Author: dylancal

by

Obamas visit to India on nuclear power

Liptak, Kevin. “On High-profile India Visit, Obama Says Progress Made on Nuclear Sticking Point.” CNN. Cable News Network, 25 Jan. 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/24/politics/obama-india/index.html>.

In this article we read about a visit that president Obama made to india in order to talk to Indian leaders about their nuclear programs. The US government along with the indian government, have began a cooperative program which will allow for US firms to work with the indian government in developing their civilian nuclear plants. They have ran into many issues due to the lack of cooperation by the indian lawmakers but president obama and the indian prime minister stated that they had discussed the issue and had made a few steps toward setting up the plan for sure. The US hopes that the improvements that they are making here will help them in gaining improvement from the indians and balance the level of support between russia and the US.

I feel that is is good that were are traveling to other nations in order to help them in securing their plants while also providing them with state of the art equipment so that they can produce nuclear energy more efficiently and in a safer way. I also feel that we should help other countries with the development of nuclear power plants so that they can begin to change from dirty resources to something that if correctly regulated could be effective.

 

by

Russia helps Iran build nuclear plants

Levs, Josh. “Russia Steps up Nuclear Plans in Iran as Talks near Deadline – CNN.com.” CNN. Cable News Network, 11 Nov. 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/world/meast/iran-russia-nuclear/index.html>.

In this article we see a growing nuclear power in iran which has been greatly encouraged by the russians. The russians have announced plans to build new nuclear reactors in iran which has made the international community concerned. The plans encompass the building of 8 new nuclear reactors for the use of nuclear power. The russians have also planned with iran that all of the used fuel be sent back to russia so that russia can dispose and store the nuclear fuel. The israeli prime minister was against building the new reactors but has no option but just to see how things unfold. Also there have been allegations between iran and israel but they have seemed to have stayed passive for the moment.

I feel that it is not bad for iran to receive the help from russia to build the 8 reactors if it is for nuclear energy but if iran starts using these plants to develop weapons it might be difficult for other countries to end their nuclear programs. Also i feel that iran should be able to build their own nuclear power more without the help of russia but due to the high restrictions imposed on iran russia was forced to step in and give iran a fair chance at the nuclear power race. It is also crucial for the world to keep israel and iran in a passive state in order to avoid any potential conflicts or use of wmd’s.

 

by

Japan sends nuclear waste to the US for disposal

Mckirdy, Euan. “Japan Agrees to Hand over Nuclear Material to United States.” CNN. Cable News Network, 25 Mar. 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/world/asia/us-japan-nuclear-fuel-deal/index.html>.

In this CNN article we see that the US and Japan were discussing a plan on how to transport japans nuclear waste form the Fast Critical Assembly(FCA) in Japan, to a secure facility here in the United States. The pledge that both the US and Japan signed was meant to show that these two nations were going to continue to promote improving nuclear safety and security around the world. The US started a program to prompt the disposal of HEU and Plutonium in order to keep it out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. The US has extend its support to other nations especially now that the US is in talks with the iranians about their nuclear program and the tension has risen on the korean peninsula. The US agreed on the delivery of 700 lbs. of weapons grade uranium to be transported to the US, so that it can be degraded and used in a safer way.

I feel that the US is doing a good thing in wanting for countries to dispose of their unused plutonium and maybe downgrading it, but I don’t agree with that nuclear waste being transported from other countries thousands of miles away to the US and maybe causing a huge disaster on route to these repository plants. I also don’t know where the US is going to put all of this radioactive material because it seems that the US hasn’t figured out what to do with its own nuclear waste much less with the waste of other world nations.

 

by

Nuclear waste and the people who pay for it

Ahlers, Mike M. “Hot Nuclear Waste, Cold Hard Cash, and You.” CNN. Cable News Network, 16 May 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/16/us/nuclear-waste-money/index.html>.

In this CNN article we learn that for over 30 years, the US government had been collecting a fee from the power companies in order to be able to dispose of the nuclear waste that we have lying all over the country. After a battle between the department of energy and many power companies and state regulators they managed to win and end the collection of the fee. The fee was being charged a tenth of a cent for every kilowatt hour of power produced by nuclear power this all adds up to about 15 to 20 cents on the monthly electric bill. these numbers might seem miniscule but all of these fees amounted to about $750 million in fees per year. These fees were all placed into a fund which has about $31 billion dollars and is growing yearly through interest by $1.3 billion. Many of these companies have found that a lot of the nuclear debris still hasn’t been disposed of and there is now an estimated amount of about 2,000 tons of waste added yearly to the rowing number of 70,000 million tons of nuclear waste.

