Ohio's 2 nuclear plants face critics ...

Ohio's 2 nuclear plants face critics of safety | The Columbus Dispatch

There are 24 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Mar 21, 2011, titled Ohio's 2 nuclear plants face critics of safety | The Columbus Dispatch. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

A little more than a year ago, power-industry officials promoted a new generation of nuclear reactors as a clean source of electricity that wouldn't contribute to climate change.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
REgulatus

United States

#22 Mar 22, 2011
The cheapest, cleanest form of energy is conservation! People build big, energy hungry particle board palaces located miles away from where they work and drive giant SUV's everywhere because they never walk anywhere in their life. Sickeningly obese, lazy and ignorant American pigs using up energy to support their idiotic lifestyle. Then there is the health care cost of reaming out their arteries from all the Archer Daniels Midland processed food they eat. Americans deserve what is going to happen over the next 30 years because of all their short sightedness, ignorance and GLUTTONY.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#23 Mar 22, 2011
BigBertha wrote:
I understand the fear and paranoia, but nuclear plants can be built safely and strong enough to withstand even 12.0 earthquakes. The problem is that most nuclear plants aren't designed like that because no one plans for the worst case scenario. Most nuclear plants in the U. S. don't have proper containment because it involves more cost. Also, you've always heard the old saying, "80 percent of what you worry about probably won't happen." But, when it comes to designing a nuclear plant, I think you have go ahead and plan for the worst case scenario. It's kind of like thinking you don't need flood insurance if you live on a hill. Don't be so sure.
Um, it's not "fear and paranoia" when we see it happening in front of us on the news, hon.

FYI
harvey

Columbus, OH

#24 Mar 22, 2011
REgulatus wrote:
The cheapest, cleanest form of energy is conservation! People build big, energy hungry particle board palaces located miles away from where they work and drive giant SUV's everywhere because they never walk anywhere in their life. Sickeningly obese, lazy and ignorant American pigs using up energy to support their idiotic lifestyle. Then there is the health care cost of reaming out their arteries from all the Archer Daniels Midland processed food they eat. Americans deserve what is going to happen over the next 30 years because of all their short sightedness, ignorance and GLUTTONY.
Amen to that, well-said!:)

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#25 Mar 22, 2011
REgulatus wrote:
The cheapest, cleanest form of energy is conservation! People build big, energy hungry particle board palaces located miles away from where they work and drive giant SUV's everywhere because they never walk anywhere in their life. Sickeningly obese, lazy and ignorant American pigs using up energy to support their idiotic lifestyle. Then there is the health care cost of reaming out their arteries from all the Archer Daniels Midland processed food they eat. Americans deserve what is going to happen over the next 30 years because of all their short sightedness, ignorance and GLUTTONY.
Conservation is not a SOURCE of energy. It merely slows the rate of consumption.
Many who have left the urban population centers have done so for their own purposes. I wouldn't necessarily call that greed or gluttony. The logic here is pretty twisted. Most new homes today are much more energy efficient (meaning they consume energy at a lower rate) than old, inner-urban homes.
The problems we face regarding energy are locating new and renewable sources. Nuclear is a renewable source. And it provides the energy cheaply, much more cheaply than coal which destroys the landscape through mining. I would suspect you would be the first to protest a coal mine? There is no "easy" answer, and blaming Americans for their lifestyles is not a solution...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

FirstEnergy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News FirstEnergy raising $500 million with new stock... (Aug '16) Aug '16 lilbitmighty 1
double bill (Jan '14) Jan '14 H Sig 1
News FirstEnergy hydroelectric statio... (Nov '13) Nov '13 ndact 1
News Lawsuit against FirstEnergy claims wrongful ter... (May '08) Aug '13 pam 3
News Closing of Western Pennsylvania power plants le... (Jul '13) Aug '13 Joe 2
News Pipeline To Be Built Within Mile Of Nuclear Plant (Nov '12) Nov '12 Greg 1
News Nuclear Cracks Tied to Lack of Coating (Mar '12) Mar '12 Dan 1
More from around the web