On Jul 24, 6:37*pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

... On the other hand, if some
other areas don't want them because they ruin our view of the ocean
and choose nuclear power, do you have a problem with that?

If you'll actually choose and do, no; I'd far prefer it over wind as
being the most reliable, cost-effective solution for central generation
even here. *OTOH, it's that area of the country that has also shut down
at least one and forced another to never start up over nothing but
populist politics and NIMBY-ism.

The problem I have is that most who don't want option a, b, c, ... want
the benefits but none of the requirements to help with any alternative
option and are more than glad to let somebody else take their garbage
(so to speak). *CA building in AZ comes to mind as does their incessant
water grab...

--

Just for the record, I live 20 miles from Oyster Creek, the oldest
operating nuke in the country. The state has a total of 4 nukes.
Also, NJ receives plenty of the fallout, eg mercury, from relatively
unclean coal fired electric plants in the midwest. And we have more
than our share of oil refineries as well. So, it's not like we are
avoiding our share of the energy solution. So, I don't think it's
unreasonable to be opposed to building offshore windmills in sight of
land. I'm OK with offshore drilling as long as it's out of sight of
land and building more nukes.

I do agree that a big part of the problem is exactly what you say, a
lot of people, especially the environmental extremists, don't want
option a, b, or c. Or else, like the Kennedy's they say we should be
doing c, but when it comes to actually doing it, then they start
bitching about that too. Typically, they then don't just say they
are opposed to it, instead they want endless studies of the whole
thing. In the case of windmills, it becomes we don't know what they
will do to birds, fish, etc. So, they just delay it to death.

A classic example of what you;re talking about is going on here right
now. Exxon-Mobil wants to build an offshore natural gas terminal.
It really amounts to little more than the end of a long pipeline. It
would be 23 miles offshore, out of sight with an undersea pipeline
running up north to Perth Amboy. A couple times a week tankers with
LNG would show up, connect and offload the NG. In the shore town
next to me, Manasquan, the council went on record condemning the whole
thing. They blasted NG as a dirty fuel from drilling for it, to
transporting it, to using it. Yet, probably 90% of the homes in
Manasquan are heated with NG. The local newspaper wrote an editorial
against it as well. They stated the risk of spills on the beach is
unacceptable. WTF? They don't even understand what LNG is. If it
did spill, it would instantly vaporize.