This past week I received a letter from two people who are opposed to the idea of a nuclear power plant in Massena, or apparently anywhere else for that matter. I welcome this opinion and carefully read their reasoning, but it just didn't seem very sincere.
If you are philosophically opposed to nuclear power for whatever reason, that's fine. Some people are fearful of it, some people don't want to live anywhere near a nuclear plant, heck one guy said he didn't like it because nuclear power was "bad mojo," whatever that is.
Say you just don't like it and don't think it would be good for our area? Fine. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one.
But the letter I received, which was also featured as a guest editorial in the Daily Courier-Observer, just didn't seem very sincere or honest. It was written by Dr. Jon Rosales, an environmental studies professor at St. Lawrence University, and Ann Heidenreich, an "energy consultant" living in Pyrites. (I remember when Ms. Heidenreich was executive director of Community Energy Services, Inc. CES was one of those not-for-profits that we seem to have a lot of in St. Lawrence County. You know the ones I mean right? They use government grant money to help us help ourselves - or save us from ourselves - but all they really do is create a couple high-paying consultant jobs for a small group of friends.)
Anyway, Mr. Rosales and Ms. Heidenreich apparently want to save Mayor Jim Hidy and me from ourselves - or at least save the North Country from us. In their letter, they put forth some spurious reasons why nuclear power is not good for us or the world at large. They make the usual weak claims that a nuke plant will make us a terrorist target, or that the costs are just too great, or that the taxpayers can't afford it.
Well, taxpayers dollars won't be used to build a nuclear facility. Nuclear plants in the U.S. are built by private companies with their own money. The government only oversees construction and operation, and while it may guarantee some loans for construction, it does not fund it. Certainly Mr. Rosales and Ms. Heidenreich must know better, so why would they say something different?
The authors say the reasons they put forth in their letter are exactly the reasons why no new nuclear facilities have been built in the U.S. for the past 30 years. But they fail to tell us that hundreds have been built elsewhere in all parts of the world in that same time frame. And President Obama, and many, many other people, want more constructed here in the very near future.
In fact, America is decades behind the rest of the world in nuclear development. Why? Because of irresponsible fear-mongering like that being perpetuated by Mr. Rosales and Ms. Heidenreich.
They want us to give up the idea of nuclear power and instead embrace solar, biomass and wind energy. They forget to tell you that solar, biomass and wind energy are only viable if they are financed with large government subsidies - millions of taxpayers dollars spent to make us feel good about alternative energy without any tangible results.
Well, heck, they say, we can even build the turbines and photovoltaic units here, thus creating jobs and helping our economy. But those things are already being built elsewhere and imported to the U.S. We have yet to be able to build them as cheaply or efficiently as foreign companies.
Mr. Rosales and Ms. Heidenreich even use some very tortured logic to claim that nuclear power would actually "result in fewer jobs and higher costs...." They don't really explain why, they just make the wild claim.
I could go on all day about this, but here's the point: if you oppose nuclear energy, I'll accept that. But please be honest about your opposition. Just say you don't like the idea or that you think it's not good fit for our area.
Don't try to fool me into believing your false reasoning and bad science. When you do, you lose credibility. And you ultimately give the "nuclear energy is bad mojo" argument much more credence than I can give to your sensational rhetoric.
I appreciate the effort, but I think we could do better. Nuke plants freak me out. Does anyone living here really know how to operate a nuke plant? I worry that we would have a bunch of Homer Simpson's running around the place!
ReplyDeleteEvery hear of the earthquake fault in and aroudn Massena?
ReplyDeleteI posted a rather lengthy comment yesterday supporting the proposed construction of a Nuclear facility in Massena. I am a NNY resident who currently works as an Engineer at one of New York’s existing Nuclear Plants. Very few people who are “against” having a Nuclear plant are basing their stance on either misinformation, or no information (as shown by the previous Homer Simpson comment, and the reason for this post in the first place)The economic benefits of having a Nuke in an area are almost beyond comprehension to the average person that is not in the industry. Say nothing about being able to keep local students in the area after they graduate (there are at least ten Clarkson or SUNY Canton graduates working in my office). But my question is, where did the 10 year timeframe that has been published multiple times come from? The industry is packed full of companies that have literally dozens (if not hundreds) of proposed plants that are vying for the handful of units that the NRC could greenlight’ed in the next 10-15 years. These sites already have communities that are behind them and conceptual design and environmental and permitting work underway. Has anything actually been done yet? Or is this plan still in the gauging public interest phase?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon.7:47 - Yes, I have. Have you ever heard of the Diablo Canyon nuclear facility? Google it. You'll find it's built near a little thing called the San Andreas Fault in California.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon. 8:26 - Thanks for your "real world" comments that are based in fact. To answer your question, no, nothing has been actually done yet. We will hopefully assemble a nuclear working group in the next couple weeks. We are still gauging public interest but the feedback I have received has been overwhelmingly positive.
