« Abrasive mayor | Main | "Those Christians" Part 2 »

June 05, 2006

No to nuclear plant

Missourians for Safe Energy is working to discourage our power company from building a second nuclear reactor in Calloway County, Mo., for these reasons:

  1. Uranium is limited and will be depleted if many new plants are built.
  2. Nuclear energy is not clean. Uranium mining pollutes soil, air and water. Transporting uranium uses polluting fossil-fuel vehicles.
  3. Building nuclear reactors is expensive. Even more expensive is covering the potential damage in case of accident. No insurance company will underwrite a nuclear plant for this reason. Therefore, by law, the federal government, i.e., the taxpayer, is forced to be the insurer at a huge financial risk.
  4. Nuclear energy is not safe. In addition to the risk of an accident that could release deadly radiation, the whole process is vulnerable to terrorist attack — uranium or spent fuel in transport, the reactor itself and temporarily stored spent fuel.

Nuclear energy is profitable only to the nuclear industry and only because the public takes all the risk. Developing renewable sources of energy would require a smaller investment and be less vulnerable to accident or attack.

Claire Garden
Missourians for Safe Energy
Columbia

Comments

CRD

"If I'm not mistaken this "not in my back yard" issue has come up all ready in Kansas."

I'm pretty sure you're right. Me, I'd be more concerned with the issues that come with a nuke plant in my backyard than with some turbines.

GCYL

"I'd like to see more discussion of wind farms and of their feasibility."

I too would like to hear more on their feasibility. I'm not at all certain how many wind farms are needed to be called a national source of alternate energy. I do know that many people refuse to have such farms cluttering up their back yards or ocean view (Sen. Kennedy for example). If I'm not mistaken this "not in my back yard" issue has come up all ready in Kansas.

Seriously,it's as if we consumers insist that it's going to be oil and nothing else. If a wind farm works I'd put one in my back yard. Then again I don't live with a home owners association.

CRD

I'd like to see more discussion of wind farms and of their feasibility. For the same 4 (quite valid) points Ms. Garden lists, I'm uncomfortable with pursuing more nuclear power without first fully exploring the alternatives.

GCYL

"Developing renewable sources of energy would require a smaller investment and be less vulnerable to accident or attack."

It's unfortunate that Claire Garden didn't give us some examples of this.

jack

The writer seems to disagree with most of the world. But, then again, most of the world viewed Three Mile Island as having proven that the system worked despite repeated human mistakes. And the reactors being designed now are far better then it was.

Nuclear has some problems, like what to do witth the spent fuel rods, but none as great as those against it claim.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright