While perusing articles with the phrase “new nuclear power plants” in them, I came across an article on dailypress.com titled Debate on nuclear power is cooling. Here is the subtitle:
Residents are comfortable with the plant, calling it a “part of industry,” but some environmentalists say better options are available.
One of the nice things about the article is the picture of the plant. Like other plants that are cooled by a large body of water instead of cooling towers, Surry Power Station makes a pretty small impact on the visual landscape.
I took issue with the “better options” discussion with the following comment:
Why is it that students in a state that gets more than half of its power by burning dirty coal think that the target of their conservation efforts should be to “reduce the need for more nuclear reactors in the state.”?
I have spent many months sealed up inside of a self contained environment powered by a nuclear reactor that produced enough power to push a 9000 ton ship around the ocean for 14 years without new fuel. That ship used 1950s vintage technology – it was commissioned in 1962.
Why do environmentalists focus their concern on nuclear waste – which has never hurt anyone because it can be isolated and protected – while they ignore fossil waste that kills every day? Not only does pollution kill regularly, it is also putting the ability of the earth to support life as we know it at risk.
Any thoughts or answers to these questions would be welcome.