Nan, I already have it FIRST HAND from your Campaign Manager that you FAVOR leaving Indian Point, the trouble plagued cancer causing derelict set of reactors owned and operated by Entergy up and running while we explore all these new energy technologies...yet, when one reviews your video on Nuclear Power, it becomes obvious that you tried to weave NEI talking points together in an attempt to sell Americans on NEW NUCLEAR POWER, pointing out how these new reactors are far safer than the old 30 year old technology. First, the technology at Indian Point and America's other reactors is 50 even 60 year old technology. Secondly, I would like too address some of your talking points.
1. You speak about the need to build new oil refineries because the ones we have are old and outdated, said facilities being 30 plus years old. Do you know how old the Indian Point reactors are? Have you actually study the leaks and problems at this facility?
2. You speak about how much more advanced NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS are...you would be talking about the AP1000...these reactors are BIGGER, but rely on the same flawed technology on which Indian Point and other ancient relics were built. Secondly, they would not be using NEW FUEL, but the same fuel rods as are currently being used at America's 104 dying nuclear reactors.
3. The new fuel you speak of...lets talk about GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Program) and the fuel it MIGHT CREATE. The AP1000 would not even be able to use the supposed new fuel that would be created in reprocessing old fuel rods...in fact, many argue that GNEP is nothing more than a means to reclassify current spent fuel wastes into potential future use resources, thus allowing said wastes to remain ON SITE at their current nuclear reactor sites for periods in excess of 100 years, DEFACTO creating 104 UNLICENSED high level radioactive waste storage dumps across America.
Even worse if you read the fine print...GNEP would allow any country in the world to sign on as a member, and once doing do, receive help in building nuclear reactors, would have their fuel provided by the United States of America, and when said fuel was BURNED UP IN THE REACTORS, the waste streams would be SHIPPED BACK TO AMERICA, thus making our nation the world's nuclear waste STORAGE DUMP.
You suggest that reactors can be placed in areas of the country where any harm to citizens could be MITIGATED...hmmm....NIMBY on steroids....are you thinking we can continue our bigoted and racist siting of reactors in poor communities, rural communities. Do you favor letting poor rural folks die of CANCER, suffer stillborn children so that you and your well heeled neighbors in Bedford can have CHEAP AFFORDABLE NUCLEAR ENERGY? It's ok for them to pay the price of your convenience? What's a few cancer deaths or stillborn children in a poor or rural community when you can have CHEAP POWER? Is that your position Nan Hayworth? The more research on your positions I do the more it seems like you are truly a Sue Kelly clone in every way.