produce electricity through fossil fuel combustion.

Less fission = more sales for the fossil fuel industry. The amount is non-trivial; shutting down a single 650 MWe nuclear plant increases fossil fuel sales (probably natural gas) by more than $1 million PER DAY in the local area where the plant is shut down.

Perhaps that is why many of the established mainstream environmental groups are so well supported and have so many members who are "establishment" figures. In the American economy, fossil fuel based wealth has a very long and deep history of domination. Think about where Rockefeller, Pew, Ford, and countless other foundations got their endowments. When Ted Turner is not building networks, he is drilling for gas in the high desert. ( T. Boone Pickens, the current darling of the mainstream environmental groups is a long time gas salesman.

Follow the money and stop blaming "environmentalists" for opposition to nuclear power. Scratch the surface of the groups to find their real financial support.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

RE: Don't lump us all together
By Danish1 on 6/6/2009 7:29:14 AM , Rating: 5
Follow the money and stop blaming "environmentalists" for opposition to nuclear power. Scratch the surface of the groups to find their real financial support.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.

In this case the large group would be Greenpeace.

I do believe you're on to something though.

RE: Don't lump us all together
By mmntech on 6/7/2009 6:12:49 PM , Rating: 4
Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund. I love to have a good laugh at how ludicrous Earth Hour is.
I don't buy the argument that about oil companies trying to discourage nuclear power, or all the other things they're accused of financially meddling with. It's a tired, hack argument. It's conveniently never brought up that environmental NGOs have huge financial steaks in these kinds of issues. The fact that Greenpeace made $300 million US in revenue in 2007 speaks for itself.

The issue with nuclear is that people immediately think of Chernobyl. Something that neo-luddite environmental groups capitalize on. One major incident in some 50 years of nuclear energy is not enough to label it as dangerous. Chernobyl was disastrous but it was so because of the incompetence of the Soviet designers who failed to incorporate even the most basic safety systems into its design. Renewable sources such as solar and wind power are important in supplementing our power supply but they cannot entirely replace thermal and nuclear plants. I read a journal article last summer that stated that the entire island of Kyushu would have to be covered in solar panels just to power Tokyo alone. No matter how many twisty light bulbs you make people install, it's not going to change the trend of increasing energy demand. It's too late to turn the clocks back. Nuclear power is absolutely necessary. Environmentalists are only delaying the inevitable. In the mean time, energy shortages are putting a huge tax on the grid, costing the world's economies billions.

RE: Don't lump us all together
By austinag on 6/9/2009 11:32:10 AM , Rating: 4
Well said.
Also, diversification of our energy sources is just as important as environmental or political concerns. Nuclear energy has to represent a piece of the puzzle.

RE: Don't lump us all together
By AlexWade on 6/6/2009 7:47:24 AM , Rating: 3
Big Oil and Big Coal are not the ones who are stopping nuclear power. Sure, they may have a financial incentive to stop it. However, why would Big Oil and Big Coal willingly fund a group who is opposed to what they do? Why give money to a group who is actively trying to stop you from making money? As you say, follow the money. The way Big Coal is stopping nuclear power is by running TV commercials advertising clean coal technology. And then lets face it, Big Oil knows it will be at least decades before a viable alternative comes along.

Michael Andrews
By arazok on 6/5/2009 10:39:51 AM , Rating: 4

Inquiring minds want to know…

RE: Michael Andrews
By Hieyeck on 6/5/2009 10:46:23 AM , Rating: 3
Michael got married and took his wife's name for a pen-name.


RE: Michael Andrews
By aegisofrime on 6/5/2009 11:14:50 AM , Rating: 2
Asher's ego couldn't take the beating, died, and reincarnated as Andrews.

RE: Michael Andrews
By TheDoc9 on 6/5/2009 3:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
Whats so funny is, this is probably one of the most interesting topics on this site. What happened to him, and why is he back as andrews? I bet it had something to do with a broad.

RE: Michael Andrews
By acase on 6/8/2009 1:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not attempting to be negative or offensive at all but...
It is quite possible, especially with more and more states making gay marriage legal now,that he could be gay and just took a new husband's last name. This would also explain why he, or anyone else from DT that might know, wouldn't respond about it since there are so many assholes out there. But for now, I'll just sit here with my bag of popcorn and wait to find out...

RE: Michael Andrews
By arazok on 6/8/2009 3:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t really care if they explain why the name changed. I just want to know if it’s the same person.

I’ll take oTAL’s comment as confirmation that this is Masher and move along. I really don’t care if his name changed because he’s gay and got married, a part of a witness protection program, or because kids called him “asser” when he was growing up and his psychiatrist recommended this as a part of his treatment.

I’m just glad he’s back and look forward to his articles.

RE: Michael Andrews
By ChristopherO on 6/11/2009 2:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
There are two pretty easy explanations... This whole getting married thing might be true (I knew a family where both the husband and wife changed their last name).

Either Michael Asher was a pen name, and when he started getting covered by the AP, Reuters, etc, he decided to switch to his real name. Pen Names are rarely taken seriously. Plus someone could knock the credibility of his story down because no one could prove he existed.

Or, Michael Asher was a real name, and he switched to a Pen name because he wanted to continue to write about controversial topics. Lets face it, some of these straw men he likes to write about include insane supporters of the like who would threaten him at home if they could find him. Potentially he *was* threatened, and that prompted the change. He happened to be quoted on Limbaugh at least once, and that could definitely lead to something.

nuclear energy is not perfect
By matt0401 on 6/7/2009 3:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'd consider myself an environmentalist. I recycle, conserve power and water, like the idea of driving a hybrid (when I eventually can afford the insurance rates associated with driving) etc, and I support nuclear power when used to replace fossil fuels because of just how much better it is than polluting our air with coal and gas plants. But you people seem to be frighteningly evangelical of nuclear. You DO realize it uses a, while plentiful, finite resource, right? You DO realize that the waste, while partially recyclable, is becoming increasingly difficult to store when you can't reuse it, right? Nuclear is far from perfect. It's a great short term solution for dealing with unstable oil supplies and coal plant pollution, but wind and solar, basically anything clean and renewable is what we need to aim for long term. I hope you people realize that.

RE: nuclear energy is not perfect
By Keeir on 6/7/2009 7:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think one of the reasons that people get to be so evangelical about nuclear is that the "mainstream" person is so ill informed about Nuclear Power.

The Simple truth is that we could build Nuclear Plants to power the world for the next 100 years. Develop appropriate waste disposal sites and actually use them. This would occur long before we built enough solar and wind generating capacity to serve our needs.

The Future is probably Fusion related power. Wind and Solar will always be niche in a society that follows reasonable economic policies since these power sources are highly variable, unreliable, and require significant land use.

RE: nuclear energy is not perfect
By Amiga500 on 6/8/2009 8:08:29 AM , Rating: 3
You DO realize it uses a, while plentiful, finite resource, right? You DO realize that the waste, while partially recyclable, is becoming increasingly difficult to store when you can't reuse it, right?

A big negative on both counts there.

1. Current uranium reserves at under $100/kg are sufficient for 30 odd years. Increase the price to $200/kg and that multiplies.

Then bring in reprocessing (which becomes economically efficent at around $250/kg uranium prices IIRC) and the supplies become effectively infinite.

Here is a journal paper on the subject - which is far above the pish you get on random net sites or blogs.

Nuclear Fission Fuel is Inexhaustible
Lightfoot, H.D.; Manheimer, W.; Meneley, D.A.; Pendergast, D.; Stanford, G.S.
EIC Climate Change Technology, 2006 IEEE
Volume , Issue , 10-12 May 2006 Page(s):1 - 8
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/EICCCC.2006.277268
Summary:Nuclear fission energy is as inexhaustible as those energies usually termed ldquorenewablerdquo, such as hydro, wind, solar, and biomass. But, unlike the sum of these energies, nuclear fission energy has sufficient capacity to replace fossil fuels as they become scarce. Replacement of the current thermal variety of nuclear fission reactors with nuclear fission fast reactors, which are 100 times more fuel efficient, can dramatically extend nuclear fuel reserves. The contribution of uranium price to the cost of electricity generated by fast reactors, even if its price were the same as that of gold at US$14,000/kg, would be US$0.003/kWh of electricity generated. At that price, economically viable uranium reserves would be, for all practical purposes, inexhaustible. Uranium could power the world as far into the future as we are today from the dawn of civilization-more than 10,000 years ago. Fast reactors have distinct advantages in siting of plants, product transport and management of waste.

2. The waste is over 99% recyclable using transmutation. Accelerated Particle reactors are capable of this, while currently in the lab stages only, in the future, AP reactors will be able to vastly reduce final waste amounts, and the radioactive waste that is left has relatively short half-lifes.

RE: nuclear energy is not perfect
By matt0401 on 6/8/2009 11:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
This is good to hear. Remember though that 30 some odd years is by no means infinite. As is 99% recyclable. If we are to arrive at a long term solution we need 100% recyclable nuclear waste. I do have to admit that 99% sounds like an excellent short term solution though, which is exactly what my previous post treats nuclear energy as.

RE: nuclear energy is not perfect
By Mint on 6/22/2009 12:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't understand his post. Currently uranium is $100/kg. We have 30 years at that price.

If we were willing to pay $14,000/kg, we have over 10,000 years of supply at that price (look up sea mining of uranium - it's also theorized that the earth's crust replenishes whatever we take out). Also, this price would only increase the cost of electricity by $0.003/kWh, which is nothing.

It's basically infinite in supply. We can replace it with high-altitude wind or thin-film solar or fusion when they become available and cheap. For now, though, nuclear power is a godsend.

625 MW a year...?
By spwrozek on 6/5/2009 1:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
"It produces 625 MW a year, about 9 percent of the state's energy."

625 MW a year? Is this correct?

RE: 625 MW a year...?
By Ringold on 6/5/2009 4:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
From the article:

It has a capacity of 625 MW, producing over 5,000 GWh in 2007

RE: 625 MW a year...?
By Oregonian2 on 6/7/2009 6:51:48 AM , Rating: 2
Averaging 570 MW for the year 2007

RE: 625 MW a year...?
By spwrozek on 6/8/2009 9:00:16 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks for making the correction to your article.

I like how I get modded down for pointing it out in a non jerk bag way. I also like how I got a response quoting the change

Follow the Money
By atomicrod on 6/6/2009 5:13:54 AM , Rating: 3
Who is paying the bills for the attorneys that are working on this case? The coalition members involved have been professionally fighting nuclear power for decades - where does their financial support come from?

Raising money for most non-profits is hard work, but groups like these seem to have no difficulty hiring attorneys for frivolous law suits that tie up resources that could be better applied somewhere else. After all, this story is about an effort by an environmental coalition in New Jersey! That state hosts plenty of more hazardous or environmentally destructive facilities that could be sued.

Shutting down a nuclear plant the size of Oyster Creek would increase the sales of natural gas in the local area by approximately $1 million PER DAY. If the increased demand for gas is sufficient to make supplies a bit tight, that effect could be even larger due to the increased price for all other gas customers in the area.

Food for thought: Are mainstream "environmental" groups focused against nuclear power by their establishment backers who secretly LIKE burning coal, oil and natural gas because they come from families who make their money by selling those fuels?

Less fission = more fossil fuel combustion (and increased sales for the fossil fuel industry)

(solar and wind are just distractions in the discussion; together they supply less than 1.5% of the electricity consumed in the US each year.)

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

By GeorgeOu on 6/6/2009 7:22:42 PM , Rating: 3
Sierra group is the same group that sued to block the shorring up of levees. They wanted it to be "wet and wild" and that's exactly what they got and humans be damned. It's about time people got educated on this aspect of environmentalism.

