For the first time in over 30 years the United States is set to begin construction of new nuclear powerplants. Not since the nuclear reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 has the U.S. attempted to contruct an new sources of nulear power. The creation of new nuclear powerplants in the United States can help this nation to reduce its dependency on non-renewable sources of energy and according to president Obama the construction projects for the two powerplants, which are set to be constructed in Georgia, would produce,"thousands of construction jobs over eight years and then hundreds of well-paid jobs" in the factories when they become operational.
Nuclear power currently provides around 1/5 of the nation's electricity. Do you believe that nuclear power provides a good alternative energy source given that nuclear powerplants produce indisposable nuclear waste, which can itself be harmful to the environment?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518670.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would rather store the nuclear waste than have less efficient power plants throw up tons and tons of carbon dioxide daily. Technology is around for a reason lets utilize it. Whats one mountain (Yucatan storage site which was stupidly recently put on hold) use against global disaster, how many acres are we using to store non-nuclear garbage in landfills why not just take a couple more till Fusion power comes round? A
ReplyDeleteI do not know much about nuclear power, but I can't help but think that this would be very bad for the ecosystem. I guess we'd have to ask ourselves is the amount of jobs this is creating worth the harm it does to the ecosystem?
ReplyDeleteI think that this will be great IF AND ONLY IF the United States can find a suitable location to use as a nuclear waster repository. The US had planned to develop a remote area near Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but recently the government has deemed it unsuitable for waste storage. If nuclear power is properly developed it could significantly reduce our dependence on crude oil and coal--both of which cause great environmental harm. In addition, construction for nuclear plants will create many jobs, much like the construction of new public resources created jobs under FDR during the New Deal.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Evan raises a great point about fusion power arising; right now plants use nuclear fission, which produces a lot of energy, but its energy production is dwarfed by the theoretical output of nuclear fusion. Only through using nuclear power can research and development for nuclear fusion power plants receive adequate funding and take precedence over other topics of research in alternative energy.
I would also like to bring up the point, and although i cannot directly take you to a link but , there was an innovation (saw on msnbc or something im sure you can Google it) that there was an innovation that allowed either the recycling or dismantling of harmful nuclear isotopes, and thank you rich for reminding me it was the Yucca not Yucatan, i feel quite silly for that. So lets build a couple dozen more nuke plants, throw the crap in the Yucca facility sprinkle a lil of that magic dust over it and call it a day.
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.taragana.com/science/2009/11/28/indian-scientist-designs-method-to-reduce-radioactive-waste-172/ this is what i was talking about if i find a more reputable source for this information i will post it aswell.
ReplyDeleteBuilding a nuclear powerplant may sound better than it reality. There could be potential repercussions to this decision. One would be the possiblity of another event like 3 mile island. However, like others have already stated, the main issue would be determining where to store the waste. A
ReplyDeleteI think that we need to be very cautious when approaching the idea of changing over to nuclear power as our main source of energy. Other countries have already full embraced nuclear power, such has France which now has 75% of its power from nuclear facilities. I think that in any case we need to look more at cutting back on wasted energy that is made by transporting and old infrastructure for power grids. If nuclear is the way to go then we need to still make certain that we are streamlining our production of energy.
ReplyDeleteA
I think that it would save the economy a lot and provide a lot of jobs for poeple. Though the hazardous waste is bad but people above have said that there is a way to break down the nuclear waste somehow so there wouldn't be a problem. Unless there is another option for energy i say go ahead with nuclear plants.
ReplyDeleteWhy does nuclear power necessarily have to be our source of alternate energy? Unless it's handled very carefully it could turn into an environmental hazard; taking care of toxic waste is time consuming and could still end badly if mistakes are made. I think the U.S. should put more focus on things like wind farms (perfectly suited for somewhere like Michigan) or solar energy. That would also supply more jobs and an alternate source of energy, but would result in less hazardous waste.
ReplyDeleteUntil we can get to a point where solar and wind can be produced massively, nuclear power is a powerful, clean alternative to our current reliance on fossil fuels. A modern, well-maintained nuclear power plant is clean and safe, as nuclear waste is broken down and reused until it reaches a point where the radioactivity is minimal. The actual externalities are few, but the main thing holding back nuclear power is perceived externalities.
ReplyDeleteSome on the Left have led a campaign against nuclear power that, while it may have been accurate half a century ago, is terribly misinformed today. For those of you with concerns about safety, I urge you to look into the capacities of the modern technology. This is no marketing gimmick like "clean coal."
The other externality is the perceived threat to public safety. Ever since September 11th, many in this country have espoused a wrongheaded fear that doing certain things will open the nation to terrorist attack. When it was proposed that terrorists be tried in court, certain people screamed that such would be the perfect target. Likewise, some would argue that a nuclear power plant would make an irresistible target. We cannot let fear of some abstract threat impede either our rule of law or our construction of clean and powerful energy (especially when organized foreign terrorists haven't succeeded in an attack on the United States in years).
People are irrational; it is far easier to instill a fear into someone than to overcome one. Regardless of the realities of the situation, perceived cost versus perceived benefit is what drives people.
