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

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.

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser
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