I know there was already a post on President Obama's endorsement of nuclear power, but there have since been developments in budgeting for new nuclear power plants. On Tuesday, the President is expected to announce a loan guarantee for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia. According to the article linked to above, the "loan guarantee was authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act. If the reactors are built and operate profitably, the borrowers will repay the banks and pay a fee to the federal government in exchange for the guarantee; if the borrowers default, the federal government will repay the banks." This post at Mother Jones says, "The chances of default on the government-backed loans are 'very high–well above 50 percent,' according to the Congressional Budget Office. 'If they go belly-up, taxpayers get to pay it,' said Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear." The increased budget allocation for nuclear power plants–essentially a sign of a major shift to nuclear power–is clearly risky for the federal government and thus a potential burden for taxpayers.
Aside from the initial costs of building nuclear reactors, there are safety costs to be considered as well. This article mentions tritium (Hydrogen-3, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen) leaks at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The leaks have not been shown to have had any effect on public health, but, says one of President Obama's nominees to join the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the leaks show that the plant does not "'have [its] act together.'" There is clearly potential for more dangerous accidents in connection with a plant that failed to prevent tritium leaks into the groundwater.
Problems like the tritium leak at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant might support arguments for the construction of new power plants; new plants could promise solutions to the problems that threaten public safety and the reputations of old plants. However, there's still the question of how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. The Obama administration's plan to close Yucca Mountain, a repository for radioactive waste, makes this question especially troubling; with a shrinking number of places to store nuclear waste and no clear method for disposing of it, nuclear power cannot currently be considered a sustainable practice.
Thoughts on the economic effects, safety, or sustainability of nuclear power?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think going through with this plan despite the "well above 50 percent" chance that the government backed loans will default (and therefore become a tax payer burden) is not very wise. Obama needs to try to gain back the support and trust of tax paying citizens before he tries to implement risky plans like this. If the reactors go "belly up", tax payers are surely not going to be happy and Obama will most likely lose a lot of support. Tossing around money in a risky fashion is what got us into the economic mess we're in now, and it definitely will not help get us out of it.
I highley disagree with this whole nuclear powerplant type of buisness. I belive it is outrageously stupid because all it will do is make us more financially unstable. What is this going to do for us citizens? In my opinion i beleive nothing, all it will do is help the government. I believe that this will make everyone unhappy.It will go through but it will be a bad decision. Nobody knows what this nuclear powerplant is capable of doing.
"''If they go belly-up, taxpayers get to pay it,'"
No, I won't. I'd rather go to jail.
"The leaks have not been shown to have had any effect on public health, but, says one of President Obama's nominees to join the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the leaks show that the plant does not 'have [its] act together.'"
Reason enough for me.
"The Obama administration's plan to close Yucca Mountain, a repository for radioactive waste, makes this question especially troubling; with a shrinking number of places to store nuclear waste and no clear method for disposing of it, nuclear power cannot currently be considered a sustainable practice."
I certainly hope it won't ... in the U.S. of course. Foreign nuclear power plants can fail for all I care. That was their choice so they can reap the consequences.
Although its super important about the regulation of the nuclear power plant so that there are no nuclear meltdowns, I think we need more emphasis on what to do with the nuclear waste that comes from the power plants. Do we really know what were doing with the waste? Storing it away sounds like a really simple process, but realize that we have to store it away for hundreds of thousands of years. How can a nation that has only been in existence for 200 years deal with storing nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years?
Just on a sidenote, I thought it was funny how my word verification for this post is "nomeltso"
Post a Comment