care2: the petitionsite
More Nuclear Energy for America

More Nuclear Energy for America

Target:
Congress

A NON POLLUTANT SOLUTION TO OUR ENERGY CRISIS.

Your typical city dweller doesnt know just how much coal and uranium he burns each year. On Lake Shore Drive in Chicago where the numbers are fairly representative of urban America as a whole the answer is (roughly): four tons and a few ounces. In round numbers, tons of coal generate about half of the typical city's electric power; ounces of uranium, about 17 percent; natural gas and hydro take care of the rest. New York is a bit different: an apartment dweller on the Upper West Side substitutes two tons of oil (or the equivalent in natural gas) for Chicago's four tons of coal. The oil-tons get burned at plants like the huge oil/gas unit in Astoria, Queens. The uranium ounces get split at Indian Point in Westchester, 35 miles north of the city, as well as at the Ginna, Fitzpatrick, and Nine Mile Point units upstate, and at additional plants in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire.

That%u2019s the stunning thing about nuclear power: tiny quantities of raw material can do so much. A bundle of enriched-uranium fuel-rods that could fit into a two-bedroom apartment in Hell's Kitchen would power the city for a year: furnaces, espresso machines, subways, streetlights, stock tickers, Times Square, everything even our cars and taxis, if we could conveniently plug them into the grid. True, you dont want to stack fuel rods in midtown Manhattan; you dont in fact want to stack them casually on top of one another anywhere. But in suitable reactors, situated, say, 50 miles from the city on a few hundred acres of suitably fortified and well-guarded real estate, two rooms worth of fuel could electrify it all.

Think of our solitary New Yorker on the Upper West Side as a 1,400-watt bulb that never sleeps that the national per-capita average demand for electric power from homes, factories, businesses, the lot. Our average citizen burns about twice as bright at 4 pm in August, and a lot dimmer at 4 am in December; grown-ups burn more than kids, the rich more than the poor; but it all averages out: 14 floor lamps per person, lit round the clock. Convert this same number back into a utility supply-side jargon, and a million people need roughly 1.4 gigs of power 20141.4 gigawatts (GW). Running at peak power, Entergy two nuclear units at Indian Point generate just under 2 GW. So just four Indian Points could take care of New York City 7-GW round-the-clock average. Six could handle its peak load of about 11.5 GW. And if we had all-electric engines, machines, and heaters out at the receiving end, another ten or so could power all the cars, ovens, furnaceseverything else in the city that oil or gas currently fuels. THE CHANCES OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IS 1:10000


A NON POLLUTANT SOLUTION TO OUR ENERGY CRISIS.

Your typical city dweller doesnt know just how much coal and uranium he burns each year. On Lake Shore Drive in Chicago where the numbers are fairly representative of urban America as a whole the answer is (roughly): four tons and a few ounces. In round numbers, tons of coal generate about half of the typical city's electric power; ounces of uranium, about 17 percent; natural gas and hydro take care of the rest. New York is a bit different: an apartment dweller on the Upper West Side substitutes two tons of oil (or the equivalent in natural gas) for Chicago's four tons of coal. The oil-tons get burned at plants like the huge oil/gas unit in Astoria, Queens. The uranium ounces get split at Indian Point in Westchester, 35 miles north of the city, as well as at the Ginna, Fitzpatrick, and Nine Mile Point units upstate, and at additional plants in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire.

That%u2019s the stunning thing about nuclear power: tiny quantities of raw material can do so much. A bundle of enriched-uranium fuel-rods that could fit into a two-bedroom apartment in Hell's Kitchen would power the city for a year: furnaces, espresso machines, subways, streetlights, stock tickers, Times Square, everything even our cars and taxis, if we could conveniently plug them into the grid. True, you dont want to stack fuel rods in midtown Manhattan; you dont in fact want to stack them casually on top of one another anywhere. But in suitable reactors, situated, say, 50 miles from the city on a few hundred acres of suitably fortified and well-guarded real estate, two rooms worth of fuel could electrify it all.

