The American Heritage Dictionary defines disingenuous as: 1) not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating. 2) Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated. 3) Unaware or uninformed; naive.
If I recall correctly, NRC called for this hearing, with ALL parties (including Exelon) acknowledging that issues do indeed exist which call into question the viability of this particular location.
The fact that the disaster in Japan happened at about the same time as this hearing is purely coincidental. I doubt if an organization like Texans for a Sound Energy Policy could have planned for that event. Without the Japanese catastrophe, the real issues still exist and are still acknowledged by ALL parties attending the hearing.
It seems to me that TSEP was straightforward, sincere, VERY AWARE, VERY INFORMED and not at all naive - all the exact opposite of "disingenuous".
This "Advocate Viewpoint" has all the indications of a sore loser. Do you really think a hearing on a nuclear sight could have taken place without the mention of Japan's devastating circumstances?
Editorial viewpoints such as this are what cause me to question the credibility of the Advocates Editors. BUT - thank the good Lord that we live in a country where we have freedom of speech. Thank the good Lord we live in a country where there are procedures in place that allow individuals to speak up at NRC hearings to STATE THE FACTS. We cannot blindly follow the Pied Piper down a road of destruction.
While I wholeheartedly support the importance of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, there is no way Victoria could be considered a "destination city" for tourism without the many benefits provided by the nonprofits seeking some of those same dollars. I don't know how many people are going to "Bring their boots to Victoria" if there is nothing to see.
Everything went well until a politician showed up. Didn't I hear something from Geanie Morrison that sounded like "keep Exelon in the plan, but I won't support any project that involves groundwater or condemnation" or at least something similar to that? Gotta take a stance Geanie - can't talk out of both sides of your mouth - voters notice those things!
Jerry - does the 189,000 acre-feet, off-channel storage project proposed by GBRA meet the criteria of "double-dipping"? Are there already enough projects identified for the use of that particular water to justify this permit request or is this nothing more than a potential water grab by a greedy water marketer disguised as GBRA? Thanks!
Given the criteria associated with how these funds can (and should) be used, let's give this a chance. Would you rather ALL the money go into a semi-useless community center?
We are blessed with many resources in our area and in surrounding communities that make this plan viable.
Offer up an alternative or SUPPORT the endeavor - don't just complain. Each of you have an opportunity to make this comment section a meaningful tool. Don't waste this opportunity to present positive suggestions on how those dollars should be spent WITHIN THE LAW THAT CREATES THOSE DOLLARS. This is an opportunity to step up and help your community thrive.
A smart decision by/for NRG, but a potential disaster for our region. The odds are that Exelon will now focus on the Guadalupe River project. There has to be someone within Victoria that can connect the dots between water, drought and nuclear development and arrive at the only logical conclusion - there is simply not enough water!
Let me make sure I am getting the facts straight.
Water is not a problem - hmm? I believe I am currently letting my grass and plants slowly die because there is not enough water right now, today, without the thirsty nuclear plant taking it's first sip!
Water is not a problem - hmmm? Our city officials publicly state that water is not a problem, that indeed we have plenty available to us and that ALL of our water rights are senior to those proposed for the use of Exelon. We are currently being subjected to MONETARY FINES if we use too much water at the wrong time. If Exelon were already here gulping up the water, how much earlier would we have become subject to fines - January, March, April? If we indeed had "plenty of water", why would our city be spending MORE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS to acquire even more water rights - I thought they said we had enough! This is because they have lied to all of us about the priority of our water rights!
Water is not a problem - hmmmm? Why is there something so sinister in this whole nuclear issue (greed perhaps) that causes our local government to mislead and lie to the local citizens?
Water is not a problem - hmmmmm? Is our city council so much more informed than our own Groundwater CONSERVATION District that they tried to encourage and pursuade the Groundwater CONSERVATION District to change their water statistics and mislead the local public to make it look like more water was available than there actually is. I get the picture our city council and VEDC wants us to see - rape the area of their surface water, move to groundwater use, lie about the amount of groundwater available, then worry about that problem when it gets here! Once the nuclear plant is up and running, you can't scream "calf-rope". They can't just stop their gigantic need for water - they will just keep drinking and drinking and we will be the one's changing our lives to adapt to their needs.
The use of our most precious natural resource - WATER - should not be taken so lightly. We should not sell or market our water until a full state or federally mandated plan is implemented. We cannot blindly listen to an industry and it's spokesmen (City Council and VEDC) telling us to ignore what we see - THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER!! Walk outside, take a drive, look at the lakes and rivers - THEY ARE DRY EVEN WITHOUT EXELON.
Perhaps GBRA needs to give Exelon the exit door they need. Perhaps GBRA should step up and say "We lied to you and misled you" - and refund Exelon the money they have wasted. Then GBRA needs to start acting like an agency that is here to help protect our natural resource rather than sell it all to the highest bidder.
Look out Victoria - "they come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves"! GREED GREED GREED - LIES LIES LIES!!
Water is not a problem - hmmmmmmmmm!
My God Kenneth, I think you have had a vision. One of the questions regarding water has been whether or not there is ENOUGH. From what I can tell, there is not enough to fullfill ALL of the committments made. You can certainly chop all of the water projects up into smaller pieces and say there is enough water for each project individually (excluding the fact that other projects exist), but you cannot put them all back into one large combined group and say there is enough water to cover all of them! GBRA needs to have their ### kicked for trying to deceive all of us.
Now not to be indignant to you, but you sound like a snake oil salesman if you think I want to rely upon your wisdom that my water future is okay because it might rain up river and I can catch a glass full rolling off a roof or highway.
You appear to be falling into the mode of "who can grab it first" when the answer is NOT TO COMMIT ALL OF IT TO USE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Here I am trying to stay neutral and educate myself when all of a sudden I think I have had a vision - this is exactly what that group called Texans For A Sound Energy Policy Alliance is trying to do. Take this problem where it belongs - take it to our legislature and demand they not whore us out to the highest bidder - you know, COME UP WITH A SOUND ENERGY POLICY (oh my God those words are really starting to sound like great music in my ears).
The Victoria nuclear plant proposal, other energy generation proposals in Texas, our local and state water issue, a state-wide grid system - all of it should be rolled up into one big march on congress with a demand that they come up with something sound (good God there I go again). Meanwhile, no new nuclear construction licensing permits, no new water right transfers and no new developments requiring resources they don't have should be allowed to proceed. Mainly, NO GOVERNMENT MONEY (yours and mine) should be allowed to be used until a STATE-WIDE Plan is implemented.
I see a trend here - No one has water but Victoria! This just reinforces the concern (STATE WIDE!!) that using up our precious limited natural resources that only GOD can provide better get your attention. This certainly has my attention! The abundance of water is offshore. I know desalination of salt water is expense, but do we sell ourselves out in the short-run just to avoid an alternative that MUST be considered.
Wind energy sure is looking better to me. I think Dallas, San Antonio, Amarillo, Victoria and most any other location that does not have an unlimited amount of fresh groundwater or surface water has wind. In fact, if all the hot wind being used in Victoria to defend this project could be piped and sold, we would already have our energy woes cured!
Much of the debate regarding the nuclear energy development is currently being generated by the high cost of gasoline and electricty. Sell out your water, wait a while and find out just how much you will have to pay just to get your water back - if indeed you can!
I feel better now!
Mr. Schusteriet, I guess I am just not as intelligent as you are. You apparently already have all your answers. I have questions and I want answers so I can make my mind up too. I can assure you I will be the devils advocate through this whole process - better safe than sorry and better to seek the advice of experts. So--back to my question - why is the Main Man of Exelon, Mr. Rowe himself, more concerned about the waste than you are? Is there something in this for you that would cause you to take a completely different stance than the nuclear industry itself?
Newsletter
Let's check out "disingenuous".
The American Heritage Dictionary defines disingenuous as: 1) not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating. 2) Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated. 3) Unaware or uninformed; naive.
If I recall correctly, NRC called for this hearing, with ALL parties (including Exelon) acknowledging that issues do indeed exist which call into question the viability of this particular location.
The fact that the disaster in Japan happened at about the same time as this hearing is purely coincidental. I doubt if an organization like Texans for a Sound Energy Policy could have planned for that event. Without the Japanese catastrophe, the real issues still exist and are still acknowledged by ALL parties attending the hearing.
It seems to me that TSEP was straightforward, sincere, VERY AWARE, VERY INFORMED and not at all naive - all the exact opposite of "disingenuous".
This "Advocate Viewpoint" has all the indications of a sore loser. Do you really think a hearing on a nuclear sight could have taken place without the mention of Japan's devastating circumstances?
Editorial viewpoints such as this are what cause me to question the credibility of the Advocates Editors. BUT - thank the good Lord that we live in a country where we have freedom of speech. Thank the good Lord we live in a country where there are procedures in place that allow individuals to speak up at NRC hearings to STATE THE FACTS. We cannot blindly follow the Pied Piper down a road of destruction.
While I wholeheartedly support the importance of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, there is no way Victoria could be considered a "destination city" for tourism without the many benefits provided by the nonprofits seeking some of those same dollars. I don't know how many people are going to "Bring their boots to Victoria" if there is nothing to see.
Everything went well until a politician showed up. Didn't I hear something from Geanie Morrison that sounded like "keep Exelon in the plan, but I won't support any project that involves groundwater or condemnation" or at least something similar to that? Gotta take a stance Geanie - can't talk out of both sides of your mouth - voters notice those things!
Jerry - does the 189,000 acre-feet, off-channel storage project proposed by GBRA meet the criteria of "double-dipping"? Are there already enough projects identified for the use of that particular water to justify this permit request or is this nothing more than a potential water grab by a greedy water marketer disguised as GBRA? Thanks!
Given the criteria associated with how these funds can (and should) be used, let's give this a chance. Would you rather ALL the money go into a semi-useless community center?
We are blessed with many resources in our area and in surrounding communities that make this plan viable.
Offer up an alternative or SUPPORT the endeavor - don't just complain. Each of you have an opportunity to make this comment section a meaningful tool. Don't waste this opportunity to present positive suggestions on how those dollars should be spent WITHIN THE LAW THAT CREATES THOSE DOLLARS. This is an opportunity to step up and help your community thrive.
A smart decision by/for NRG, but a potential disaster for our region. The odds are that Exelon will now focus on the Guadalupe River project. There has to be someone within Victoria that can connect the dots between water, drought and nuclear development and arrive at the only logical conclusion - there is simply not enough water!
Let me make sure I am getting the facts straight.
Water is not a problem - hmm? I believe I am currently letting my grass and plants slowly die because there is not enough water right now, today, without the thirsty nuclear plant taking it's first sip!
Water is not a problem - hmmm? Our city officials publicly state that water is not a problem, that indeed we have plenty available to us and that ALL of our water rights are senior to those proposed for the use of Exelon. We are currently being subjected to MONETARY FINES if we use too much water at the wrong time. If Exelon were already here gulping up the water, how much earlier would we have become subject to fines - January, March, April? If we indeed had "plenty of water", why would our city be spending MORE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS to acquire even more water rights - I thought they said we had enough! This is because they have lied to all of us about the priority of our water rights!
Water is not a problem - hmmmm? Why is there something so sinister in this whole nuclear issue (greed perhaps) that causes our local government to mislead and lie to the local citizens?
Water is not a problem - hmmmmm? Is our city council so much more informed than our own Groundwater CONSERVATION District that they tried to encourage and pursuade the Groundwater CONSERVATION District to change their water statistics and mislead the local public to make it look like more water was available than there actually is. I get the picture our city council and VEDC wants us to see - rape the area of their surface water, move to groundwater use, lie about the amount of groundwater available, then worry about that problem when it gets here! Once the nuclear plant is up and running, you can't scream "calf-rope". They can't just stop their gigantic need for water - they will just keep drinking and drinking and we will be the one's changing our lives to adapt to their needs.
The use of our most precious natural resource - WATER - should not be taken so lightly. We should not sell or market our water until a full state or federally mandated plan is implemented. We cannot blindly listen to an industry and it's spokesmen (City Council and VEDC) telling us to ignore what we see - THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER!! Walk outside, take a drive, look at the lakes and rivers - THEY ARE DRY EVEN WITHOUT EXELON.
Perhaps GBRA needs to give Exelon the exit door they need. Perhaps GBRA should step up and say "We lied to you and misled you" - and refund Exelon the money they have wasted. Then GBRA needs to start acting like an agency that is here to help protect our natural resource rather than sell it all to the highest bidder.
Look out Victoria - "they come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves"! GREED GREED GREED - LIES LIES LIES!!
Water is not a problem - hmmmmmmmmm!
My God Kenneth, I think you have had a vision. One of the questions regarding water has been whether or not there is ENOUGH. From what I can tell, there is not enough to fullfill ALL of the committments made. You can certainly chop all of the water projects up into smaller pieces and say there is enough water for each project individually (excluding the fact that other projects exist), but you cannot put them all back into one large combined group and say there is enough water to cover all of them! GBRA needs to have their ### kicked for trying to deceive all of us.
Now not to be indignant to you, but you sound like a snake oil salesman if you think I want to rely upon your wisdom that my water future is okay because it might rain up river and I can catch a glass full rolling off a roof or highway.
You appear to be falling into the mode of "who can grab it first" when the answer is NOT TO COMMIT ALL OF IT TO USE IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Here I am trying to stay neutral and educate myself when all of a sudden I think I have had a vision - this is exactly what that group called Texans For A Sound Energy Policy Alliance is trying to do. Take this problem where it belongs - take it to our legislature and demand they not whore us out to the highest bidder - you know, COME UP WITH A SOUND ENERGY POLICY (oh my God those words are really starting to sound like great music in my ears).
The Victoria nuclear plant proposal, other energy generation proposals in Texas, our local and state water issue, a state-wide grid system - all of it should be rolled up into one big march on congress with a demand that they come up with something sound (good God there I go again). Meanwhile, no new nuclear construction licensing permits, no new water right transfers and no new developments requiring resources they don't have should be allowed to proceed. Mainly, NO GOVERNMENT MONEY (yours and mine) should be allowed to be used until a STATE-WIDE Plan is implemented.
I see a trend here - No one has water but Victoria! This just reinforces the concern (STATE WIDE!!) that using up our precious limited natural resources that only GOD can provide better get your attention. This certainly has my attention! The abundance of water is offshore. I know desalination of salt water is expense, but do we sell ourselves out in the short-run just to avoid an alternative that MUST be considered.
Wind energy sure is looking better to me. I think Dallas, San Antonio, Amarillo, Victoria and most any other location that does not have an unlimited amount of fresh groundwater or surface water has wind. In fact, if all the hot wind being used in Victoria to defend this project could be piped and sold, we would already have our energy woes cured!
Much of the debate regarding the nuclear energy development is currently being generated by the high cost of gasoline and electricty. Sell out your water, wait a while and find out just how much you will have to pay just to get your water back - if indeed you can!
I feel better now!
Mr. Schusteriet, I guess I am just not as intelligent as you are. You apparently already have all your answers. I have questions and I want answers so I can make my mind up too. I can assure you I will be the devils advocate through this whole process - better safe than sorry and better to seek the advice of experts. So--back to my question - why is the Main Man of Exelon, Mr. Rowe himself, more concerned about the waste than you are? Is there something in this for you that would cause you to take a completely different stance than the nuclear industry itself?