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.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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