Monday, August 20, 2007

Washington Times Endorses New Reactor at Calvert Cliffs

From Sunday's edition of the Washington Times:

While it's true that this technology brings inherent risks which must be carefully analyzed and addressed, we applaud the Calvert County Board of Commissioners for their enthusiastic support of the plan. The commissioners recognize the financial and environmental benefits of an additional reactor. Once the 1,600-megawatt, $4 billion reactor is built, an estimated 2.6 million customers could be served and the county would benefit from job growth as well as many millions of dollars in tax revenue. We hope Unistar's application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is processed in a timely manner.


gunter said...

Is it any wonder that the Rev. Sung Mung Moon would endorse nuclear power?

Anonymous said...

Nice argument, Gunter. Ad hominem at best, racist at worst.

gunter said...


The Rev. Moon is notorious for his ultra-right wing politics and he just happens to own this right wing newspaper which supports the Bush Administration's Coal Oil Nuclear (CON) job energy policy.

Again, it's no surprise that they would come out editorializing in support of new nukes. I was however surprised that the TIMES went so far as to admit the "inherent risks" of nuclear power which is more than can be said for this blog.

Another nuke just outside 50 miles from the Beltway might raise some concern even for the Reverend.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, blah blah blah. Just like NIRS is "notorious" for their left-wing politics and opposition to every energy policy the Bush Administration has proposed. So what if Moon owns the newspaper? "Pinch" runs the NYT and they are "notorious" also for their left-wing views. So is the WaPost. Maybe the Times is just providing a little "diversity" (that favorite word of lefties everywhere)?

Another nuke outside the beltway would probably be a good idea. It would provide a clean, safe, reliable energy source at relatively low cost to an area that could use it. Certainly better than a coal plant, less radioactivity released to the biosphere and zero emissions. Better than windmills, which are expensive and unreliable. Certainly better than solar, which in that area is probably a losing proposition and tremendously costly to boot. A lot better than "conservation", which doesn't provide a single watt of capacity to a growing area that will need it in the years to come.