![]() |
Quote:
On a square mileage basis, there's more national park land out there than in the East. I think you're on to something, Ducimus. |
I live in Illinois and there are 8 nuc plants within 100mi. There would be 9, but Zion was decommissioned a couple years ago. As you can see on the map there are quite a few clustered around Chicago. |
Third Man was spot on on page one. CA has a large population, but they are also very spread out. In addition, as ducimus said, NIMBY. CA is well known for that. They want electric cars, but are perfectly happy for the power generation to happen at a coal plant in NM (having just moved all their tailpipes to another state, they can then be smug).
To be fair, the west coast is not as good a place for nuke plants as the east, given the earthquake situation (though it was the tsunami, not the quake that was Japan's problem). BTW, while France leads in the % of power that is nuclear, the US has by far the most plants. |
Quote:
SPQR |
Quote:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v9...al_hunting.jpg |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
:har: They do not need a reason. They just raise the rate when they feel like it! O'Mallet does nothing. :down: |
Three plants within' 130 miles, one on the Minnesota/WI. Border and two right next to each other on the Lake Michigan coast. Basically they are on both sides of me.
Edit: Hey those two plants near Lake Michigan are just 14 miles from Denmark :rotfl2: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/tn/0857524.gif |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Damn. Hydroelectric, of course! /headslap I really am embarrassed not to have thought of that, especially since I went there in the earlier post with mention of Conowingo Hydroelectric Plant, and that I'm currently playing Fallout: New Vegas, with the storyline only completely dependent on the Hoover Dam. :know::88) And with the rivers and waterways of the Northwest, of course it makes sense there'd be hydro-power instead of nuke. The East has the rivers, but also has a LOT of boat traffic on those rivers; the West made better use of rail than the East did, so the rivers can be used to generate power more than they're needed for shipping. Thanks, Torplexed, for that additional contribution. I think I'm starting to get the picture a little better, between the mentions here by several folks, and my own recollection this morning of the huge wind farm at Banning Pass east of LA. |
Theres nothing wrong with nuclear power.
And the funny thing is that since Japan's plants exploded after suffering a tsunami AND a 9 point something earthquake, people thing nuclear power is unsafe because it cant withstand a 9 point something earthquake and a tsunami. Thats why i just wanna slap the idiots on the news who think they know whatt heyre talking about, who think nuclear power is way unsafe. Its VERY safe. And theyre undereducated Idiots who honestly dont know what theyre talking about. It annoys me so dam much. Its like the people who have some minor symptom like chills and vomiting and go on WEb M.D and it tells them they have Malaria and they believe it. But S**t happens. Just like everything else in the world, S**T happens. If a gas main explodes after somebody F-ed up, does that mean we need to stop using gas to heat our homes to keep us warm? no. Same CONCEPT applies here. granted we should take more safety backups. because radiation doesnt just go away. it lingers. But honestly this is to be expected when something like this happens. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.