All's we here is we talked with the state or our politicians? Let me point out corporations build plants not the state or politicians! When are you going to get it? Where ever a plant is built will impact the bay, so that point is just dumb. We need to have a real economic development committee. A group out talking with corporations who would actually build something.

The infrastructure is here and currently exists. The largest way to minimize the impact is to not create a new area of destruction. It's not just the infrastructure but the security force and measures also currently exist. Moving to another location will only drive up costs in this area because security will remain in force here for years too!

Stop playing politics and focus on the obvious. Find a corporation who will come to Lacey or maybe Ocean Township will build a new plant on their side of the Forked River in Ocean Township and have there municipal tax rate subsidized.

Offer tax breaks, on a temporay basis, to plant employees, who live in Lacey, if they give back salary and benefits to keep a power generation plant in Lacey.

Who would want to do business in New Jersey now after seeing how NJ politicians pander to fanatics like Jeff Tittel? Here we have a nuclear power plant that was built and paid for 40+ years ago that has not killed, injured, or made sick a single member of the public in more than 4 decades of continuous operation and yet Jeff Tittel and the beaurocrats in Trenton have managed to close the plant citing imaginary environmental concerns. Who would spend billions on a new facility just to have some activist with high priced lawyers shut them down?

Has anyone seen the people lined up elbow to elbow on the Rt 9 bridge this past week? It's December, what are they doing there fishing? I thought Oyster Creek was supposed to be some environmental menace, so why would there be fish there in December? Are those fisherman wrong or is Jeff Tittel just afraid of nuclear power? Ask yourself again in 2019 when your electric bill starts to go up.

It appears the residents need to conduct a study as to the size, shape, markets that can build out the power plant property and remaining industrial park site. What type of industries are available and what are we willing to host here in Lacey is the question? Watch the exchange between the TC and myself on TV21 from last nights meeting. Mr. Most stated it is up to the state to decide? Also, don't worry they will take care of everything? Now that is scary!

@Peter, the state has already mandated, what ever gets built will require cooling towers. Hot water not is not an issue!

"No Nukes, please."

NIMBYs I have a question for those of you who oppose nuclear energy, why did you move here? Was it because of the low municipal taxes due to the power plant? Was it for a job as the town and school system grew? Was it for the opportunity that Lacey had to offer for small businesses? If you are opposed to a new plant in Lacey, I wonder if you also opposed the windmills at Wal Mart? A new nuclear plant would be the best form of electricity. However, the TC blew it when they had the opportunity and leverage to attract such a plant. The proposed solar farm is a joke, not only inefficient and must be subsidized by the taxpayers. The environmentalists will oppose it like they opposed the Mojave Desert Solar Power only this time it will be the timber rattlers, turtles, birds etc… won’t be able to warm themselves or build their ground nest. If you are opposed to a new plant I suggest you turn off your lights, AC, heat, refrigerators, TVs and unplug your electric cars.

as long as tittle is around we all will be living at little house on the prairie. turn off all lights, heat, gas, oil, everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he is against everything and everything!!!!!!!!!!!! totally ridiculous. i am an avid hunter and fisherman but oc did not totally ruin the bay and the surrounding area, thats that. 40 years ago all was fine 30 years ago all was fine. lets look at overbuilding, fertilizer, pollution runoff into the bay from overbuilding, (no water shed) if you know what that means, yes the plant could use cooling towers but that is another super large animal in itself!!!!!!!! wait and see the ramifications from them. salem 1/2 and hope creek are prime examples. there are major problems with both systems but we still need nuks, thats that.

For the record, I am 100 % behind building a new nuclear plant here in town. I moved to Lacey and spent a year working on the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station until the plant shut down in '79. I worked at over 14 different nuclear plants throughout the country. My position is based on reality and would remain very doubtful a new nuclear plant could be approved. Therefore focus our efforts on a gas fired plant. O by the way, I also worked at 6 gas and oil powered plants.

Maybe Tittle should talk with Patrick Moore co-founder of Greenpeace. Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace who currently co-chairs an industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy. Moore says that his views have changed since founding Greenpeace, and he now believes that using nuclear energy can help counteract catastrophic climate change from burning fossil fuels. Says Moore, "The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles." Moore also cites reports from the Clean Air Council that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions.
"Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually," says Moore. "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely." Moore points out that the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. He predicts that advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

good job energizer bunny. most of the coal plants are going to be forced to shut down soon anyway so the only choice is nuks but like my last post do your homework on the cooling towers, they are actually just as bad or worse. i would love to post some of the articles i have on energy sources but they are like 100 pages long. covers all power and pros and cons. tim a gas plant would be ideal but i believe it is already going to be built in west depford by LS power, 738 mw starting 1st quarter next year.

This state needs more than one plant to be built. Many plants are setting old and the time line to get something built is years! If for no other reason newer plants with improved technology will generate power with less pollution.

If the current locations of nuclear power plants, in the continental United States of America, is the only place in the entire country where spent fuel rods can be stored, then the federal government should stipuate to the energy industry that these are the only sites in the entire country where a nuclear plant can be operated. Either upgrage to newer and safer plants at current locations or get out of the business. Why let big industry possibly contaminate virgin land with new sites? The industry will fight over current locations where infrastrucure, security, storage, and evauation systems are alrady in place. The majority of the people living around the current sites made the consicious choice to live there. Why expose more citizens to possible danger against their will if unnecesary?