Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

somegridplayer t1_ix3e9hg wrote

Reply to comment by saltthefries in Higher energy prices are a call for more renewables and maybe nuclear, not more pipelines by TeacherGuy1980

> I'd be surprised if a nuclear power site could be agreed upon in less than a decade

It won't ever happen. You can't even build a fucking cell tower without some asshole claiming it'll give their children cancer and fall down and set your entire town on fire.

9

mini4x t1_ix3t67u wrote

Why can't we rebuild Pilgrim?

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix6aowk wrote

A company owns the site, and the existing outdated, out moded and used up plant must be dismantled first.

1

saltthefries t1_ix3j357 wrote

Lol I was trying to be generous. It also seems like the Merrimack Valley is a somewhat politically convenient dumping ground in MA, with a river for cooling.

1

movdqa t1_ix3z3c0 wrote

Seabrook, NH has a second pad for another nuclear plant. NH exports power as it has Seabrook and the AEP NG plant in Londonderry. An additional plant would provide additional capacity for export.

3

saltthefries t1_ix4cm4r wrote

Yes, expanding nuclear production at existing brownfield sites makes sense. To clarify my earlier comment, greenfield = new location currently not permitted for nuclear power.

2

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix6ahb2 wrote

Federal law allows companies the authority to over-ride local zoning and state impediments to cell tower placements.

1

somegridplayer t1_ix7jtu5 wrote

Federal law allows local governments to deny construction permits for cell towers, however, such denial must be based on a reasoned approach; otherwise the FCC is authorized to preempt the local decision and grant the permit. The 1996 Telecommunications Act preserves local government zoning authority as it relates to cell tower siting, but it provides three key protections for firms seeking to erect a tower:

Local ordinances may not “unreasonably” discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. Tower siting policies must not favor one company, or one technology, over another;

Local government may not impose a blanket prohibition against the placement of telecommunications towers; and

Local ordinances may not impose more stringent “environmental effects” limits on radio frequency emissions than those adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Stolen from... I just closed the tab. Anyhow, in some cases the carriers will just throw up their hands and say "fuck, we'll put it somewhere else, enjoy your shitty service" if the locals are piss babies.

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix7kdz5 wrote

Half of the towers in my town are outside of the zoning regime for location. Tower owners regularly deal with the issue and construct where appropriate.

1

somegridplayer t1_ix7l408 wrote

In the case of my town, the location was absolutely perfect for my part of the town. The only catch was a massive douchebag across the street trying to sell their abomination multi million dollar home. So they took up the reign of "towers cause cancer! it'll fall down and set the day care not actually near where it would fall on fire and kill your children!" and shit like that.

A shitty website and a couple street fairs later and lots of mailers, AT&T noped out after listening to their bullshit at a town meeting about it and decided to put it elsewhere, which did not improve our neighborhood's reception at all.

And nobody still wants to buy the douchebag's house.

1

wittgensteins-boat t1_ix7nqxx wrote

5G and subsequent generations of highest frequency band cell networks are likely to be on telephone poles.

1