Do you have any contacts in the industry that might help us? If so, please let Mayor Hidy or me know about them.
In regard to the possible impact of a fault line around the Massena area, the 2 min version of “Nuclear Construction for Dummies” dealing with this topic is as follows; One document that would be complied in the years and years of studies that would have to go into proposing a site for a Nuclear Facility is what is called a “USFAR” (Updated Final Safety Analysis Report). One section of this report is the “Geography and Demography” of the area. As part of this report, a study would be done that would compile all existing data for the area, and test (more extensively than has ever been done) every aspect of the regions seismological characteristics. The outcome of this study would be one part of the puzzle that would go into the design of the plant. The point that Mr. Gray is getting at with the San Andreas fault comment is that this would not necessary be a factor that would preclude a Plant of from being built. Did you really want an answer to your statement? Or were you just throwing something negative out there? I don’t want to speak for Mr. Gray (but I will because I know what I am talking about), but I believe his point was, if you have a concern or a question, ask it… there are people that know the answers. If you know the answers, you will be able to make a well informed opinion.
ReplyDeleteWow! Anon. 1:52, you can speak for me on this topic anytime!!!
ReplyDeleteMr. Gray,
ReplyDeleteYour blog post has me steaming for so many reasons, but I'll try not to be to long winded, however I will give you my honest and sincere opinion...
You have asked for input concerning the idea to have a nuclear power plant in the Massena area, and Mr. Rosales & Ms. Heidenreich have offered theirs, with reasons why they don't feel it's a good idea. To counter their insights, instead of referencing knowledgeable sources of your own to dispute Rosales' & Heidenreich's argument, you dismiss & belittle the reasons they give (and the two of them to some extent)...Mr Gray I don't see where you have offered us ANY science, good or bad, in your defense, just the bluster of another politician trying to get his way. Your flippant comment, "Fine. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one." makes me wonder if you are willing to listen to any of us that don't want this here.
You mention how "the rest of the world" is so far ahead of the US in nuclear energy development and then blame "irresponsible fear-mongering like that being perpetuated by Mr. Rosales and Ms. Heidenreich." I have heard a great deal of the same type of fear-mongering slung at alternative energy sources such as wind power, another technology we are behind in as you, yourself, alluded to when you say we can't build turbines & photovoltaic units as efficiently as other countries. It's time to stop using our technological delinquencies as excuses to avoid alternative energy sources and instead use them as motivation to catch up with the rest of the world.
You say "that solar, biomass and wind energy are only viable if they are financed with large government subsidies." If this is true, it may be because the path the US is taking towards embracing these energy sources has not been the most sustainable or efficient one. For instance; corn as source for ethanol is not necessarily the best choice. Corn is hard to grow and takes a lot of resources to plant, maintain & harvest and it leaves the soil less fertile...thus the substantial government subsidies that have been provided for decades to corn growers. There are plants such as varieties of switch-grass that are much easier to grow; they are perennial, self-seeding, and can be grown in areas where it is hard to grow any other crop. Switch-grass, however, does not have the lobbyists in Washington screaming "Pick Me!" that corn growers do.
Well, so much for me not being long winded. To sum things up: NO, I honestly and sincerely do not want a nuclear plant here, I do not think it is a good thing for our area, and have yet to hear anything that would change my mind. I wonder, if it were to be built here, how much of the electricity would actually be available to us (who would have to live with it in our backyard) and how much would end up downstate a lot further from the possible risks of being in close proximity to a nuclear facility.
I will directly reference the 6 points by Mr. Rosales and Mrs. Heidenreich.
ReplyDeleteWaste: They give statistics regarding the time it takes for spent fuel to degrade, which they are correct about. What they don’t go in to is that the technology already exists to safely store spent fuel rods. I think a lot of people picture a bunker underground where fuel is dumped, and no one can ever go near it again. This is not the case. Spent fuel is continually monitored, and could be moved or relocated if necessary. With the current technology that exists, we can safely store this fuel indefinitely. Technology is only going to advance as to ways to do this; we aren’t going to forget how to do what we already know.
Water: They are correct in this statement. A plant does require a tremendous amount of water to operate (however, some of the numbers that they quote are based on old BWR type reactors, which would not be the technology that would be used for a new plant). But, technology exists to cool the water before it is discharged back into the water source. If this is an actual concern, the design of the plant could resolve it.
