Nuke 'em

Kirk Ross today jumps on a story that will have legs for decades: the all out push by Big Power to irradiate the Southeast in the glow of nukular energy. The angle of his story is the always-dependable follow the money approach, which in this case is creepy as hell.

Without heavy rate increases, taxpayer incentives and the feds ignoring the standoff over the unsolved waste issue, those nukes just wouldn’t be possible. Dig deep folks and, uh, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

What steams me (pun intended) about the nukular debate is the intellecual dishonesty on the part of power companies. Their spokesbots are paid to paint rosy pictures and they do a damn fine job of it. They gloss over risks as though those of us with concerns are chicken-littles, instead of stepping up to the discussion with integrity and balance. As a result, everything they say is suspect and the resulting dialogue devolves into a he-said-she-said line of bullshit that benefits no one. I don't know when large corporations developed the idea that shucking-and-jiving was an effective approach to building trust, but whenever it was, it's wrong-headed and counter-productive.

PS Kirk's blog, Exile on Jones Street, is a great resource, definitely worth a daily drop-by.

PPS This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but hilarious nonetheless.

Comments

Scientific American

If it is still out on the shelf, every Democrat needs to get the Sept Special Issue on Energy's Future. I haven't finished it yet, but the push is for a plan that uses all kinds of solutions to the energy problem, not just one. For nuclear power, they believe we should stay with the current system for the next few decades before moving into closed systems or alternative systems. Their rationale is that the environmental impact of waste is less than if we do nothing.

They also push other alternative projects. I hope to blog it someday soon.

CountryCrats - my thoughts, my blog.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Global Warming is their best argument

for building more nuke plants. NC can certainly do more to encourage conservation and green power. But with the growth rate of the NC population, will that be enough? If a new power plant needs to be built, which is the lesser of the evils, a greenhouse gas belching coal plant, or a nuke plant? I honestly would have a hard time with that choice.

Step 1.

Ban all high energy light bulbs. There are probably tens of millions of these bulbs sold each year, which probably means 100s of hours for each bulb. That is, perhaps, 1000s of MegaWatt hours, right? Sell only bulbs that use 25% as much energy and you can do away with two or three low-end, dirty coal plants.

I have most of this info bookmarked somewhere, I'll try to find it after meetings.
CountryCrats - my thoughts, my blog.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Some earlier BlueNC discussion on energy

This was about Duke Energy and coal.

____________________________________

“Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
― Joe Biden

Ban all high energy light

Ban all high energy light bulbs. There are probably tens of millions of these bulbs sold each year, which probably means 100s of hours for each bulb. That is, perhaps, 1000s of MegaWatt hours, right? Sell only bulbs that use 25% as much energy and you can do away with two or three low-end, dirty coal plants.

What about the other dozens that are still running?

It's this simple, if you want Air Conditioning in July - you'll have to go with coal or nuclear. If you like breathing - you'll want nuclear more than coal. So, if you want to breathe clean air and have it cooled while you're in your house - nuclear is the way to go.

For those advocating more wind and solar - they're great...for recharging your iPod. They can never replace nuclear.