Anti-nuclear activists promoting natural gas seems to be getting more common.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/opinion/l12nuke.html">Alternatives to Indian Point“Showdown at Indian Point” (editorial, April 6) hit the nail on the head in calling on Entergy to start obeying environmental laws and stop abusing the Hudson River.
...
... Indian Point’s 2,000 megawatts can easily be replaced.
A highly efficient combined cycle gas-fired plant at the Indian Point site would take care of 1,000 megawatts. The other 1,000 megawatts could come from any number of sources, including demand-side management, energy efficiency, new transmission lines, wind power and
the repowering of existing dirty plants — all of which bring the added benefit of improved air quality in the region.
Indian Point, located within 50 miles of 20 million people, or nearly 7 percent of the United States population, has one of the worst operations records of any nuclear plant in the country. It’s time to retire this once useful, now menacing plant and make New York a model for a clean energy future.
Alex Matthiessen
President, Riverkeeper
Tarrytown, N.Y., April 6, 2010
(format is mine -- d) Refurbishing and upgrading Indian Point would appear to be the most logical solution. But the fact that anti-nuclear sentiment is so much more compelling than all other considerations that old-school environmentalists like Mr. Matthiessen believe natural gas to be in any way "clean" shows a serious disconnect.
--d!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
