I am inspired to write this diary entry by rage, mostly by rage at someone that I, myself, used to be. I am reflecting on the latest round of stupid pills taken by those denizens of middle class denial, the folks over at Greenpeace where it is apparently believed that announcing a "could be" solution for half of the most dire emergency in human history two generations from now should inspire congratulations and credibility.
Except for joining the Republican Party, there is no better way to demonstrate susceptiblity to stupid pills than joining Greenpeace in my opinion. Trust me. I know all about stupid pills. I used to eat them myself.
I am an aged opponent of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant on Long Island. In case you know nothing about the Shoreham Nuclear Plant, let me tell you about it. Although it cost more than 5 billion dollars to build - in the 1980's, in 1970's and 1980's dollars - the Shoreham Nuclear Plant after going through some test routines that made it radioactive was sold for one dollar. The people who purchased it generated not a single watt of electricity to be supplied to the power grid on Long Island. They bought the 5 billion dollar plant, shut it down immediately and then dismantled it.
This outcome resulted mostly from a highly publicized study that showed that if the Shoreham Nuclear Plant had a "meltdown," it would be impossible to evacuate Long Island, since this would necessarily involve getting through New York City traffic. All of this was publicized by the local Long Island Newspaper, Newsday, that orchestrated shrill "exposes" on the supposed dangers of the nuclear plant.
Opponents of nuclear power - and let's be clear that this no longer includes me - often cite Shoreham as evidence of why nuclear power can never be economic, even though it is economic in many hundreds of nuclear power plants that are not Shoreham.
Well this is all depressing enough except that a new Shoreham plant is being proposed, right now, almost 40 years later and the plant is facing all sorts of local opposition. This time Newsday is on the side of the plant, which is not a nuclear plant but a LPG terminal designed to feed Long Island's thirst for sucking down fossil fuels. Here's an excerpt from the recent Newsday editorial
The time has come to ask the pivotal questions about Broadwater Energy's contentious proposal to build a liquefied natural gas facility in Long Island Sound: Do we need the gas and is this the best way to supply it?
The answers need to come from Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who has wisely resisted political pressure, based on reckless assumptions, to make a hasty call on its merits. Instead, the governor should move quickly to comprehensively assess the region's natural-gas needs and Broadwater's ability to meet them.
Coming to a conclusion won't be so easy: Opposition to the proposal, often irresponsible, is fierce and likely to get fiercer, and its object would be highly visible - an enormous floating vessel filled with natural gas tethered nine miles from Wading River...
...In the hyperbolic debate engulfing the project so far, its opponents, including many elected officials, are conjuring up sky-is-falling images of dangerous fireballs. In contrast, Broadwater Energy makes debatable claims of a $300-a-year savings for every gas-using household and expects boundless public support.
For those who are unsure, there is scant guidance on how to best evaluate Broadwater - a vacuum Spitzer has an obligation to fill. Perhaps Broadwater is the best way to meet the demand for clean-burning natural gas...
...Unquestionably, the demand for natural gas is growing. The volatility of oil prices is spurring residential and commercial conversion to gas, and the long-overdue repowering of old electric generating plants requires new, steady gas supplies...
...In determining the need for more gas, the governor should take into account a recent finding by the state's Energy Research and Development Authority that vigorous conservation measures can significantly reduce demand. So can New York's commitment to a regional initiative to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions...
Newsday Editorial: "No More Chicken Little."
(Please note that this excerpt is identical to a similar excerpt I have just posted at DemocraticUnderground: Shoreham Plant Produces a Storm of Modern Protest)
Speaking of stupid pills, maybe someone should tell the folks at Newsday that burning fossil fuels, including natural gas, is not a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Building nuclear plants is on the other hand, a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Let me tell you. Thirty years ago, just like the moral morons over at Greenpeace, those of us fighting the Shoreham Nuclear Plant were saying all kinds of wonderful things about solar energy which we claimed was going to save the world and make nuclear energy unnecessary. We didn't give a fuck about fossil fuels and neither do the modern day cretins at Greenpeace.
We were full of shit, just like Greenpeace is full of shit today.
Long Island is not a renewable paradise and renewable energy did not replace even a fraction of the power that Shoreham would have provided. All of the so called "waste" from all of the power generation of that plant over the last two decades would be contained in a swimming pool where it would be doing nothing to harm anyone.
People want to tell you that my representation - on which I continue to insist - that the anti-nuclear position is identical to the pro-fossil fuel position is a "false dichotomy." Balderdash. Not one, zero, nuclear plant has ever been shut by public opposition and replaced by renewable energy. Every single one of them has been replaced by fossil fuels.
Having read this editorial, I am so mad at the young man I was that I could spit. Here is what I gave future generations of Long Islanders when I was a young man, a few million tons of extra carbon dioxide, a big, dangerous problem and rising seas.
In the Democratic Underground piece, I referenced a NIMBY LTTE published by Newsday. Oh, and let's be clear, this new natural gas is for generating electricity, just what the Shoreham nuclear plant would have done, albeit in an infinitely cleaner and safer fashion.