When we see how much money has been collected and how much the government has actually done with that money its disappointing and it shows our governments lack of interest in the safety of its people and its land. Also I feel that the government should have let the plants know about the fee instead of taking a percentage of the income and using it to invest into failed nuclear waste plants such as the nuclear repository plant in nevada on the Yucca Mountain. One other big issue is that a lot of this waste has to be left alone for a number of years before it can be disposed of, if we dont wait then there could be many consequences.

 

by

How Fukushima changed world’s attitude to nuclear power

Kottasova, Ivana. “How Fukushima Changed World’s Attitudes to Nuclear Power.” CNN. Cable News Network, 12 Mar. 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/12/business/nuclear-power-after-fukushima/index.html#top_of_page>.

This article talks about how the worlds view on nuclear power has changed due to the recent nuclear disaster that occurred in japan. after the japanese nuclear meltdown many of the nuclear power runned nations were stunned due to the high regulations that japan has on its plants also the effects made many countries think twice about their nuclear plants safety. Some statistics were taken to see the effects of the Fukushima incident and they found that before the accident 442 plants in 30 countries were operating and in 2012 15 reactors had closed. Although 12 reactors had closed recent studies show that there are now 435 active reactors in 31 countries and about 68 new plants are being constructed. Japan stopped it nuclear power program and are thinking of restarting, while in germany they closed 8 reactors and they are now considering changing from nuclear to renewable energy. Switzerland is following in germany’s footsteps and hopes to get rid of nuclear power by 2036. The US and France, two of the worlds biggest users of nuclear power are thinking of securing their reactors more but are not considering a change to other power sources.

I feel that this article was helpful in showing us how the worlds nuclear power was disoriented after the fukushima incident. This article also provides key statistics which help us learn more on certain countries nuclear programs. One of the most surprising things that I noticed from this article were that a few years after the incident the world was back on nuclear power with 435 reactors in 31 countries and with the undergoing construction of about 68 more reactors. This showed me how the world moved on from the nuclear incident and instead of keeping the number of reactors leveled decided to add more reactors which only means more potential problems for these countries and their counterparts.

 

by

Nuclear Licensing renewals by the NRC

Enerknol research. (2014, November 14). NRC Resumes Nuclear Power Plant License Renewals. Retrieved December 7, 2014, from http://breakingenergy.com/2014/11/10/nrc-resumes-nuclear-power-plant-license-renewals/

This article published by Breaking Energy written by Enerknol research discusses the future of the US nuclear power plants. They point out how the Nuclear regulatory commision has ended there two year licensing suspension and is now extending the nuclear license renewals. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has concluded that about 74 nuclear power plants will resubmit there renewals papers in 2044-2049. Although they are allowing for nuclear power plant to submit their renewal applications, there is also going to be added criteria into these applications. One of the added criterias is the environmental impacts that the power plant will have, what it will do with the radioactive waste the plant creates, and how much will be spent on nuclear fuel storage. There is currently 17 applications being looked at by the NRC and there are at least 7 more power plants applications expected by 2015.

I believe that the NRC has done a good thing by lifting their application renewal suspension and allowing for these plants to have extra time in submitting their applications. Although they might have given them a little too much time they are still allowing for nuclear power plants to operate here in the US. From the looks of things the US is going to have a successful run with nuclear power and hopefully we develop more efficient way of producing energy without the big environmental impacts and all the radioactive material. One thing the NRC can’t stop doing is checking up on the power plants and making sure they have good security.

by

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant(WIPP) Nuclear Waste Center

Associated press. (2014, December 6). Mishaps at nuke repository lead to $54M in fines. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mishahttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mishaps-at-ps-at-nuke-repository-lead-to-54m-in-fines/2014/12/06/1e835448-7d68-11e4-8241-8cc0a3670239_story.html

 A few days ago the Washington post along with the associated press wrote this article on the New Mexico nuclear waste facility. The article talked about some violations that the plant had committed, so the Department of Energy along with the state are now going to sanction the waste isolation pilot plant (WIPP) for $54 million dollars. The US government is finding WIPP because they failed to comply with the handling and processing and did not advise the regulators of the changes they were implementing, this cost them about $36.6 millions dollars. The second major violation was there dumping violation in which the state is sanctioning WIPP $17 million dollars. These types of accusations and fines are some of the things that are leading to debates on whether to keep WIPP open, which is up to the state government and the Department of Energy.

