Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Would you support the construction of new nuclear power plants?

By Howard B. Owens
Gary Spencer

I think Genesee County would be a GREAT place for a nuclear power plant, there is no significant earchquake fault here. A power plant here could serve Buffalo and Rochester as well as other surrounding communities, hell even the entire north east! BUT NO!!!!! It'll NEVER happen here!!

Mar 15, 2011, 9:31am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The problem in Japan wasn't the earthquake, it was the tsunami. The tsunami knocked out all of the back up generators.

Then the emergency generators that were trucked had -- get this -- the wrong kind of plug adapter and couldn't be plugged into the power grid to run the cooling mechanisms.

It's important to stress, everything was fine with the nuke plants until the tsunami hit.

The biggest threat now is a possible breach to one containment field. If that breaches and there is a meltdown, then a lot of radiation gets released. I've read varying opinions on what that means as far as actual threat.

If the containment fields hold and there is a meltdown, that is much less serious than most media reports make it out to be.

So chances are, a nuke plant in WNY would be very safe. Safer than hydrofracking on the Southern Tier.

Mar 15, 2011, 9:56am Permalink
kevin kretschmer

If you want to see the fault line that runs through the area walk down the Lee's Landing Trail at Letchworth State Park. When you get to the river, look across to the wall on the other side. The fault is exposed there and easily seen by the naked eye.

Mar 15, 2011, 10:12am Permalink
James Renfrew

Build one around here? Yes, totally safe. Just use Tonawanda Creek as the water source for cooling. The fish will love it, and fishermen too! It'll be an outdoor recreation paradise.

Don't worry about the lack of a viable method for disposing of the spent fuel waste. Just keep it on site in some modified swimming pools. Eventually - we can depend on well-known American can-do ingenuity for this - someone will figure out what to do with it, or, better yet, just leave it to the next generation to deal with. After all, it only remains radioactive for, what, thousands of years? Our friends in nearby West Valley will be happy to share their positive stories about how easy it is to reprocess nuclear waste with zero impact on the environment.

Of course there is the small problem of what to do with the nuclear plant itself when its forty years of operations are done. Simple solution! Just seal it up with concrete for the next thousand years or so and consider it a monument to civic pride and foresight. Maybe put up some plaques, picnic tables and hiking trails, too.

Since our various towns have already shown eagerness to have wind towers located within their bounds, there should be no problem finding a site for the plant. In fact the towns around here will fight for the privilege. Tax abatements, enterprise zones, IDAs, and more to sweeten the deal.

The nuclear power industry will be happy to locate here because, after all, the liability is covered through our taxes. What a deal! And if anything ever goes wrong, the liability will be covered pennies on the dollar by the government. Of course, all of the anti-taxation types who live around here will need to be distracted away from this unpleasant government subsidy of nuclear power. But don't worry, if anything ever goes seriously wrong, the money will be irrelevant.

Danger? Of course not, all of the redundant safety features will always work as expected. No major accident likely in thousands of years.

Would those pesky environmentalists be able to stop this fine idea? Probably not. They're a laughingstock. All that doom and gloom stuff they say, who even listens to that nonsense any more?

Mar 15, 2011, 11:21am Permalink
Bob Harker

One thing not mentioned in media reports I've seen is the fact that the reactor complex in question was built in 1971. Technological and safety advancements since then may well have prevented the current crisis.

No matter. The "environmentalists" that seem to be opposed to all currently viable forms of energy will misuse this crises and try to bring about the end of the recent resurgence in nuclear power interest here in the US.

If the concern about earthquakes is so great, we should stop constructing bridges, buildings, and such.....

Mar 15, 2011, 11:27am Permalink
George Richardson

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Japan. Three strikes and you are out. Maybe the Mayans really did nail it with the 2012 prediction for the end of the world. Or maybe just fifty five percent are hell bent on fulfilling the prophecy. How ironic that Genesee County is just about fifty five percent Republican. I suggest you party like it is 2011 and start chopping firewood now, for next winter. I have no problem with death, I would just like it to be relatively painless and radiation poisoning is anything but. Ignore history or rewrite it as you wish, the end result will be the same.

Mar 15, 2011, 12:44pm Permalink
James Renfrew

Jack Dorf is correct about the age of Ginna. There are indeed methods for extending the life of a nuclear plant, but the plant's life is still limited. It will need to be mothballed permanently. I also believe that Ginna is smaller than more modern reactors. Smaller might mean less dangerous, in terms of what's might spew, but I'm not certain of that.

Bob Harker is correct that older plants may be less safe because of the requirements of the time when they were built. If so, all the more reason to give an awful lot of scrutiny to them in particular. I understand that some retrofitting of older plants may have occurred in light of later requirements. Did I hear that the Japanese reactors were built by GE, or modeled on the GE design?

Mar 15, 2011, 1:04pm Permalink
Mike Weaver

You want energy? There is going to be environmental risk. Period. Wind can't genrate enough to fill our needs. Neither can solar. Oil, coal, and NG have their environmental drawbacks (fracking anyone? how about a gulf coast oil spill?), are inefficient overall, and are finite.

We can either move ahead with the most efficient and energy dense source we know of or we can continue to burn hydrocarbons and fret about how that impacts our world.

Mar 15, 2011, 5:20pm Permalink

Authentically Local