Summer iPad Air Giveaway! 20 Under 40

EDITORIAL: No nuclear plants in the 20th Congressional District

2011-01-30T00:00:00Z EDITORIAL: No nuclear plants in the 20th Congressional District Glens Falls Post-Star
January 30, 2011 12:00 am

Archaeologists estimate that prehistoric man began learning to control fire about 790,000 years ago.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimates it will take 3 million years for the radioactive waste currently stored in the United States to decay to background levels.

The United States currently produces about 3,000 tons of nuclear waste a year, and the amount in storage would cover a football field one foot deep. A U.S. Energy Department report in 2008 estimated it will cost more than $96 billion to dispose of nuclear waste at the repository in Nevada, even if no other plants are built.

In the history of nuclear power, there have been at least 20 major nuclear reactor incidents since the first partial meltdown of a power plant in Ottawa, Canada, in 1952. Four of those have occurred in the United States.

Those are just the major ones.

There have been other smaller incidents, as well as some that may not have been reported by the government or the military. (Do you really trust them to tell us the truth?)

Nuclear power plants emit a degree of radioactivity outside the plant as a matter of operation, even without an accident. There is contradictory evidence of whether living near a nuclear power plant contributes to cancer, with some studies indicating it does and others indicating it doesn't.

To clear matters up, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year embarked on a $5 million study to begin studying cancer rates. It's not expected to be completed for three years.

There certainly have been advances in safety, security and efficiency since the world began using nuclear power as a commercial energy source back in 1954. But by its nature, nuclear power is still not green, it's still not cheap, and it's still not completely safe.

So it's difficult to get too excited about Congressman Chris Gibson's goal of siting a nuclear power plant in the 20th Congressional District.

Given the uncertainty surrounding nuclear power with regard to cost and health issues, as well as issues related to the removal and disposal of highly radioactive waste products, we wonder how exactly the congressman hopes to realistically get a plant built in our area.

Raise your hand if you'd be comfortable having one built in your town. Keep ‘em up so we can count everyone. OK. Got it.

For those living in one of the 20th Congressional District's state parks, you probably don't have to worry. It won't go in the Adirondacks or the Catskills.

They can't even get everyone to agree on putting 10 windmills on top of Gore Mountain to supply electricity to 12,000 homes. A nuclear power plant? Puh-leeze.

That leaves the areas outside the Blue Line, from Glens Falls almost to the city of Poughkeepsie and out to Delaware County, covering Saratoga Springs and Hudson along the way. Do you honestly think some town around here is going to let them put a nuclear power in their backyard without a fight? Why do you think that when pressed during the campaign, Congressman Gibson wouldn't suggest a possible location for it? Perhaps because he wanted to actually get some votes.

Despite all the negatives, there are some up sides to nuclear power plants.

A nuclear power plant could theoretically reduce electricity costs. But so could wind, solar, hydro and other "green" energies. However, all those energy savings from a nuclear power plant don't figure in the potential $5 billion cost of construction, the negative impact on the environment and the local economy, and the growing cost of waste disposal.

OK, so what else is good about this idea?

Well, since approval and construction would take as long as 20 years, some of us would be dead by the time it's built. If you don't have grandchildren, it's not your problem.

For supporters of hydrofracking, nuclear energy makes them look like Al Gore in comparison, another positive, at least for them.

And the possibility of hosting a nuclear power plant might compel some of those stubborn Washington County towns to finally put in planning and zoning. That would be good. But they should be doing that anyway.

Our new congressman surely can find better uses for his time and efforts than pursuing a campaign pledge of nuclear power over other safer, cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternatives.

A nuclear power plant isn't needed in the 20th Congressional District, isn't wanted and won't ever gain acceptance.

It's time to drop it.

Local editorials represent the opinion of The Post-Star editorial board, which consists of Publisher Rick Emanuel, Editor Ken Tingley, Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney and citizen member Mike Wild.

