Here's another CNN article for you guys. Yesterday, the Department of Energy announced its decision to sponsor Babcock & Wilcox (an energy company) and the Tennessee Valley Authority in designing a new generation of small-scale nuclear reactors. They aim to have these reactions functioning by 2022. The last time any ground was broken for nuclear reactors was in 1974, so this is a big deal to say the least. Furthermore, this is only the first award out of a $452 million program to facilitate the development of small-scale nuclear reactors.
The new reactors are known as small modular reactors (SMRs) and are about a third of the size of existing nuclear reactors. These reactors could also be manufactured in large factories before being transported to sites (these sites could also include areas that until now were too remote to support large reactors). They are also less expensive and safer, they can be located underground, and they can run longer on the same nuclear fuel compared to current nuclear plants. However, each can produce only 180 megawatts of power while the largest reactors can produce 1,000 megawatts. Then again, the relatively small energy output could allow reactors to increase our nuclear energy output in small increments as demand increases rather than in huge leaps.
For the time being, the designs also haven't gained federal approval yet. Advocates of this new technology claim that it has the potential to transform and expand the nuclear energy industry, while critics contend that the concepts haven't been tested thoroughly enough. Some critics also claim that this new nuclear source can't complete economically with the cost of natural gas and coal. Given the cost of nuclear energy and the recent nuclear meltdowns in Japan's Fukushima plants after the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, is it a good idea for the Obama administration to pursue nuclear power?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Given the recent advancement mentioned above won't be ready for another 10 years or so, it seems like the Obama administration will have to consider nuclear energy as a long term investment that may not contribute to the energy independence that was talked about in the campaign. Because utilizing natural resources would allow us to become energy independent quicker, it seems like this would be the first priority. However, as nuclear energy becomes more feasible, economical, and implementable with investment, it could be a great investment.
Though the benefits of this program, including the creation of American jobs, are certainly appealing, I am skeptical of anything that will not be complete for another 10 years. In the long term, this project may prove itself a brilliant "investment," as Wyatt calls it. However, it seems strange that $8 billion has been awarded to a program for 2022 when there is a 7.9% unemployment rate in 2012. Still, I suppose that if the current unemployment rate is not receiving any treatment, we might as well prepare for the future.
Although the completion of this project may not be ready for another 10 years, it must be understood that becoming energy independent is not an overnight job. There is no doubt that natural resources are a viable method to rendering this nation energy independent, but only so much can be generated from wind, solar, etc. Yet, the overwhelming costs of funding these investments in conjunction with the possibility of nuclear meltdowns are large turnoffs. I believe while it might be prudent to invest in these small nuclear reactors due to their being compact and more efficient, the overall cost stands as a deal breaker.
I agree with Kurtis in that any project that deals with shifting our dependency from oil and coal to alternative energy sources is going to be a long-term project. If we keep postponing these projects in hopes of finding better solutions, who knows when we will finally make any improvements and progress. Therefore, I think that at this point, nuclear power is a good investment to benefit us over time. However, it is impossible for a single alternative energy source to replace oil and coal; it is important for us to invest in other natural resources along with nuclear power.
Post a Comment