These types of things have occured way too many times and its good to know that the US Department of Energy as well as the state are following up and sanctioning these places. Many disastrous events have happened because the safety committees never check up on these facilities but this time I feel that they did a good job keeping up with. Although I don’t believe they should begin to question whether to keep the plant open, they should sanction them, especially because it is a nuclear waste facility. If the government began to put rules like this on food and other source that americans use the US would be a safer place. This is relevant to nuclear power because after were done with the nuclear rods we have to send them and put them somewhere safe and efficient.

 

by

Nuclear Power Revival

Harder, A. (2014, November 23). Can the U.S. Government Revive Nuclear Power? Retrieved   November 23, 2014, from  http://online.wsj.com/articles/can-the-u-s-government-revive-nuclear-power-1416777789

 In this Wall Street Journal( WSJ) article the author Amy harder discusses the nuclear power issues that the issues is and will face. She talks about how the Obama administration has set out to try to revive many of the nuclear plants and maybe build new plants in the future. It has been said that as the US begins to have a more dependent natural gas society the need for nuclear plants will decrease not only because of the causes of Fukushima and the high cost for building nuclear reactors but because the US simply doesn’t need nuclear energy anymore. Not only is the US having a nuclear drought so is the rest of the world, it has been observed that as the use of coal and nuclear energy has decreased, the use of natural gas has increased more than ever before. Another big factor is that it is cheaper to produce natural gas than to produce nuclear energy, for example, it cost about $65 dollars to produce natural gas energy, but it cost about $92 dollars to produce nuclear energy. After looking at the statistics the US has opted for natural gas and not nuclear energy.

I dont think that the US should solely base the production of energy on natural gas and should probably take the risk into investing on nuclear energy because you don’t always know what the world has in store for the human population although it might seem that other power sources are the way to go. Also we should think about the environment and what is better for it, but yes it does cost more to produce nuclear power which is a negative. Through all of these negatives the US should also take into account which of the power source will produce the most power and will be more efficient while producing the least toxic materials for the environment and humans.

 

by

CNN Nuclear Power plants

CNN Library. (2014, August 6). U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/us/u-s-nuclear-power-plants/

 In this article the CNN library gives some facts about the nuclear reactors and how they are managed. They stated the the US has 100 licensed commercial nuclear reactors that operate in 31 of the 48 contiguous (touching) states. The US government compiled a commision named The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) whose job is to inspect and help assess all of the threats to the nuclear plants in the country. Out of those 100 reactors 65 of them are pressurized water reactors water the other 35 are boiling water reactors. Since the events in 2001 the US has increased its security at nuclear plants and has limited the entrance of any kind. The NRC had divided the country into 4 regions on which each region contains certain states and each state contains its nuclear plants. For example Region 1, contains 26 reactors in 8 states, region 2, contains 32 reactors in 7 states, and region 3, contains 23 reactors in 6 states, and region 4 contains 19 reactors in 10 states.

I believe that the US has done a good job of maintaining and securing their nuclear power plants, but we could probably do more for this type of energy source. It has been said that the US is trying to distance itself from nuclear power and as of right now the number of nuclear plants will decrease rapidly and the price for electricity will increase because the nuclear plants create about 20 percent of the US’s energy. I also feel that the US has done good by creating the NRC and allowing it to do its job unlike the FDA and other government inspection agencies.

 

by

Nuclear Power

Bayh, E., & Gregg, J. (2014, November 17). Before we close more nuclear power plants,

we need a national conversation. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/17/before-close-more-nuclear-power-plants-need-national-conversation/

 

In this article published by Fox news, the two reporters talk about the positives of using nuclear energy in our towns. They discuss how the closure of the plants will affect jobs, increase carbon emissions and will increase electricity rate. They present some startling evidence in which they state that, existing nuclear plants produce 20% of the US electricity, they provide 100,000 jobs, and pay billions in local, state, and federal taxes. It has been reported that last year the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant produced 26% of the new england area energy during the cold weather. They also pointed out that after the San onofre and the kewaunee nuclear plants closed there were lots of carbon emission problems because they had to go back to burning other less efficient power sources. Therefore they suggested that we should not be closing the plants but keeping them open so that we can reduce emissions and produce cleaner energy.

I agree with this article because we can see how nuclear power plants are helping local, state,and federal governments while developing thousands of jobs and powering homes faster and cleaner. Although many people say that using nuclear power is dangerous I agree but it is also very efficient and i would be willing to pay the cost for nuclear power plants. I also believe that if the united states is trying to produce cleaner energy and is trying to distance itself from coal and natural gasses, nuclear energy is the way to go because not only does it generate jobs it also stimulates the economy and reduces carbon emissions in the millions of tons. While many people might feel that nuclear energy is too dangerous or expensive, I feel that this type of energy is the future of the united states and its partners.