Copyright 2015 Glens Falls Post-Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(41) Comments

  1. rdc
    Report Abuse
    rdc - February 07, 2011 3:13 pm
    Spiney is right - the president DID press for more nuke plants. And Spiney's right again to be pressing for a nuke plant in the Adirondacks - these plants belong in a wasteland, as far from population centers as possible. Accidents do and will happen, after all. But it's time to harness the god-given power of the atom and ride that pony for the next few million years!
  2. Spiney Norman
    Report Abuse
    Spiney Norman - February 06, 2011 11:29 pm
    Scoot sez: "Or maybe it's because the liberal editorial writers are educated. Maybe it's because they're elitist college boys and they're smarter and more objective than the average north country NASCAR conservative who doesn't begin to understand the first thing about science or the environment.Maybe their worldview extends beyond Home Depot and their snowmobile and their pickup truck."
    So Scoot,I guess the person who said this:
    "Expanding nuclear power production will add jobs and help with the goal of relying more on clean energy sources".
    ...has a lot in common with the 'average north country NASCAR conservative" huh Scoot ?
    Dang, I KNEW I saw him Saturday at Home Depot in his presidential pick-up...
    Scoot, please don't ever quit posting... I'm having too much fun ! And I'm glad you're so much smarter than I...its just so comforting. LOL ! Can I borrow a cup of condescension pal ?

    'Oh,heel,toe,docie doe come on baby let's go scoot bootin...'

    Peace out baby... :-)
  3. Spiney Norman
    Report Abuse
    Spiney Norman - February 06, 2011 10:49 pm
    I can't believe 30 posts here,many slamming Gibson for proposing nuclear energy development here yet not one mention of the SOTU address by the head Lib in charge.Scoot,I KNOW that YOU know what he said.Every Lib here sat in wrapped attention that Tues. eve.,hanging on every word from Der Leader... and their fingers have been crossed ever since hoping that none of you did.Guess what Scoot? I know YOU HEARD the POTUS call for new nuclear energy plants.
    Give ya that tingle up the leg? Curious you don't see fit to call him out along with Gibson/Rep's./NASCAR fans...
    Busted bud.You've been exposed.Check mate.Point/set and match- game over.
    For those who didn't watch/listen (believe me,'I understand'):
    "WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama (not Gibson) said Tuesday that expanding nuclear power production will add jobs and help with the goal of relying more on clean energy sources..." Sound familiar? Heres the rest:
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6869786.html
    (fish in a barrel)
  4. BobofQueensbury
    Report Abuse
    BobofQueensbury - February 04, 2011 12:17 am
    the woo woo kid said: "Plenty of water? let's burn it's hydrogen? crazy! "

    You don't seem to understand that burning hydrogen means that it combines with oxygen to form water. Even if you don't see the water (steam), it is still created. This is true for every example that you have stated regarding water "disappearing". Water itself is not a fuel source. Using electricity it can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then used as a fuel. As the hydrogen burns, it combines with oxygen, to reform water. For every molecule of water that is separated, a molecule of water is reformed.

    The water cycle will take care of any steam so that it will become liquid water once again.

    Although, it would have been nice to fix any ocean level increases due to global warming using your idea that using water as fuel could end up emptying the oceans. Woo woo, you make me smile.

  5. BobofQueensbury
    Report Abuse
    BobofQueensbury - February 03, 2011 2:28 pm
    Nuclear power IS green! On a day to day basis the only input is clean cool water, the only outputs are slightly warmer water and some steam. No permanent greenhouse gases are produced. No air or water pollution is produced. To me that is the definitely green!

    A piece of uranium the size of a piece of chalk contains enough energy to power 5 to 6 homes for a year. No other fuel source...coal, oil, natural gas, ethanol...comes close. Also, there are now methods of recycling the spent uranium so much of the long term storage would be reduced.