Think of our solitary New Yorker on the Upper West Side as a 1,400-watt bulb that never sleeps that the national per-capita average demand for electric power from homes, factories, businesses, the lot. Our average citizen burns about twice as bright at 4 pm in August, and a lot dimmer at 4 am in December; grown-ups burn more than kids, the rich more than the poor; but it all averages out: 14 floor lamps per person, lit round the clock. Convert this same number back into a utility supply-side jargon, and a million people need roughly 1.4 gigs of power 20141.4 gigawatts (GW). Running at peak power, Entergy two nuclear units at Indian Point generate just under 2 GW. So just four Indian Points could take care of New York City 7-GW round-the-clock average. Six could handle its peak load of about 11.5 GW. And if we had all-electric engines, machines, and heaters out at the receiving end, another ten or so could power all the cars, ovens, furnaceseverything else in the city that oil or gas currently fuels. THE CHANCES OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IS 1:10000


         We the undersigned,


Nuclear Energy is a thing of more inportance in America. The stunning thing about nuclear power: tiny quantities of raw material can do so much. A bundle of enriched-uranium fuel-rods that could fit into a two-bedroom apartment in Hell's Kitchen would power the city for a year: furnaces, espresso machines, subways, streetlights, stock tickers, Times Square, everything even our cars and taxis, if we could conveniently plug them into the grid. True, you dont want to stack fuel rods in midtown Manhattan; you dont in fact want to stack them casually on top of one another anywhere. But in suitable reactors, situated, say, 50 miles from the city on a few hundred acres of suitably fortified and well-guarded real estate, two rooms worth of fuel could electrify it all. Some are scared of them but an accident has about a 1:10000 chance of happening. I know of only one nuclear energy plant in Arkansas in Bentonville and it is safe, and helps energy. They do not pollute the air either. Thanks for reading my leader.

signature
goal: 2,000
 
sign petition! Already a Care2 member? log in
 
 
 
 
 
 
Increase your signature's impact by personalizing your letter
I agree to Care2's terms of service. We respect your privacy. Your email address is used to confirm your signature and is NOT displayed publicly.  
 