Weapons: Regarding their claim that nuclear reactor operators stated (ect)… Where did they get this info? SRO’s are not structural engineers, they would not be the ones to ask about this issue. Cars built in the 60’s don’t meet today’s emission standards. The reason that old plants possibly wouldn’t withstand a plane attack is that this was not a concern when they were built. A new plant WOULD be designed to withstand such an attack (as well as several other factors that you wouldn’t think of)
Emissions: They are skewing the data to support their point. Their issue is with the technology that supplies the plant, not the plant itself. And the statement that the “green energy sources” emit less greenhouse gases is not comparing apples to apples. Throw solar out of the conversation, solar power is not a viable source for large scale generation. So talk nuke vs. hydro or wind. An average nuke plant produces 100 times the energy of a wind plant. And what area would you like to flood out to build a new hydro station, to produce less than half the energy?
Money: They are flat out wrong here. There are multiple groups vying for the chance to build one of the plants that will be greenlight’ed in the near future. The assertion that building a new plant would raise electricity costs is absurd. The market dictates what a plant gets per KWH, the assertion that if the construction cost more that the plant can affect what it charges per KWH is flat out untrue. In regard to $ and power costs, and your question, if the power would be available to us, I think you are looking at it the wrong way. If you build a Nuke plant, you don’t get to harness the power that it generates and use it for your own. Any direct affect that they plant would have on your energy bills would have to come from some sort of power purchase agreement. But the actual economic impact has nothing to do with the actual power that the plants output. A small plant will generate 10’s if not 100’s of millions of dollars in tax revenue for the Village. It would also employee hundreds of full time employees. And every 18 months on average, it would employee thousands of workers that would benefit all of the local businesses.
Health: I have never heard the statistic that they quote in my life. I am not saying that they are incorrect, I am just saying that as part of the employment process for working at a plant, there are days and days of information that are supplied to the employee that is provided by various human heath organizations, and I have never heard anything remotely close to this being issued. I would like to see the source of their information.
In regard to having it in your back yard, the majority of the people who have it in their back yard, never ever even know it is there. Did you know there is a Nuke Plant in Rochester? If you didn’t, don’t feel bad, 90% of the people who live in Rochester don’t know it is there.
DM
Joe,
ReplyDeleteYou've asked for our thoughts...here are mine (and I speak only for myself). I believe there are better alternative green energy choices out there that should be examined first. However, I would like to see a commission of scientists and engineers to debate the issue in an open forum. I personally do not want a nuclear facility in the North Country, but like most people, much of my information comes from my "gut."
Also, I don't think it is in anyone's best interest to question the "sincerity" of Ms. Rosales and Heidenreich due to their opposition. I think it is incumbent upon policy makers to actively solicit and listen to all opinions -- especially when the health and safety of so many are involved.
There is much evidence to be weighed here...and valid information must be the bottom line...not the almighty dollar.
Point taken, Anon. 4:37, I love the idea of an "open forum" as long as all viewpoints are represented and we debate issues based on fact, not fiction or opinion. I disagreed with some of the conclusions drawn by Rosales and Heidenreich because I thought they were far-fetched, very speculative and designed to do nothing more than instill fear(the whole weapons/dirty bomb thing for example.)
ReplyDeleteThose of some of my thoughts and opinions, as is this entire blog.
At this point all Joe and Jim has asked was for the public's opinion on entertaining the thought of a plant. Everyone is so quick to bash it without any solid facts. I could see if the study done was unfavorable and they wanted to go with t anyway but come on, let them assemble a committee or study group and see what impact it will have. It's hard to base an honest opinion without solid facts.
ReplyDeleteHey Droopy: can you contact via e-mail at supervisor@town.massena.ny.us ? I'd like to talk you.
ReplyDeleteYou have mail Mr. Supervisor
ReplyDeleteOne word:
ReplyDeleteJAPAN
Nuclear Power in Massena is a terrific idea. As a former Welding and Piping Engineer who helped in the actual design, construction and admin for the South Texas Nuclear Power Project just outside of Houston on the Madagorda River for 5 years from the ground up I know what's going on under the domes. We have 3 rivers running through our community which could support multiple units. This community lost a lot in negotiations with the New York Power Authority and this would be our opportunity to actually have the world know that Massena is one of the greatest power & energy capitals in North America.
ReplyDeleteInsted of Nuclear/uranium, use Thorium. Thorium is a mineral we have plenty of in this country. You can't build a bomb with it and it and you don't need to worry about a melt down. We can even retro-fit the existing nuclear plants in this country with Thorium. This should please even the green people. Research it for yourselves and ask why we are not talking about it in this country.
ReplyDelete