The future of nuclear energy in the United States has recently become a hotly debated issue. There has not been a nuclear reactor built in the United States in over thirty years, but as the desire to shift to more environmentally friendly energy sources and the need to address growing energy consumption have risen, interest in nuclear energy has had a grand resurgence.
Back in February, President Obama announced that the Energy Department had approved $8.3 billion in guaranteed loans - authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act - for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia. Furthermore, applications for the construction of other nuclear power plants are on the rise. There are the obvious reasons for supporting nuclear energy growth: it is a clean and efficient energy source, new plants could potentially provide thousands of new jobs, and the prices of fossil fuels - from which we derive most of our energy today - are on the rise.
Of course, nuclear energy is not without its drawbacks: high costs and waste disposal issues are at the forefront of numerous issues holding back the spread of nuclear power. Cost has always been a concern for nuclear energy, and with solar photovoltaic systems now able to produce electricity cheaper than nuclear energy systems, the future of nuclear energy is suspect at best.
With the probable closing of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, the disposal of toxic nuclear wastes has become a critical issue. Over 100 temporary storage sites have been constructed to contain nuclear waste while the fight over Yucca Mountain continues, but it is obvious that a more permanent storage area is needed in the immediate future.
Furthermore, the United States refuses to make use of nuclear reprocessing to extend supply and reduce cost. This results in ever larger volumes of waste that we currently do not have the means to dispose of. While nuclear energy touts itself as a green alternative, until the disposal issues are taken care of it is anything but. Truly green alternatives, such as solar energy, do not have this issue.
So, while the government backs nuclear energy, I do not. Until costs are lowered and the toxic waste is properly disposed of, I believe there are many other alternatives - wind, solar, and geothermal, for example - that are much more promising and significantly more deserving of our time and money.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am really glad I read your blog, I had no idea nuclear power plants are to be constructed in our country. We have talked about the harms of nuclear energy in my other classes and it astounds me that our government is ready to through its support behind it.
ReplyDeleteIn past years our country and its leaders have become more involved in the environment. However, I can't help but wonder if their new found support for nuclear energy is to switch from fossil fuels or if they have ulterior motives. It isn't news that nuclear power plants are able to build nuclear weapons. Will these plants have the capacity to create these weapons? If so, this leads me to believe our leaders are supporting these plants to create weapons, not in the sole interest of the environment. Do you think their motives are for the weapons, purely in the interests of the environment, or both?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html
According to the New York Times article, their motives are to create jobs, help the environment, and to gain Republican support for a broader energy bill.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html
Personally, I think it is mostly about getting Republican support. We could create more jobs and help the environment by developing renewable energy sources like solar and wind.
I think it is highly unlikely that these reactors will be used to produce nuclear bombs, mainly because Russia is the only country in the world with more nuclear weapons than us and the government would not - in all likelihood - make the public aware of the construction of facilities that will be used to produce weapons.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html
I wonder how accurate the Federation of American Scientists website is about the status of world nuclear forces. I’m sure that most information about nuclear weapons is classified and this number may not be accurate but that point is not really relevant.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that 85% of US fuel consumption comes from fossil fuel sources and only 6% comes from renewable sources. To me this number is staggering and the amount of fossil fuels burned in the US must be reduced dramatically. While I support renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar, I think steps must be taken to improve efficiency in existing and future infrastructure for renewable energy sources to become feasible.
As harmful as nuclear power is, I think it may have to be used to reduce fossil fuel consumption. I think nuclear power should only be considered after renewable sources are implemented to their full potential.