Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Enviro's to hold PRO-nuclear march in California...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Enviro's to hold PRO-nuclear march in California...

    What happens when MGD becomes terminal? This does:
    JUN 21, 2016

    Pro-Nuclear March In San Francisco To Protest Closing Of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant

    Now that many environmentalists and climate scientists have realized that nuclear energy is essential for addressing global warming, a coalition of environmental groups is sponsoring a multi-day March for Environmental Hope in California in support of nuclear power.

    Starting on June 24th in San Francisco, people will march from San Francisco to Sacramento to protest the potential closing of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant which, together with the recent closing of the San Onofre nuclear plant in southern California, would completely wipe out all progress in clean energy made by the state with wind and solar power.

    In 2015, all wind energy in California only produced 12 billion kWhs. The two Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors produce 17 billion kWhs every year, and will for the next 20 years if not prematurely closed for political reasons.

    [...]

    The environmental organizations Mothers for Nuclear, Save Diablo Canyon, Environmental Progress, Californians for Green Nuclear Power and Thorium Energy Alliance are leading this historic pro-nuclear protest.

    [...]

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon.../#1f5c6b7e3935

    I wonder how many of these enviro's protested the construction and commissioning of Diablo Canyon NGS...
    13
    I support it because it will save us from the mythical Gorebal Warming.
    0.00%
    0
    I support it because it works.
    84.62%
    11
    I oppose it because I like Gorebal Warming
    0.00%
    0
    I oppose it because I have an irrational fear of radiation.
    15.38%
    2
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2

    Comment


    • #3
      My problem with nuclear reactors comes when they are located in risky locations. Building them along fault lines on the Pacific Coast is stupid. I feel the same if they are located in flood zones in Hurricane areas. This could well mean they can only be located in low population rural areas, which is not a such a bad idea. Second is the expense so bad that they can not build high power grid lines to these hopefully out of the way spots? California needs more grids coming in, proper prior planning was avoided!

      Pruitt
      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
        My problem with nuclear reactors comes when they are located in risky locations. Building them along fault lines on the Pacific Coast is stupid. I feel the same if they are located in flood zones in Hurricane areas. This could well mean they can only be located in low population rural areas, which is not a such a bad idea. Second is the expense so bad that they can not build high power grid lines to these hopefully out of the way spots? California needs more grids coming in, proper prior planning was avoided!

        Pruitt
        The problem with that is operating costs rise substantially. You have to pay workers more to want to work where there are few amenities. You have to build more infrastructure to support the plant from scratch, and you are going to pay more for contractors and others that do periodic maintenance on the plant, not that that isn't a problem with other rural power plants...

        Comment


        • #5
          I live less than 30 minutes from DIablo Nuke Plant. This article made me laugh! These enviro nut jobs have been protesting this place for over 40 years! Their protests are always big news with lots of local TV coverage trying to get rid of the place.. and now this! Freakin cant make this ish up! This state is insane!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            The problem with that is operating costs rise substantially. You have to pay workers more to want to work where there are few amenities. You have to build more infrastructure to support the plant from scratch, and you are going to pay more for contractors and others that do periodic maintenance on the plant, not that that isn't a problem with other rural power plants...
            Back in the 80's there was a Nuclear Power Plant being built in South Carolina. Being an Electrician I was interested and read the employment ads. This was a Nationwide search for Electricians. What caught my eye was it was a Union job! The ad said they would give member status to Electricians that were hired. Later I was talking one day to another Recreation Softball Coach when I casually mentioned one could get into the IBEW without going through the strenuous Apprenticeship Program. He said it could not be done. I then explained about the Nuke Power Plant they were building in South Carolina. I declined to check into the South Carolina job because there was something wrong that they had to advertise across the country to get journeymen.

            Power Plant jobs are highly sought after by trades members. I even joined a non AFL/CIO union for a while to get work. Some guys I worked with followed a Company to Georgia to help rewire a Paper Mill. After a month or so the local county Sheriff showed up and told the guys that Georgia had a law that said after residence in the state for so many weeks, you had to register your vehicle as a Georgia resident! The whole crew drug up! They were making enough money to live there and send some home to the family, but not enough to register their cars! The Paper Mill was screwed as well.

            Pruitt
            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

            Comment


            • #7
              The real problem with nuclear reactors is that they cannot be upgraded, but must be left in place and shielded pretty much forever. The reactor containment byilding can never be removed.

              Concrete, no matter how high grade, has a very limited life compared to the reactor itself.

              Ideally, they should be built deep underground.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                The real problem with nuclear reactors is that they cannot be upgraded, but must be left in place and shielded pretty much forever. The reactor containment byilding can never be removed.

                Concrete, no matter how high grade, has a very limited life compared to the reactor itself.

                Ideally, they should be built deep underground.
                My counter to the "million years" argument that nuclear will be forever dangerous is this:

                In 1916 oil was just getting started in a big way.
                In 1816 coal was just getting started in a big way
                In 1716 we chopped down forests for energy.

                Where will we be in another 300 years, in 2316? I know if we listen to Luddites and the environmental Left where we'll be...

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X