We signed the "More Nuclear Energy for America" petition!
# 37:
4:02 pm PDT, Oct 2, Name not displayed, California
# 36:
9:30 pm PDT, Sep 22, Name not displayed, Wisconsin
# 35:
10:07 am PDT, Sep 13, Jamie Scott, Texas
# 34:
9:19 am PDT, Aug 1, Arjun Panyam, Virginia
# 33:
9:20 pm PDT, Jul 30, Andi Alnwick, New York
# 32:
3:07 am PDT, Jul 28, Steve Klein, Canada
# 31:
9:55 am PDT, Jul 22, Name not displayed, Germany
# 30:
12:36 pm PDT, Jul 21, Name not displayed, California
France produces 80% of its electicity from nuclear energy. As a result, they are the developed nation polluting the less. It can be done!
# 29:
8:41 am PDT, Jul 19, Glenda Jasper, California
# 28:
5:02 pm PDT, Jul 16, Dominic Paz, California
We need to reduce the demand for oil and the easiest way to do that is to convert our power plants to run on nuclear fuel.
# 27:
4:37 pm PDT, Jul 12, S Gaston, California
# 26:
7:05 pm PDT, Jul 8, Mike Fitzpatrick, Rhode Island
Nuclear energy is safe, efficient and reliable. It's a no brainer! Europe is getting on board with it. I'd rather have a Nuclear energy plant than a wind farm in my backyard!
# 25:
6:28 am PDT, Jul 3, Christopher Matthews, Connecticut
Why do we the people allow the politicians to dictate the desires of the few? Why do people put the welfare of a fish or bird above that of our nation? Nuclear power is save if properly handled and just like fire will be destructive if let get out of hand. Compare Chernobyl with Three Mile Island to see my point. We must begin to rely upon ourselves, not other countries for our energy needs. Nuclear power is a start and we are almost too late. I urge all people to understand that global warming is not the problem, not making use of our resources is.
# 24:
1:43 pm PDT, Jun 26, Jessica Smith, Alabama
# 23:
6:10 am PDT, Jun 26, Jerrry K. Allen, Georgia
# 22:
5:59 pm PDT, Jun 25, Kevin Benedetto, New York
# 21:
4:44 pm PDT, Jun 25, Wendy Proctor, New York
# 20:
3:55 pm PDT, Jun 25, Robert Proctor, New York
We, as a nation, can no longer stand still while we deplete our enegy supply. Nuclear energy is clean, inexpensive and efficient. Build more nuclear power plants. It's a matter of economics and national security and needs to be started soon.
# 19:
3:09 pm PDT, Jun 25, Rhett Trappman, New Mexico
# 18:
10:09 pm PDT, Jun 23, Stephanie Fleming, Virginia
Norway gets their energy from Nuclear power and are independently wealthy. Others have used Nuclear for years, as well: Sweden, Spain, Hungary, Slovenia, Netherlands....I think it's time we get over this 'nuclear is bad' thing.
# 17:
4:49 pm PDT, Jun 22, Name not displayed, Maine
# 16:
4:32 pm PDT, Jun 21, Wesley Williams, Indiana
I agree we need more energy and this is the quickest way with present tecknowledge
# 15:
3:37 pm PDT, Jun 19, Todd Williams, Illinois
If we can build them for our navy why can we not build them for for public consumption. An aircraft carrier has 4 nuclear power plants. Nearly all of our subs are nuke powered. a carrier can go 10 years + before refuling thier reactors. Lest not forget our navy has also never had an accident.
# 14:
6:55 am PDT, Jun 19, Mary Clarity, New Jersey
# 13:
6:55 am PDT, Jun 19, Mary Clarity, New Jersey
# 12:
4:52 pm PDT, Jun 18, B. Scott Williams, Utah
In not many years we will be near an electrical energy crisis. Why am I saying this? Take a look at the increases in petroleum based fuel due to not keeping up with demand. The prices have increased more than 200% in one and a half years. We have not built a new refinery in 30 years and have operated as if we are capable of keeping the supply import balanced. With this in mind we did not consider the long term impact as demands increase globally. Our future electrical power demands will increase due to increase in population, increase in the number of businesses and new products that require electricity. As we move more toward electrical devices our power demands will greatly increase. When we factor in an aging power grid we will need upgrades and new resources to deliver and store this power. The near future need will be not only more energy but also a grid system that can store electricity as well as deliver it. How is this possible? Take a look at superconductors. If it sounds too much like science fiction, it is because you are not aware of the new strides being made in basic research and the short term impact it will soon have that engineers can develop into a practical system. If we don't get nuclear power started we will not have a grid system to replace/upgrade because we will have another energy crisis by regional shortages and expensive repairs to a old unmanageable grid. Either we fix the problem of more electrical energy first while we have time to be ahead of the growing curve so that we have time to get the grid technologies developed and implemented or we will face two problems to fix under a crisis management scenario at the same time. Let's wake up and get realistic, it is the future that we are not able to plan for by keeping the same demagoguery. Thank you, BSW
# 10:
11:53 am PDT, Jun 17, Johnathan Salas, Arkansas
# 9:
11:51 am PDT, Jun 17, Allison Lunsford, Arkansas
We need nuclear energy, there is one in my home state in Bentonville and it has no problems.
# 8:
11:30 am PDT, Jun 17, Roger Lunsford, Arkansas
THis is definetly what we need for our environment.
# 7:
11:27 am PDT, Jun 17, Leeann Harrington, Arkansas
This is easy and non pollutant, its a simple solution for global warming and our energy problem.
# 6:
10:50 pm PDT, Jun 15, Pam Boland, Georgia
# 5:
1:17 pm PDT, Jun 15, Carson Rhodes, North Carolina
# 4:
8:29 pm PDT, Jun 13, Dave Sennett, Pennsylvania
# 3:
12:08 pm PDT, Jun 13, Cara Gubrud, Minnesota
# 2:
6:32 am PDT, Jun 13, Name not displayed, New York
# 1:
10:46 pm PDT, Jun 12, Matthew Lunsford, Arkansas
This is a great environment thing we need.
  • View Signatures:
  • |<
  • <
  • 37
  • >
  • >|
Copyright © 2008 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved