Bill, with all due respect (I know your background, and it's impressive!), it should be noted that the "corrections" are largely your interpretations of the facts. I'm just the messenger. Also, Willie deCamp made the statement about air pollution, not me.

Someone did bring up TMDL -- Bob Martin said the studies DEP is funding will eventually determine what/if TMDL should be established for the bay. Again, I'm just reporting what was said. Whether the state is actually mandated to establish a TMDL for the bay is another story – one I actually would not mind looking into.

As I mentioned, I'd be interested in looking into the TMDL issue. Sounds interesting.

According to the DEP there are 1.4 billion gallons of water strained of all but the smallest organisms and circulated through the plant's cooling system every day. This represents 2.3% of the total water volume of the bay on a daily basis.

Mike, did you ever notice that big blue thing across the bay from Oyster Creek called the Atlantic Ocean? Don't pretend like that volume of water is slowly bringing the entire bay to a boil. Also, those strained organisms are placed back in the water, or have you never tried to fish in that canal? Also - the topic is Nitrogen. You didn't answer the question - since the problem with the bay is nitrogen cause Sea Lettuce to smother bottom life, when are you going to admit that you have made things worse with your lobbying efforts to close Oyster Creek since it will result in even more airborn Nitrogen entering the bay?

Jack, I am not suggesting that the temperature of the bay is being increased. From what I understand the temperature in the outflow canal is raised a few degrees which makes it an attraction to fish. What is being strained and not returning into the bay are micro-organisms such as fish eggs and clam larvae which are not returned into the bay. As far as nitrogen is concerned, I know that Oyster Creek is not a source of this problem. The burning of fossil fuels is one of the largest contributors, along with chemical run-off including fertilizers. If you're saying that the generating capacity of Oyster Creek would need to be replaced by new fossil fuel burning plants, that would not be the case. Since NJ is part of a extremely extensive power grid that is more than adequate to supply any power lost from closing Oyster Creek a new generating source is not needed.
There is also a moratorium on new coal plants and since the cost of building solar facilities, which can be put online much quicker, is in parity with natural gas, there is strong incentive to consider solar for anything required.

Please backup your claim that solar is the same price as natural gas - no way Mike. not even close. Check that master plan again Mike, it's loaded with new Natural Gas facilities that you claim won't be built. Also, how many fish eggs, larvae, and other microorganisms are produced in the warm water of the discharge canal, where marine life reproduces 12 months out of the year instead of the typical 2-4? I never see you factor that into your math.

I did not mean to imply that costs are equal today; only that they are closer than what most media sources say they are:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/11/387108/solar-power-much-cheaper-than-most-realize-study/
I have read the Master Energy Plan and am aware of the plans for natural gas and Christies call to reduce renewable energy standards. That is a whole different issue better discussed outside of this article butsuffice it to say that I personally have problems with that. Same with the closure of Oyster Creek- whole seperate issue but the safety issues are more important to me than any other considerations.

Mike, to cause a problem (an energy shortage) that you knew all along would lead to more fossil fuel consumption and then wash your hands of any responsibility by saying "I'm not ok with that" is the typical irresponsible and unethical garbage that the rest of us are now forced to deal with on a regular basis. It is long overdue that New Jersey politicians realize that pandering to your friends at Greenpeace will acomplish nothing as there is no appeasing a fanatic.

Jack, Let me first state that I am speaking here for myself, not the so-called "fanatic" friends I do have the pleasure of working with at Greenpeace. Haven't come across any fanatics at Greenpeace, or any of the other mainstream environmental organizations I choose to be affiliated with. We, like most folks, simply care about what we are all collectively doing to harm, perhaps irreparably, the one earth we have to take care of. I personally feel that, while Christie has taken some positive actions regarding environmental issues, he has been given way too much credit in this area. The 10 year extension of Oyster Creek's license didn't do us any favors, just allowed Excelon to get around building much needed cooling towers. Reducing Renewable Energy Standards in the EMP will result in the state losing its lead in the area of solar power development and pulling the state out of the RGGI, which resulted in $65 million income income to NJ last year, are all signs of him putting the interests of special interest groups ahead of the environment. Have a happy new year.

No fanatics at Greenpeace? Really? So you're saying that ramming ships at sea, sabotaging security equipment at a french nuclear site, assaulting security officers at a Spanish plant, breaking into a research facility and destroying millions of dollars worth of research crops (that may have solved world hunger btw), and convincing kids to chain themselves to railroad tracks are NOT the actions of fanatics? Your fanatical organization is using fear, intimidation, and violence to achieve your narrow, idealistic view of how to world should be. That's not environmentalism, that's terrorism.