Group intervenes to stop Duke Energy's reactor plans in South Carolina

Mar 11, 2008 Full story: WAVY-TV Portsmouth 14

An environmental group has asked South Carolina regulators to stop Duke Energy's request to include planning costs for two new nuclear reactors in its rates. via WAVY-TV Portsmouth

Full Story
Booner

Columbus, GA

#1 Mar 11, 2008
The no-nukes stand by the so-called Friends of the Earth is not supported by facts. Their agenda has nothing to do with helping the environment. If it did, they would support nuclear power not condemn it.
Dan

Centereach, NY

#2 Mar 11, 2008
Booner wrote:
The no-nukes stand by the so-called Friends of the Earth is not supported by facts. Their agenda has nothing to do with helping the environment. If it did, they would support nuclear power not condemn it.
South Carolina Friends of the Earth contends nuclear power is unsafe and costs more than other alternatives. The group also says there's no solution for handling nuclear waste.

And there you have it from the experts, and how do we know they are experts because they say so, anymore questions?

I bet their ancestors tried to stop man from taming fire in the caveman days to using the same scare tactics.
harry

Santa Barbara, CA

#3 Mar 12, 2008
You two are jerks! Get a life! Savannah River Site is a HELL! They've got enough problems already! Strom for PREZ! Watch out for these two, Dan and Booner!
old vet

New Castle, PA

#4 Mar 12, 2008
harry wrote:
You two are jerks! Get a life! Savannah River Site is a HELL!
The Savannah River Site has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power.
Dan

Centereach, NY

#5 Mar 13, 2008
harry wrote:
You two are jerks! Get a life! Savannah River Site is a HELL! They've got enough problems already! Strom for PREZ! Watch out for these two, Dan and Booner!
Wow, you sure put me in my place!
First of all as OV stated SRS has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power as a comparison. Are there problems at many sites in the country that were built and used in the early stages of the cold war for the production of nuclear weapons? Absolutely there were and those issues are being addressed to slow for my liking but still moving forward. The use of commercial power and the legacy of the cold war is not even an apples and oranges comparison it is an apple and baseball comparison they are not even in the same category. I recognize that someone of your limited intellect as displayed by your comments would just say well radioactivity is radioactivity and that would just prove my point. So if you want to discuss the issue inteligently on its merits I would be happy to reply to your concerns if not go blog on the Eliot Spitzer story.
BDV

Chicago, IL

#6 Mar 13, 2008
Does anybody have a number reflecting by how much would the background radiation increase if radioactive waste products would be simply be dumped in the ocean?

My suspicion, not that much, but does anybody have a definite answer?
John

Middletown, CT

#7 Mar 13, 2008
BDV wrote:
Does anybody have a number reflecting by how much would the background radiation increase if radioactive waste products would be simply be dumped in the ocean?
My suspicion, not that much, but does anybody have a definite answer?
Check out Gwyneth Craven's book. Power to save the world. She has a chapter on a serious study about placing nuclear waste in the ocean at a location where it would absorb to clay. A rather convincing argument was put forth.
old vet

New Castle, PA

#8 Mar 14, 2008
BDV wrote:
Does anybody have a number reflecting by how much would the background radiation increase if radioactive waste products would be simply be dumped in the ocean?
My suspicion, not that much, but does anybody have a definite answer?
zero
no nukes yall

Clemson, SC

#9 Apr 21, 2008
greetings from SC, the nuclear waste repository for much of the United States, until recently.

We will not be bought out by the loaded nuclear industry.

We will not let their lobbyists whisper sweet nothings into our senator's ears.

We will not allow any more nuclear electricity plants be built in our state, and we will take action.

It is very risky, from an economical standpoint as well as for human health.

AND it is NOT carbon dioxide free....it will continue the climate crisis with no relief.(Looking here to the entire lifecycle, from mining to processing).

It is a false solution.

Wake up and invest in solar and wind power. And turn your damn lights off when you're not using them.(SOrry didn't mean to be bitchy, but it's true! Turn them off when not in use, please.)
relocated Californian

Brooklyn, NY

#10 Apr 22, 2008
I agree we need to look into alternative solutions for power and I will be installing a solar unit in my new home next year (I would do it sooner but need to save first). Everyone should make an effort to stop leaving switches on when it is not necessary-it could help in more ways than just energy conservation-how about lowering your cash output. I for one could use some extra cash staying in my pocket. Zip 23453
no nukes yall wrote:
greetings from SC, the nuclear waste repository for much of the United States, until recently.
We will not be bought out by the loaded nuclear industry.
We will not let their lobbyists whisper sweet nothings into our senator's ears.
We will not allow any more nuclear electricity plants be built in our state, and we will take action.
It is very risky, from an economical standpoint as well as for human health.
AND it is NOT carbon dioxide free....it will continue the climate crisis with no relief.(Looking here to the entire lifecycle, from mining to processing).
It is a false solution.
Wake up and invest in solar and wind power. And turn your damn lights off when you're not using them.(SOrry didn't mean to be bitchy, but it's true! Turn them off when not in use, please.)
old vet

New Castle, PA

#11 Apr 22, 2008
no nukes yall wrote:
it is NOT carbon dioxide free....it will continue the climate crisis with no relief.(Looking here to the entire lifecycle, from mining to processing).
The California Energy Commission recently did look at the entire life cycle, along the the life cycles of other environmentally-friendly energy sources. Nuclear was one of the two most environmentally-friendly and the only one that can provide substantial base-load capability. Of course, if you are concerned about a radioactive earth, nuclear power is the only power source that has a positive effect on that.
HomerTheEmperor

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Apr 22, 2008
Ban Wankel Rotary engines NOW!!!

If people are going to bring up irrelevant topics like Savanah, Barnwell, and using intermittant solar energy as the solution to all our problems, then I am going to pile on and demand that we ban Wankel Rotary engines...Oh for the love of humanity
John

Middletown, CT

#13 Apr 22, 2008
HomerTheEmperor wrote:
Ban Wankel Rotary engines NOW!!!
If people are going to bring up irrelevant topics like Savanah, Barnwell, and using intermittant solar energy as the solution to all our problems, then I am going to pile on and demand that we ban Wankel Rotary engines...Oh for the love of humanity
Does anyone remember the Wankel engine? It wore itself out. Friction did it in.
Donnie

Shippingport, PA

#14 Apr 22, 2008
John wrote:
<quoted text>
Does anyone remember the Wankel engine? It wore itself out. Friction did it in.
I remember it. It was widely promoted as the next best thing. I bought one. It wasn't.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Duke Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
NCWARN runs ad criticizing Duke Energy's approa... Dec 13 Solarman 1
Duke Energy joint venture part of $8 billion bi... Sep '14 Solarman 1
Duke Energy Employee and Wife Murdered (Feb '12) Jan '14 not my real one 2
Doubts dampen S.C.’s nuclear future (Aug '13) Aug '13 BDV 1
Duke Energy shelves major nuclear project in Fl... (Aug '13) Aug '13 BDV 2
Duke offers heating tips (May '08) May '13 luke bently 3
wasting my money (Apr '13) Apr '13 Stephen Flaim 1
More from around the web