My proposed solution
By corduroygt on 6/6/2009 10:34:39 AM , Rating: 2
Wipe them out...all of them
That's what I would do if I could, any single person opposing nuclear should not be breathing, period. Then I'd donate all their assets to whoever first comes up with a viable supercapacitor with comparable energy density to li-ion batteries and not be more expensive to produce.

They are best ignored...
By Amiga500 on 6/8/2009 8:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
Do you listen to a 5 year old when they tell you how to drive a car?

Of course not, because they don't know what they are talking about.

Same applies here.

Nuclear energy
By rycsailor on 6/9/2009 11:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
The anti-nukes have succeeded in placing the US at the tailend of developing nations when it comes to energy sources. They would rather see our coastline littered with windmills that provide power at the wind's convenience rather than when the demand is present. Nuclear power is well utilized throughout the world by forward looking nations while the US, the developer, remains captive to the litigation crowd of dooms dayers. We have show with our nuclear navy that properly run systems are perfectly safe and that the same principles applied to civilian plants can provide the same level of safety. These nihilists are forcing this nation down the wrong road to energy independence, as a matter of fact down a road to second rate status or worse.

By Tsuwamono on 6/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Wtf!?!?!?!
By Spuke on 6/5/2009 11:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
</end random American dribble against helping people>
WTF are you talking about?

RE: Wtf!?!?!?!
By Kenenniah on 6/5/2009 11:35:03 AM , Rating: 5
Being opposed to socialist programs and policies does not equal being against helping people. I have no problems with charity and do in fact give regularly to the United Way etc. What I am against is not having a choice, and being forced to by the government. I am opposed to not being able to check out a charity before deciding if they should receive my money. I am opposed to a lack of oversight that gives money to people that have no intention of bettering their lives. I'm against seeing and knowing people that actively choose not to work because the government keeps giving them checks. If there were adequate checks and balances in place that made sure the money went to people that actually needed it, and that they used the money to get back on their feet and contribute to society then I'd have less of a problem with it.

RE: Wtf!?!?!?!
By Tsuwamono on 6/6/2009 2:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
There will always be loop holes my friend. But here in Canada we do our best to close them. I have known several people who required welfare. One of those people is now VP of Marsh insurance for North America and makes over 500 000$ a year. However I also know one who is 20, has two kids and doesnt intend on working... ever..

I posted this comment because I was pretty annoyed with the 15 posts I read by ignorant people who think that any kind of charity/social program automatically makes you a commie. To tell you the truth it gets quite tiring trying to explain the differences between a socialist capitalistic society and a communist society.

RE: Wtf!?!?!?!
By Regs on 6/10/2009 8:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'll tell you a story of a guy I know at work named Pete.

He originally retired 15 years ago and is a liberal-democrat. Why is he a liberal-democrat? He thinks he knows why, but I know the real reason. He was naive enough to invest his retirement fund into a shady business deal to a guy that has yet to be convicted. He's back at work now at the age of 75, bitter to the core. He thinks that everybody is entitled to compensation or tort because the "system" takes advantage of the average working man each day. He thinks the rich should be taxed and that money should go to the "less fortunate."

It's what we discuss at school all the time. It's mentioned in many classes, including business management. The term is called locus of control. It refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Pete has an extreme external locus of control in this instance. He believes his actions was not the cause of his misfortune, but the act of external forces. Believe it or not, he is also very religious, and thinks by donating money (a specific amount specified by the catholic church), will earn him eternal bliss and prosperity.

Every time he tries to bring up a political argument, I almost want to strangle him. Because it's my belief that he does not want to take responsibility in his own actions.

It just blows my mind that people with such a warped view on society, reality, and reason exist. Remind you that these are the class of people who vote every year in a election. They're mind is all ready made up before they listen to the first candidate debate, and it infuriates me to-no-end that there are such closed minded individuals.

"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki