President Obama is trying to win over Republicans and moderate Democrats on climate and energy legislation by strongly endorsing nuclear energy. In his State of the Union address, he revealed that his spending plan for the next budget year is going to include billions of dollars for new nuclear reactors. He is calling for a new generation of nuclear power plants.
However, he has growing concerns for how to deal with the radioactive waste and how much federal money would be needed to support construction costs. Obama's administration has pledged to close Yucca Mountain, the planned multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste.
This just shows Obama's long support of nuclear power. Although this source of energy will cost billions of dollars, these nuclear power plants will help in sustaining the nation's environment.
Ending the Day on a Light Note
1 hour ago
8 comments:
As much as I support creating and using renewable energy, I hope this does not pass until Obama has a firm grip on how to handle nuclear waste. If he's shutting down Yucca Mt, then where will it go? We know little about how to handle nuclear waste, so it could be dangerous if we dont have a plan before hand; it could end up hurting the earth more than helping it for all we know.
Honestly It's about time that we get into nuclear energy. Most of the world is already invested in it and it can't really be all that worse then what we're already polluting the world with.
Even if we have trouble with the waste I'm willing to bet that there are scientists working on that very subject right at this very moment. Most likely in other countries but hey, we are a bit late to the nuclear energy game.
First, I'd like to state that I'm highly against nuclear energy.
To Corinne:
"However, he has growing concerns for how to deal with the radioactive waste and how much federal money would be needed to support construction costs. Obama's administration has pledged to close Yucca Mountain, the planned multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste."
Sure, but where else are we going to put them? The Midwest is the ideal location for nuclear plants. I mean SF, LA, NY, would be great, but yeah, I shouldn't have to explain that.
"This just shows Obama's long support of nuclear power. Although this source of energy will cost billions of dollars, these nuclear power plants will help in sustaining the nation's environment."
Or destroy it. Research Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Too risky IMO.
To Sally:
"As much as I support creating and using renewable energy, I hope this does not pass until Obama has a firm grip on how to handle nuclear waste. If he's shutting down Yucca Mt, then where will it go? We know little about how to handle nuclear waste, so it could be dangerous if we dont have a plan before hand; it could end up hurting the earth more than helping it for all we know."
I'm not pro-environment at all but this is exactly what I'm saying. It's just logical ...
To Jeff:
"Honestly It's about time that we get into nuclear energy. Most of the world is already invested in it and it can't really be all that worse then what we're already polluting the world with."
Wrong. Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity and most of them belong to Europe, most notably France.
Evidence: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html
Yes, it can be much worse. I mean ... it just can. Radioactive waste is no joke. One inhalation of radiation will kill you in the long run and guess what? There's no cure for U-238.
"Or destroy it. Research Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Too risky IMO."
Research how many people die from coal and oil burning plants each year, whether it be from pollution or industrial accidents. You can start here.
How many people died from nuclear power last year? 0. How about the year before that? 0. And the year before that? 0. And so on for decades
Now thats not to say that nuclear power is without risk. But there are multiple redundancies built in to reactors to prevent disaster. Here's a University of Pittsburgh physicist talking about reactor safety:
"Even in the Three Mile Island accident where at least two equipment failures were severely compounded by human errors, two lines of defense were still not breached--- essentially all of the radioactivity remained sealed in the thick steel reactor vessel, and that vessel was sealed inside the heavily reinforced concrete and steel lined "containment" building which was never even challenged. It was clearly not a close call on disaster to the surrounding population. The Soviet Chernobyl reactor, built on a much less safe design concept, did not have such a containment structure; if it did, that disaster would have been averted."
No one was killed or even injured in the 3 Mile Island incident, and yet because of the media frenzy no new commercial nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. since.
The fact remains that nuclear power is the only current technology that can be massively scaled, and does not contribute to climate change. You can't say that for solar, or for wind, or for coal (which, by the way, emits 100 times the radiation of nuclear plants.)
Jack, I'm too lazy to quote right now, but I just wanted to point out a very simple precaution. If an accident has the potential to occur, and it's nuclear-related, I don't want those sites installed. The Ukranians, or Soviets, thought they were safe, NY thought it was safe, and right now we think we're safe again. I know risk is involved with every energy-related installation site across the country, whether it be oil, coal, or whatever. Nuclear energy is asking for it. I know you know what I'm talking about and I understand what you're saying as well, but persoanlly, IMO, I don't want my life or other Americans' lives to be in harm's way in the event of a nuclear spill. That's all I'm saying.
I just want to add onto Jack's defense by elaborating on Chernobyl. Many cite that incident as proof that nuclear meltdown can and will happen (Murphy's Law). But if you actually look into the facts and reports of what went wrong, it was not the virtue of nuclear power that caused it's destruction but rather the way it was designed to facilitate that nuclear reaction.
Though my knowledge in nuclear science is rather limited, I think I know enough to explain why Chernobyl was a one time mistake and will never happen again and why it is no longer a credible piece of evidence against nuclear energy.
In a nuclear reactor, a certain amount of energy is inserted into the core to shoot off the initial neutrons to start the reaction. After that, the reaction takes care of itself as neutrons emitted hit other atoms and cause those to emit electrons as well. However, there is one complication and that is the fact that when a neutron is shot off, it is traveling to fast. Engineers designed a type of granite and water structure to contain the nuclear fuel that will slow down the neutrons and further facilitate the reaction. In modern nuclear reactors, should there be a leak, the water will run out of the reactor, allowing those neutrons to speed up and thus slow down if not stop the reaction. In Chernobyl, it was quite the opposite. It was designed in such a way that should something go wrong, the reactor actually sped up and the reaction got out of control, causing a nuclear meltdown. Sadly, I don't remember the exact configuration but if anyone is curious, I will be more than happy to look it up and explain it if necessary. Anyway, with current designs of just the reactor itself, should something go terribly wrong, not much will become of the fuel in terms of meltdowns and the likes.
Moving on, Drew, sure, we don't want to put people's life at risk, but what alternatives do you have right now that doesn't do such a thing? What we're using now, though safe to humans in the short term, will destroy our world in the long term as well as destroy our economic base when oil runs out and everything stops. Nuclear energy, as Jack said, is very easily massively scaled, will not contribute to climate change so it's a huge step forward in combating global warming, and it's safe. I just tried to explain the science behind Chernobyl. No one got hurt in 3 Mile Island and technology today makes the nuclear reactors even safer. We have come a very long way down the nuclear path.
A lot of you guys are worrying about waste and I agree, it is a very big concern. As Jeff said, scientists are looking into how to either use it, store it, or convert it. I don't remember exactly, but there are solutions coming out. I believe there is a way of using it as well as converting it.
I also want to bring up an off-topic but relevant idea. Nuclear fusion. I will let everyone debate that first, if there is a debate, before I put in my points
I really hope Obama pulls this on e off for the sake of a better, cleaner environment in the United States. Let's just hope he can take care of the whole nuclear waste solution so he can start up the new power plants.
Post a Comment