    The Post Star Editorial Board gives opinions, but the opinions never seem to be based on justified facts. They always seem to interpret facts without first checking with experts to see if there interpretation is valid. Where are the quotes from leading experts either side of the nuclear power debate? Opinions without justifiable facts seems more like creating rumors than making informed judgments and opinions on current events.
  6. upstatelibertarian
    Report Abuse
    upstatelibertarian - February 03, 2011 1:45 pm
    Here we go again with the Post Star pushing the leftist agenda. Lets forget about the fact that there probably is no place to build a reactor in this area in the first place and focus on the scare tactics and misinformation of the liberal agenda. To begin with there are already nuclear power plants in this state(Westchester County, Syracuse, Rochester and Milton to name a few)and Glens Falls has not seen or suffered any nuclear holcaust so far. The feild of nuclear energy has changed for the better since the time of Karen Silkwood, Tree Mile Island and Chernobyl. I have gotten more radioactive exposure from X-rays and cosmic microwaves off the formation of the universe than i will ever get from anyone of those plants. The 'green' alternatives to fossil fuel look great on paper but when put in practice are flawed and insufficient. Nuclear energy is reliable, safe and just as 'green' as hydro , solar or wind power.
  7. Don Donofrio
    Report Abuse
    Don Donofrio - February 03, 2011 9:44 am
    Post-Star-Please look into what is happening in Texas right now. They are importing power from Mexico because it got cold there and 70 power plants, that use windmills, all shut down.

    If you want to have an opinion you should get the whole story.
  8. boston
    Report Abuse
    boston - February 02, 2011 6:08 pm
    hurtman, are you inferring the "news" got it wrong, again?
    Solution... put diapers on cows, exempt China and India from any carbon tax even though they are growing like crazy thanks to the globalist money bankers, make every American pay a cabon footprint tax to Al Gore&Company, and only have those large corporations who will get the contracts from the governemt, or rather the politicians they gave billions to to promote "global warming", I mean "climate change' as it seems that we have had a cooling trend over the last 15 years or so. Is there anyone out there who is old enough to remember that folks were burned alive for not believing the earth was flat? I bet if Al Gore said that NAFTA would be good, people would believe that too. Oh wait, he did.
  9. hurtman
    Report Abuse
    hurtman - February 02, 2011 5:06 pm
    Nice picture. Great effect. I'm sure most people think that is some kind of radioactive plume and that the reactor is in there. However, it's just a cooling tower and that cloud is water vapor. It's no different than that of cooling towers for a fossil fuel plant.
  10. cg57
    Report Abuse
    cg57 - February 02, 2011 1:11 pm
    woo woo, I don't know what to say as a response to your posts on hydrogen combustion, other than you are wrong. But don't take my word for it, here's a link to an article explaining the basic chemistry that happens when you combine hydrogen and oxygen. My only explanation for your confusion is that you aren't seeing the water, but that is because its most likely in vapor form and not dripping out the exhaust pipe. Anyway, here's the link. Hydrogen combustion is the most environmentally friendly form of enery known, only byproduct is water.

    http://www.ehow.com/list_6292123_effects-hydrogen-gas-combustion.html
  11. the woo woo kid
    Report Abuse
    the woo woo kid - February 02, 2011 11:12 am
    Stephne said: "freakish weather and severe storms and weather patterns are included in global warming "

    She is correct. Whether you agree there's manmade global warming or not, You have to admit we are putting way too much pollution into the enviroment. This will soon quadruple+ as the masses of the other Nations now have the power to purchase all the modern goodies that we enjoy. The use of cars, electronics,factories etc will skyroket over the next decade.

    Critical Mass Pollution is no longer a far distant notion my friends. Huge thick clouds of permanent air pollutiom stretch across Asia from Saudi to China and out into the Pacific. This have been photgraphed by NASA from space. In China, it's 1-3 miles high. Surely water and land pollution follow this increase.

    The Days of Inaction are running out. We absolutely need true green energy N O W. We need to get that ball rolling and invest there.

