Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
Comments
It may take something like having Exelon close down Oyster Creek and then people watching the electric bills jump to combat this idiocy --- trouble is, it will take a long time for the lesson to sink in.
Upshot: There is not now, nor will there be in the immediate future, any excess gas capacity to replace IPEC's generation.
It took over 12 years to install the vastly reduced Millennium pipeline, and there are no plans for any new pipes.
Therefore any talk about replacing IPEC with gas, is purest naive nonsense.
We need not compute anything, to put the lie to Matthiessen's pipe dream.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11666&page=R1
Their conclusion?
"While the committee is optimistic that technical solutions do exist for the replacement of Indian Point, it is considerably less confident that the necessary political, regulatory, financial, and institutional mechanisms are in place to facilitate the timely implementation of these replacement options. The importance of this issue cannot be overstated in developing options for maintaining a reliable electric energy supply for the New York City metropolitan area."
In other words, New York City is in deep do-do (e.g., blackouts) without Indian Point.
The fact is, eliminating IP would cause intense hardship on New Yorkers and provide nothing in environmental benefit - in fact, it would inflict more harm. Can we stick to the facts and recognize our real adversary - anti-nukes - and not merely our political ones?
"Teabgger" is it? Since when did NEI Nuclear Notes become a porn blog? We don't need that kind of Democratic Underground-style filthy language here. Stick to the subject? How about starting with not using gutter language?
The term also has non-obscene definitions. Some of the Tea Party groups have referred to themselves using this term.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/04/15/snapshots-of-teabaggers
Your choosing to default to the obscene definition is not my fault or concern. Do you also complain on the ESPN web site every time they mention balls?
This is hilarious coming from DocForesight, as this is perhaps the only thread on this blog he's commented on that he HASN'T tried to turn into an anti-Obama discussion.
Oh, stop it. Just stop it. Don't try to make jerks out of us. We knew what you meant, and you did, too. So just stop it.
If you wanted to refer to the anti-tax increase, anti-big government, anti-government takeover protesters, there were other terms you could have used. But you chose a term that had the most obscene connotations. Like I said, we don't need that DU-style filth here.
We can "thank" people like Rachel Maddow for the spread of the "teabagger" smear. The Tea Party Patriots could hardly be convicted of conjuring that moniker to their movement. And I'd be willing to bet that a high percentage of them are strong proponents of nuclear power plants.