I got through to 40 folks in Glen Rose, Texas, where the “other” nuclear plant is in Texas.  Of the 40, 10 hung up on me, 28 said the nuclear plant is a great thing and only 2 had negative things to say and that was only because of on-site storage of waste.

The President of the Glen Rose Chamber of Commerce called me this morning.  He told me that since 1990, there have been zero incidences of environmental or health issues, and that the nuclear plant provides over 90% of their tax base.  Their state-of-the-art high school is second to none and they have the nuclear plant to thank for this.

He went on to tell me that two new reactors are on the table in Glen Rose, and that opposition is almost nonexistent (which coincides with the survey).  Also, the new reactors’ water will be returned at a cooler temperature, not warmer, than when it was withdrawn.

After researching in-situ uranium mining (near my home) for over a year, it has become quite evident that nuclear energy is a completely different ball game.  NRC (federal) regulates and oversees nuclear energy, while our feeble TCEQ (state) regulates mining.  While in-situ uranium mining historically exhibits a 100% chance that the water will be left in worse shape than before they start mining, nuclear energy plants exhibit only isolated incidents of mishap. 

For general knowledge, Australia and Canada produce so much uranium that it has become stockpiled, hence the recent drop in value ($138 down to $49 per pound).  There is absolutely no need to tamper with our water in the Evangeline Aquifer to acquire uranium.  The Goliad Project is driven by greed and nothing else.

So, there you have it.  That’s what the survey says.  A documentary on nuclear energy is scheduled for tomorrow night (Tuesday) at 8:00 p.m. on CNBC.  Be sure to watch it.