    I'm no Eco freek, but these are the realities, the facts.
  12. Stephne
    Report Abuse
    Stephne - February 02, 2011 10:12 am
    freakish weather and severe storms and weather patterns are included in global warming
  13. BooBooKittyF
    Report Abuse
    BooBooKittyF - February 02, 2011 8:34 am
    Jeffw said: Hey PS, how's that global warming thing going? We haven't seen or heard much this winter. I guess our weather doesn't fit the agenda."


    yeah this pretty much verifies what he said about ignorant people in this area.
  14. the woo woo kid
    Report Abuse
    the woo woo kid - February 02, 2011 12:23 am
    Combustion produces very small amounts of water. Combustion in your car, your furnace, etc produces small amounts of water.

    To burn hydrogen from water, you must split the H2O molecule into hydrogen and oxygen - then burn it. Thus it no longer exists! The original volume of water disappears, GONE FOREVER! A few drops of water will form from the combustion process of the hydrogen - hydrogen produced from GALLONS of water.

    I saw a hydro RC car once. They put a liter or so of water in the electrolizer, the solar panel converted it to hydrogen/oxygen and the WATER FREEKIN DISAPPEARED! They ran the toy car.. "Oh look, Free fuel! Isn't it great!" They filled it with water again + ran it again. More water gone forever.

    The Gomers didn't care that they had destroyed a liter of water for their few minutes of fun with the toy car. They only cared about the " free fuel!"

    Now there's RC cars, candles and soon a whole host of consumer products that will destroy water for "free fuel!"

    Insane
  15. the woo woo kid
    Report Abuse
    the woo woo kid - February 01, 2011 11:08 pm
    Plenty of water? let's burn it's hydrogen? crazy! How much water can we destroy before the Seas become to saline to support tiny Plankton, The world's most proliferous source of Oxygen? Tiny organisms are VERY suseptable to pollution. Planton also supports the food chain. How much water can we destroy before all Sea life dies from higher concentrations of salt/pollution? Before rain clouds don't form proper? Before the weather patterns change due to lack of moisture? Before drought goes global? You don't know those answers! If Hydrogen fuel cells go global, and oil is scarce, who will stop mankind from destroying water en mass like we now do Oil? Virtually every Nation has access to water and will want to burn/destroy it to support their economy.

    Water is FAR to valuable to even risk that. Go out in the Desert with no Oil, no Coal, no food or no water. Guess what you will die from in 3 days! Lack of water.

    If we destroy water the way we do oil, the Seas will change very fast. NO GO!
  16. scooter
    Report Abuse
    scooter - February 01, 2011 10:56 pm
    Jeffw said: "Scoter, we can lump you into this "educated" group, but with some other adjectives; pompous, self-important, arrogant, pretentious. It is not rocket science to figure out that if scoter wants to travel from point A to point B, he/she/it will need fuel. How will scoter heat the house? How will scoter get in touch with his/her its educated buddies at the PS? How will scoter feed himself/herself/itself? One hopefully gets the point. It is easy to be against stuff when one has no viable alternative. The PS is agenda driven, mostly left. Maybe scoter can get over to the PS and with his educated friends there, get on bicycles to generate power to print the paper. Hey PS, how's that global warming thing going? We haven't seen or heard much this winter. I guess our weather doesn't fit the agenda."

    It's Scooter, not Scoter. And your last three sentences are a far more effective rebuttal than anything I could have written. Thank you for illustrating my point.

  17. the woo woo kid
    Report Abuse
    the woo woo kid - February 01, 2011 10:52 pm
    cg57 said: "breaks water down so it is burnable. I don't know what you are talking about as far as water being too valuable. Basic highschool chemistry teaches when you burn hydrogen, the by product is water. So you break it down into its components, and when you burn it, it reforms into water, ultimately it could be a closed loop/system. Plus, last time I looked, 75% of the earths surface is covered in water, far more plentiful than oil."

    No.No No. When you " break down water" as you said, you get oxygen and hydrogen from H2O. THE WATER IS GONE! FOREVER! This takes alot of water. Only a very small fraction of a percent of the water is "reformed". Word! You can't burn the Hydrogen part of water and still have the water left. Impossiblee'. They like you to think the water remains en masse but it does not. Hundreds of Gallons go in, drops come out.

    It wasn't long ago people said " We have plenty of oil, wildlife, trees, coal etc ". We now know that's a huge fallacy.
  18. cg57
    Report Abuse
    cg57 - February 01, 2011 10:06 pm
    woo woo, most existing commercial fuel cells operate on natural gas, not water. Although getting to a hydrogen fuel cell is the goal. I've seen videos of a gentleman in Florida who has patented a process that breaks water down so it is burnable. I don't know what you are talking about as far as water being too valuable. Basic highschool chemistry teaches when you burn hydrogen, the by product is water. So you break it down into its components, and when you burn it, it reforms into water, ultimately it could be a closed loop/system. Plus, last time I looked, 75% of the earths surface is covered in water, far more plentiful than oil. solar & wind, the energy they produce is more expensive than traditional sources. Again, I'm for alternatives, as long as they make sense economically. Still waiting on my new quote for a solar system to get me off the grid, will let you know when I get it.
  19. the woo woo kid
    Report Abuse
    the woo woo kid - February 01, 2011 9:23 pm
    Enough of this " Can't Do Spirit "! Solar does work and is viable for this area. http://poststar.com/news/local/article_dd09227e-c9a5-11df-84c6-001cc4c03286.html

    This also works. http://www.cvps.com/cowpower/

    As does this. http://poststar.com/article_cca297ba-b70a-11df-98c1-001cc4c002e0.html#vmix_media_id=55146571

    If we all had solar panels, we would not be having this conversation, fossil fuel use would plummet, we would save $, pollution would be reduced, and the price of solar would drop, yields would increase.

    This is where we should be investing, in green tech not nuclear waste.

    Someone mentioned fuel cells. Fuel cells destroy water! They operate by spliting water molecules to release hydrogen. This destroys ALOT of water. NOT something we should do on a large scale! How much water can we destroy before the Sea gets to saline to support plankton,the major producer of oxygen and all other sea life, before rainclouds don't form proper. Water is far more valuable than oil.
  20. the woo woo kid
    Report Abuse
    the woo woo kid - February 01, 2011 9:21 pm
    Other countries have built and are building even more power plants that operate on the power of the ocean's tides. India, South Korea are some examples. I believe China has too. South Korea is in a race against another country to build the largest one. Their's will be at Incheon.

    Where is our leadership in this area? Where is the famous American Innovation? Where is the famous American " Can Do " Spirit? Retired in a Rest home? Nuts!

    All our leaders can come up with is old school, enviromantally crazy, extremely expensive (ineffective) out dated thinking.

    Nuclear is not clean or cost effective. It is extremely expensive. It will cost trillions of dollars to store the nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years.

    I'm sick if this energy issue holding us by the throat. It's will to destroy our economy and our enviroment.

    Green, renewable and cost effective answers already exist.If I found these examples from the comfort of my living room, what the hell is wrong with our Leaders?
  21. the woo woo kid
    Report Abuse
    the woo woo kid - February 01, 2011 9:20 pm
    Power is being generated from manure by farmers. It is very cost effective, profitable and greatly reduces global warming gases as the methane burned contributes to global warming 20 times more the co2. Plus it's a renewable energy source.

    Here's the kicker...Most towns have sewage plants. These could be converted to power producing plants that will earn money for the towns, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, reduce methane global warming emmissions, and reduce pollution released from conventional sewage plants.

    There's many greener options that the USA can use if only we get off our duffs and just do it!

    Those who say there's no man made global warming have to agree that we are putting way too much polllution into the enviroment.

    We need to change. I suspect this will only happen when gas hits $5.00 per gallon and higher
  22. the woo woo kid
    Report Abuse
    the woo woo kid - February 01, 2011 9:11 pm
    Don't be penny wise and pound foolish!

    Here's what matters people. "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences estimates it will take 3 million years for the radioactive waste currently stored in the United States to decay to background levels." Think storing that will be cheap, green or even possible? HA! Read this. Page Two+ http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclear-waste-crisis-france.pdf France said that storage facility would be safe + cost effective. It's only 40 YEARS OLD and it's already leaking and the storage containers are collapsing!!!

    ProNuke posters - How cost effective and safe will it be to store this stuff for 3 million years ? It's not even possible! What is wrong with you people? Go ahead. build nukes everywhere. Radiate the world. One speck of Plutonium is lethal for 250,000 years! In the meantime, Green energy will soon be viable but you'll have ruined Earth. Just storing the existing nuke waste 3,000,000 yrs will cost trillions
  23. gfcitizen
    Report Abuse
    gfcitizen - February 01, 2011 1:11 pm
    Is nuclear energy 100% safe? No, but that's not the point. No source of energy is without both an environmental, social or political impact. The question then is whether it is preferable to the alternatives given all the parameters of each. We need to expand our paltry supply of renewables such as wind/solar, but we'll never do this on a scale to replace fossil fuels in the near future. Nuclear is expensive, but so is oil when you factor in the pollution, the environmental damage and the cost of human lives shed for it. Nuclear is easy to see as dangerous bogeyman when the massive downsides of our current system are so difficult to quantify and measure. At least a nuclear danger is concentrated - you can focus your efforts on it, while other sources of power tend to hurt us in ways it takes decades to uncover.
  24. Don Donofrio
    Report Abuse
    Don Donofrio - February 01, 2011 6:53 am
    Just to be clear, I support wind and solar power as well. I don't understand how anyone could not want to see a windmill. I think they add to the view, not spoil it, and I'm not concerned abound them chopping up birds either.

    The point, however, is that those alone wouldn't meet our needs. New York State could use a couple nuclear power plants too. I don't know if the 20th district is one of the places where they would best meet our needs but if it were I would be in favor of it. You have to look at the big picture.

    We need more energy. We need to ween ourselves off oil. We need to do it soon.
  25. Bigwhitebeast
    Report Abuse
    Bigwhitebeast - February 01, 2011 2:16 am
    For eveyone that mentioned the middle east, less than 1% of the US power production was from Oil in 2009! Less than 11% was from hydro, wind and solar.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html

    For everyone that wants to shudown coal, it supplies almost 45% of the electricity is the US. As for costs, my employer has installed solar panels and they know they aren't cost effective but they are politically correct. Commercial solar ends up costing about 45 cents per kilowatt hour (KWHr)take a look at your electric bill, you're not paying anywhere near that but your tax dollars are providing subsidies to that.

    My employer also wants to build a new nuclear plant, with permitting, licensing and construction they are planning on spending 15 billion dollars not the 5 billion these guys mentioned.

    And your electric cars you want, have you ever had a car not start in the winter because the battery was weak in the cold?
  26. scooter
    Report Abuse
    scooter - January 31, 2011 10:27 pm
    Upstater51 said: "The liberal editorial writers and their environmentalist friends don't like nuclear because of the waste, wind because they don't like the sight of the turbines, hydro because it hurts the fishes, oil or gas because of global warming, or wood for...well I forget. Since it would take a solar array the size of New Jersey to produce the electricity that one nuclear plant does, its sort of hard to understand their solution to our energy needs. Maybe that's why these people are sitting in offices writing editorials and not actually producing anything; they wouldn't know how. "

    Or maybe it's because the liberal editorial writers are educated. Maybe it's because they're elitist college boys and they're smarter and more objective than the average north country NASCAR conservative who doesn't begin to understand the first thing about science or the environment. Maybe their worldview extends beyond Home Depot and their snowmobile and their pickup truck.
  27. cg57
    Report Abuse
    cg57 - January 31, 2011 8:32 pm
    hey woo woo, if you're reading this. I'm in the process of getting another quote for a solar power system to get my house of the grid. Stay tuned, I'll let you know if the cost has come down at all since the last time I did it.
  28. tillygeorgianna
    Report Abuse
    tillygeorgianna - January 31, 2011 7:11 pm
    BDreon, critiquing Rep. Gibson? I don't think so. Why are you so quick to defend him?
  29. Kyle York
    Report Abuse
    Kyle York - January 31, 2011 6:28 pm
    It's crushing that the Post-Star got so much so wrong with one editorial. A grasp of Nuclear Science is too massive for the Editorial Board or the Terrified Populace. In a vacuum of facts, the Four Horsemen of Fear rule- "Chernobyl," "China Syndrome," "3-mile Island," "Used Fuel = Domestic Terror."

    Okay. Here's an energy topic far easier to grasp- "Oil Price." TV has spent a week teaching us about Egypt Stability, MidEast Security, and Oil Prices. Editors and readers CAN grasp Oil Science- "ALL 3 RISE AS 1."

    Readers will be concerned IMMEDIATELY when reliance on oil, a choice made long ago, hurts at the pump. Readers will be concerned IMMEDIATELY when reliance on oil, a choice made long ago, hurts at the store as transportation costs are passed along. Readers will be concerned IMMEDIATELY when reliance on oil, a choice made long ago, staggers them to heat a home.

    Today's Nuclear designs are safe. Yucca mtn is safe. Energy output matters.

    Today's MidEast isn't getting any safer.
  30. Stephne
    Report Abuse
    Stephne - January 31, 2011 4:17 pm
    "The Do-Gooders are at it again,no nuclear power, the same ones that are opposed to Windmills"


    I don't know if I qualify as a do-gooder. I support solar and wind power not nuclear.

    Something about seeing green cows that scares the bejeepers out of me. Yes, poor Washington County would probably be dumped upon yet again.
  31. rdc
    Report Abuse
    rdc - January 31, 2011 3:52 pm
    If, as observer11 says, putting a reactor in Queesnbury is soley a Republican idea, I am still against it. It's a foolish, short-sighted, 'get-back-at-them-durn-Saudis' plan. It's meant to shift focus and delude the electorate, because those saying it know it will never happen. If they do, mores the pity. But I bet this will make a great anti-incumbent ad in the next election cycle.
  32. QHSAlum'08
    Report Abuse
    QHSAlum'08 - January 31, 2011 12:01 pm
    "A nuclear power plant isn't needed in the 20th Congressional District."

    Thanks for clearing that up, Post-Star. Why would anyone even consider an alternative energy source? Energy isn't a problem at all in our society today.
  33. BDreon
    Report Abuse
    BDreon - January 31, 2011 10:57 am
    Was this editorial about Nuclear Plants or was it a critique of Chris Gibson? It started out as Nuclear plants and evolved to politics. It appears that Ken Tingley has not gotten over Scott Murphy's defeat as he takes every opportunity to take shots at Gibson. I know you "looked into Scotts eyes" and liked what you saw, but it is time to end the romance and move on.
  34. Don Donofrio
    Report Abuse
    Don Donofrio - January 31, 2011 5:51 am
    I am very disappointed that the Editorial Board appears to have done little or no research before coming to this opinion. Did you just get together for a few minutes and decide on this opinion or did anyone actually look into it? It's obvious that you spent more time writing this editorial than you did researching it. We expect more from you.

    Did you look into how much electricity electric cars are going to require? Did you look into the issues that the UK has experienced due to windmills not working when it gets cold? Does it get cold in the 20th district? How much area would have to be covered with solar collectors to supply our needs? How many days/year would we get enough production from them?

    You can't just stick a nuclear reactor anywhere. What locations within the 20th district would be possible locations for a future reactor?

