[ RadSafe ] Local Paper Promotions of New Nuclear Power Plants

[howard long]

Dear Radsafe and Rad-Sci authors,
  This invitation from the editor of Pleasanton Weekly looks generic: all over the country, similar letters to the editor and blogs are needed to take advantage of  CO2 consciousness. I have stated a local case below, which could better be expanded by a few of you who know Vallecitos. However, much the same case, "-in250 words or less-" is widely needed.
   
  Would those of you interested new nuclear power plants contribute persuasive paragraphs?
   
  Howard Long  
   
  Howard - Send us a letter if you'd like to comment on the advantages of
 muclear power. Just 
keep your comments to 250 words.

You also could start a blog going at our Town Hall feature on our Web
 site: 
www.pleasantonweekly.com.

Jeb

oward long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
  Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: howard long <hflong at pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Green
To: Jeb Bing <jbing at pleasantonweekly.com>

  Jeb,
  What might the following "generate"? 
  1, Safety. There has not been a single injury from any of the 104 nuclear power plants in the USA in over 40 years, unlike coal mining.  
   
  2, Suitability. Forty years ago, the Vallecitos reactor operated by GE uneventfully produced most of the medical isotopes in the USA. Power lines and Hetch Hetch water lines run by Vallecitos. A reservoir has been built in the hills just to the south. 
   
  3, Saavy. Technology saavy people have made TriValley an annex to Silicon Valley - which needs more electricity. They understand how radiation deficiency causes thousands of cancer deaths yearly here on USA coasts (I sit on thorium welding rods to get a Denver gamma dose). Would you like me to fax a few pages of evidence from the Nuclear Shipyard Workers Study?
   
   
  The safety, suitability and saavy for nuclear power are here, now. 
  Will you be a scooped skeptic?

  Howard
  
Jeb Bing <jbing at pleasantonweekly.com> wrote:
  Whatever the value in nuclear plants, I doubt that a proposal for one in the Tri-Valley would 
generate (pardon the pun) much support. I guess that makes me a skeptic.

Jeb



> Dear Jeb,
> I noticed your expression of skepticism a couple of months ago at PDA
> meeting when I suggested that the greenest thing Pleasanton could do
> would be to promote a nuclear power plant restoration and expansion at
> Vallecitos. Consider this:
> 
> Howard Long
> 
> IS GLOBAL WARMING SERIOUS ENOUGH TO LIFT CALIF. BAN ON NUKE 
> PLANTS?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> What if Californians considered the relative risks and rewards of
> nuclear power vs. global warming, increased use of imported fossil
> fuels and massive electricity rate hikes, and decided in favor of
> nuclear power? The California Energy Independence and Zero Carbon
> Dioxide Emission Electrical Generation Act slated for the June 2008
> ballot will give Californians that choice, says Chuck DeVore, a
> California state assemblyman representing Orange County.
> 
> The proposed initiative overturns California's nuclear ban, enacts
> seismic and environmental restrictions that place about 40 percent of 
> 
> the state off limits to nuclear power, and approves on-site dry-cask 
> 
> storage of spent fuel as an acceptable storage method for 100 years, 
> 
> says Devore.
> 
> o Construction of nuclear plants, however, has been banned in 
> California since 1976 but the four reactors under construction 
> 
> then were allowed to be finished; today, those reactors 
> furnish about 13 percent of state's electricity.
> 
> o The four reactors save $2.6 billion a year in natural gas (a 
> nuclear reactor can run on about $30 million of fuel for 
> almost two years) while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 
> 22 million metric tons; adding four modern reactors would let 
> 
> the electrical sector reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 
> percent, returning the sector to 1990 levels.
> 
> o Nuclear power has the lowest total life-cycle greenhouse gas 
> emissions of any energy source, including solar and wind; 
> despite this, the California legislature shows no interest in 
> 
> nuclear power.
> 
> California can get serious about meeting its ambitious global warming 
> 
> goals while providing economic opportunity or it can try to power its 
> 
> economy on good intentions, say DeVore.
> 
> Source: Chuck DeVore, "Is Global Warming Serious Enough To Lift 
> Calif. Ban On Nuke Plants?" Investor's Business Daily, August 22,
> 2007.
> 
> For text: 
> 
> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=272670579568835
> 
> 
> For more on Energy Issues: 
> 
> http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_Category=22