Post a commentFact Elliott Negin and Ellen Vancko are not scientists they are paid political activists. I highly doubt there are any real scientists who still support the Union of Concern Scientist anti-nuclear power stance. Elliott Negin and Ellen Vancko are well aware of this but it is there job to create fear about nuclear power in order to get the few remaining NIMBY(Not in My Back Yard) types to monetarily support their cause.
I guess everyone deserves a pay check even Elliott Negin and Ellen Vancko though I would find it hard to sleep if I was promoting a cause that would create great damage to our planet. Well, to each his own, to bad however that our nation allows the few like Elliott Negin and Ellen Vancko to affect so many others through lawsuits and the manipulation of the nuclear licensing process.
Elliott Negin and Ellen Vancko make the case that many of their fellow anti-nuclear planet killers make that new nuclear power is to expensive. This is not true. If you calculate into the cost equation the entire life span of a new nuclear power plant which can be as long a hundred years you will see there is no cheaper power other than nuclear power. What is needed is to offset the large upfront costs associated with a new nuclear power plant. This can be done by federal guaranteed loans that will extend the financial terms for a new nuclear power plant to around 40 to 50 years. I am sure Elliott Negin and Ellen Vancko also know this fact but as I said earlier everyone has to eat even planet killing activist like Elliot and Ellen.
Let’s Save This Planet 200 New Nuke Plants Now,
Jfarmer9
It's not rational to oppose building new plants on sites with currently operating plants where there is enough on site storage for hundreds of years. No scientist would advocate that aging plants 30 plus years old to continue to operate in lieu of new plants. The bizarre antilogic of the UCS is that older plants are safe enough and should not be replaced by new plants that are safer and more efficient. If the coal industry had to operate under the safety requirements and antipollution requirements imposed on nuclear, we'd have healthier kids, and less coal burning pollution, less greenhouse gas production. There's no clean coal technology that is operable to fall back on the US demand. There's no amount of alt energy that can satisfy the need for energy of a robust economy. There's only nuclear power. That's why Britain just approved building 10 plants on sites with currently operating nuke plants. They've almost doubled their capacity and didn't even need a single new site. Do you want to rely instead on foreign oil? Dirty coal? Natural gas and alt energy can supply much but not all of the need. Do the math, if indeed you are scientists. The numbers can't lie. The US needs domestic, clean energy if it is to stop being a global greenhouse gas contributor on par with China and developing nations.
2 comments
