backtop


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

Michael Andrews
By arazok on 6/5/2009 10:39:51 AM , Rating: 4
ARE YOU MASHER, OR AN ALIEN REPLACEMENT?

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.

</conspiracy>


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.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki