nuclear

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.

 

by

Power Problem for Tennessee

Gang, D. (2014, September 3). Tva’s costly reactor illuminates nuclear challenge.

USA Today. Retrieved September 7, 2014, from  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/tva-nuclear-reactor-challenge/14990433/

 

In Tennessee, the new Watts Bar nuclear reactor is scheduled to start operating in 2015, and will provide electricity to 650,000 homes. However, the project could cost over $4 billion, demonstrating the problems with nuclear power. Eight other reactors across the United States are being decommissioned because of reparation costs and competition from natural gas. If gas prices spike again, nuclear power might become viable, but environmentalists are critical of the dangers of radioactive waste.

 

This article highlights a major downside of nuclear power which is often overlooked: Despite the large amount of power they produce, the reactors themselves do not last forever. One reactor costs $4 billion to build, and in the future, decommissioning it will not be cheap either.  In order to support nuclear power, a country would have to pay for building, maintaining, disposing waste from, and then eventually replacing power plants. Furthermore, constructing  power plants could have an environmental impact, since building massive concrete structures in any location would disrupt the existing ecosystem.

by

Environmentalists for going Nuclear

Fox, M. H. (2014, August 13). The environmental case for nuclear power.

Oxford University Press. Retrieved September 7, 2014, from

http://blog.oup.com/2014/08/environmental-case-nuclear-power/

 

As the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increases, so does the United States’ demand for electricity, which is predicted to increase 30 percent by 2040. The challenge is to meet this demand, but reduce our emissions. Despite renewable energy sources, we still heavily rely on coal, which produces two billion tons of CO2 per year. Nuclear power can replace coal, and virtually eliminate emissions. Despite the risks, no one has ever died from a reactor accident in the United States, and thousands die annually from coal- burning related diseases. Even globally, the worst nuclear accidents are localized, while coal constantly affects the global atmosphere.

 

Nuclear power definitely makes a strong environmental case when put in perspective. People get so caught up on freak accidents like Chernobyl that they fail to see that nuclear power can ultimately help solve the problem of carbon emissions.  From an environmental standpoint, nuclear power is far from perfect, but our reliance on coal is disastrous. We have to accept that as of now, we cannot power the world on solely solar and wind generated energy. However, we have to act fast in order to cut our emissions, and relying more on nuclear power would, at the very least, allow for more time to find a better power solution.

 

by

More Nuclear Power is a Mistake for the Future

Jampole, M. (2014, September 2). Nrc storage decision may lead to building of more dangerous   nuclear power plants. Retrieved September 7, 2014, from OpEdNews.com website:          http://www.opednews.com/articles/NRC-storage-decision-may-l-by-Marc-Jampole-      Nuclear-Energy-Plants_Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission_President-            Obama_Radioactivity-140902-662.html?show=votes#allcomments

 

The NRC’s decision to allow power plants to store waste in above ground casks is a mistake. Using nuclear power for electricity is dangerous, and less money will be spent on solar and wind energy. With a half- life of 25,000 years, some waste will continue to exist far into the future, posing a threat to future civilizations. We should not leave the problem of spent nuclear fuel to future generation, no matter how far in the future a problem could arise.

 

This article highlights an important environmental and economic moral debate: whether is it ethical to leave problems of today to future generations. Despite the NRC’s ruling, the casks will not last forever, and may pose a problem much further in the future than we could predict. However, one also has to be realistic. Who knows what life will be like in 25,000 years, and if human life even survives that long, small amounts of nuclear waste stored safely in casks would probably not be a major concern. As of now and the foreseeable future, nuclear energy is more viable than any solar or wind options.

 

by

Confidence in USA’s Ability to Store Nuclear Waste

Conca, J. (2014, August 29). Confidence — What Does It Mean For Nuclear Waste?

Forbes Magazine. Retrieved September 7, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/08/29/confidence-what-does-it-mean-for-nuclear-waste/

 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a statement which paves the way for storing nuclear waste for over a hundred years. This ruling allows for new nuclear power plants to be built without waiting for a final waste repository. This restores the country’s confidence in its ability to handle nuclear waste, which was lost when the 2009 final waste repository plan was cancelled. Storing used fuel in dry casks is safe, cheap, and emits as much heat as a home heating system, which decreases with time. Furthermore, new reactors can burn spent fuel and produce ten times more energy.

 

A principle environmental concern over nuclear power is the radioactive residue left by spent fuel. If not handled property, dangerous radiation could spread, threating the atmosphere and living creatures. The durability and cost effectiveness of dry cask storage helps alleviate most of these fears. Using the waste as fuel for future reactors solves the problem of running out of space, and makes the nuclear power process cheaper, more efficient, and safer. With advances in technology like these, we may be on track to a clean energy source faster than expected.

 

by

A Nuclear Future for Maryland

Ervin, D. (2014, August 26). Confidence –the nuclear option [commentary]. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-nuclear-power-20140826%2C0%2C5377479.story

 

Maryland is attempting to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from electricity by 36.5 percent by 2030, and it needs nuclear power to do so. In addition to an existing nuclear power plant, newer designs enable the construction of plants that produce more energy than they use. Solar and wind energy systems only produce power about a third of the time they are active. Nuclear power plants, although expensive to build, produce power 90 percent of the time they are active, and only cost 2.14 cents per kilowatt hour of production. In the long term, nuclear energy is cheaper, cleaner, and an option in which Maryland must invest.

 

Nuclear energy is definitely an attractive option for clean energy since it can produce lots of power and emits virtually no carbon dioxide. Exploring safe nuclear energy options could be the task of future environmental scientists since it seems like a viable option for the nation’s power needs. The key word is safe, however, since hastily building expensive nuclear reactors without proper safety protocol and waste-disposal methods could lead to environmental and economic disaster.