    Also, I firmly believe that a reactor should supply free electricity to those that live close to it. And, no, I wouldn't mind living near one.
  35. observer11
    Report Abuse
    observer11 - January 30, 2011 4:34 pm
    This editorial is classic "Republican idea bad and Democrat idea good". Exactly how do you propose to supply our electricity needs? Let me guess-solar and wind, right? Get real. Solar and wind will NEVER be a dependable supply of electricity. Utilities are required to provide a sustainable stable supply and solar/wind does not make the grade. Wind is not controllable and clouds have been known to be in the sky. You are editorializing on a subject you have no knowledge of.
    Everyone wants to be off oil and nuclear is the only viable option. Use the natural gas for our transportation needs and nuclear for electric generation. It is the answer. We need to drill baby drill and build nuclear plants and bring those Saudi's to their knees.
    Once again your editorializing on a subject you have no knowledge or experience in. The electric utilities don't tell you how to sell newspapers, don't tell them how to supply electricity.
  36. helipilot
    Report Abuse
    helipilot - January 30, 2011 12:17 pm
    The Do-Gooders are at it again,no nuclear power, the same ones that are opposed to Windmills. I beleive that some time ago there was opposition to hydro-power because it killed some fish. The very same fish rendered unfit to consume due to PCB's in the river.
    We had Hydro plants on the river that could have been upgraded to meet todays standards - but no, we had to rip them out.
    Lets opt for the clean energy such as Windmills and Hydro power.The resource is free - we must just build the media to capture it. Permits would be easier to obtain than for a Nuclear power plant.
  37. Upstater51
    Report Abuse
    Upstater51 - January 30, 2011 10:39 am
    The liberal editorial writers and their environmentalist friends don't like nuclear because of the waste, wind because they don't like the sight of the turbines, hydro because it hurts the fishes, oil or gas because of global warming, or wood for...well I forget. Since it would take a solar array the size of New Jersey to produce the electricity that one nuclear plant does, its sort of hard to understand their solution to our energy needs. Maybe that's why these people are sitting in offices writing editorials and not actually producing anything; they wouldn't know how.
  38. sstranahan
    Report Abuse
    sstranahan - January 30, 2011 9:31 am
    Although there are some nice people on your editorial board and a couple pulitzer prize winners,It's very obvious there are no nuclear physicist!Some said the first airplane would never get off the ground,Would you uninformed naysayers ground all the planes because it was proven they could be used for missiles on 9/11 or just tear out all water power dams,because they rupture and kill more people than have died in all the nuclear accidents.Please do the research needed to debunk the Myths surronding the energy crisis and provide your readers with some cold hard facts!
  39. patcher
    Report Abuse
    patcher - January 30, 2011 9:08 am
    How do you expect to get windmills in North Creek when we can't even get cell towers that look like pine trees? Without government subsidies, windmills, solar and ethanol might be "Gore green", but a joke when it comes to cost effectiveness. Coal, Oil, Natural Gas and Nuclear...Go Chris!
  40. Paxus Calta
    Report Abuse
    Paxus Calta - January 30, 2011 8:24 am
    All good reasons for no nuclear power plants in your district.

    Here is some more information which might be useful:

    CitiBank evaluates the 5 investment criteria for new reactors and finds that they all fail www.tinyurl.com/citiseznonukes

    Energy Expert and McArther Genius Award winner Amory Lovins finds nuclear power fails as a climate change solution www.tinyurl.com/forgetnuclear

    Solar power is now cheaper than nuclear, see this NY Times analysis www.tinyurl.com/solarsaves
  41. Stephne
    Report Abuse
    Stephne - January 30, 2011 7:26 am
    All the hydroelectric power we have here and we still have some of the most expensive utility bills in the country. The trash plant was supposed to be a boon, it's a boondoggle.

RULES FOR COMMENTING ONLINE

1) Comments must be contained to the topic of the articles only. Comments that stray from the direct subject of the article will be deleted.

2) Readers are free to comment on and debate other readers' comments, but comments must specifically address the issue(s) raised. Comments containing personal insults directed toward another reader in any form will be deleted.

3) Comments must be civil in tone, and there will be no name calling of any kind. Uncivil or inappropriate comments will be deleted, as will any comment containing profanities.

4) Comments critical of crime or accident victims will be deleted.

5) Comments that are potentially libelous, including those that contain accusations not supported by facts, will be deleted.

Commenters who abuse these policies will have their e-mail registrations revoked.

 

View the full commenting policy.

Thank you, and we hope you enjoy interacting with us and the community.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick