Sunday, June 04, 2006
I must admit a certain reluctance to having a reactor in my backyard. However, for many years environmentalists have been beating the drum of closing coal and gas fired power facilities. They like to point to wind power and water power. Sadly, most people know that these two avenues will never replace conventional power plants. The sources are too random and unpredictable which would mean power shortages and darkened grids. I think what is interesting is that this abhorrence for nuclear power came on the heels of a movie. The China Syndrome was a melodramatic little film about a meltdown at a nuclear facility. The political feelings at the time were heightened by the failure at Three Mile Island. People grabbed onto the movie's plot as factual, leading the closure and cancellation and delays in building of many nuclear facilities. Glen Rose, in Texas was caught in the middle and at the time due to additional studies, legal challenges and other nonsense, the cost of building it tripled. From what I gather, there have been few if any nuclear generating plants built since that time. Why? Europe has relied on nuclear power for decades with only the poorly designed Chernobyl as a blemish on the record. I think much of the reason we are not pursuing nuclear power is that the extreme Green factions have half the Congressional delegation in control. They would rather believe media hype over facts. Even some of the most strident environmentalists are beginning to realize that without oil, and they surely don't want us drilling in the Arctic Circle for the reserves there, we must have a reliable, sustainable source of power or civilization will return to the Twelfth Century as wished by various backward imams. Why not nuclear power? I read a very interesting colum today in the Dallas Morning News Op/Ed page. I would encourage you to read it, too. Then, after some facts, make up your own mind without the drama and fact-stretching of Hollywood.
Posted by Ellen K at 7:04 PM