Hannah: if France has switched over to a predominantly nuclear power system, why shouldn't the USA? According to this website the USA produces 20 tons of CO2 emissions per capita each year and France produces 6 tons of CO2 emissions per capita per year. I think that if France's CO2 emissions are nearly 1/4 of the USA's per capita and they use nuclear power that it would be a great reaching point for the USA in order to reduce its CO2 emissions.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap-pollution-carbon-dioxide-per-capita
I think it is a good idea to turn the nuclear power into main energy resource, however, it requires advanced technology to prevent the side-effect of harmful waste. It's possible to approach the goal gradually, but not in rush.
ReplyDeleteNuclear power is not the way to go. I have never heard of a "clean power" as many politicians like to call it, that creates radioactive waste stored in containers and put in a mountain. I feel that wind power and hydroelectric damns are the way to go, as seen in Canada and Europe. These can be built all over the Great Lakes and can produce numerous jobs, more so than nuclear power plants can. More than 2/3's of Canada's energy needs are supplied by hydroelectricity.
ReplyDeletehttp://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/freshwater/consumption/hydroelectric/1
Nick, hydroelectric dams are indeed a positive and clean source of energy, but, to quote from the link you posted, "There have been relatively few large hydro sites developed since [the 1970s] as the environmental and human effects to be avoided or mitigated in such large projects make them increasingly difficult and costly to plan and build." To a great extent, viable dam sites have been exhausted. Tidal power does have much potential in the future as well, but there are obvious limitations on where these can be placed.
ReplyDeleteNew generations of nuclear reactors are set to allow the reuse of what would otherwise be waste, meaning it will not be necessary to relocate the byproducts to a safe storage location. If we are to have any hope of reducing our carbon output in the immediate future, nuclear power must play a prominent role, as the cleaner alternatives are not ready to pick up the slack even with massive governmental investment.
I agree with Hannah in that we should be looking for more efficient ways to use energy instead of starting fresh with an already risky method of production of energy.
ReplyDeleteAnd just because I feel like this is an important topic to discuss, I'll add yet another comment on to this post. Nuclear energy must be but one way forward as we step away from fossil fuels and towards a cleaner system of energy production; renewable energy sources and infrastructure modernization are also vital toward reaching this goal.
ReplyDeleteThe nuclear power bogeyman is at once the Left's greatest victory, in that the mindset has been adopted extensively by the general population, and its greatest failure, as it gravely overstates the risks inherent in the practice, setting us back significantly. While the construction of nuclear facilities has been sharply limited in the past few decades in the U.S., research has still progressed. The reactors that we can construct today and in the near future are further advanced than their predecessors by many orders of magnitude. There have been fewer deaths as a result of nuclear energy than their have been resulting from coal, natural gas, and even hydroelectric power (dams burst; this isn't meant to slight hydroelectric, just reiterating the amazingly low rate of injury). Nuclear power is worth giving a chance.
I personally like the use of nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is clean and environmentally friendly, but there are some drawbacks. Nuclear waste is produced during this process that can take hundreds of years to decay. Also, a nuclear power plant is certainly susceptible to a melt down or possibly a terrorist attack. I do think we need to find new ways to produce energy that are less risky and not as high risk if an unwanted event did occur. I personally like wind power, solar energy, hydroelectric power (in some cases that do not result in a big effect of the ecosystem), and tidal power. (A)
ReplyDeleteI think it helps and hurts. It can help with less dependence on foreign sources of energy which is a positive. However, nuclear powerplants do produce waste and do present a serious risk for the areas surrounding that if it were to have a meltdown or any other serious problem. Overall i think its a start but we need to find better in home sources of energy.
ReplyDeleteI guess there are many pros and cons when discussing nuclear power as an alternative energy source. The waste it would provide would no doubt cause many problems. However, the positives would be bountiful, starting with the increase of jobs. Given our current situation regarding job loss, any idea that is given to help gain jobs back sounds like a good one to me.
ReplyDeleteI do think that we should look at france and other countries who are using a great amount of nuclear power.I think that theoretically it IS a great idea and it definitely deseerves to be further looked into. The idea of providing jobs, such as the CCC did, AND increasing our energy independence at teh same time is FANTASTIC!
ReplyDeleteThere are problems with every type of energy we could use, alternative or fossil fuels. I think it's important to look at what provides a decent amount of energy but is also as environmentally friendly as possible. I also think that it's a mistake to pull in political views--it doesn't matter what the "Left" or "Right" say about alternative energy. What matters is the science behind the decision. I’m still standing behind renewable energy as the best way we could go. Perhaps at this juncture we don’t have the amount of capital to produce the necessary amount of energy from things like wind farms or solar panels, but investing in those—just like people planned on investing in nuclear energy—will help us, and the environment, in the long run. I am no expert on nuclear power, but I find the fact that there’s hazardous waste involved very worrisome. Nuclear waste takes quite a while to decompose, as mentioned by Merritt, and storing it while it does so could prove to be a problem. We as a nation have a tendency towards thinking in the short run (lots of energy, right now) and then suffering from our decisions in the long run (by ruining our environment, just as in the case of fossil fuels).
ReplyDeletePeople are always really worried about nuclear power because of safety, but I took "Physics of Energy and the Environment" and that's not really the biggest problem. Actually, you could crash a Boeing 747 into a nuclear facility and barely make a dent. The more problematic aspect is the fact that storing the waste and making the facility safe has such a huge carbon footprint that it isn't really any cleaner than a coal power plant. Not really alternative energy.
ReplyDelete