Featured Advertisers
Snow Closings
Tue, Feb. 09  -   -  Mobile  -  RSS
YOUR TOWN:  Caroline | Culpeper | King George | Fredericksburg | Orange | Spotsylvania | Stafford | Westmoreland
  

Make a post about this story on FredTalk. Get a printer-friendly version of this page. E-mail this story to a friend.

Visit the Photo Place

Captain Atom he ain't

Let's talk nuclear energy

Date published: 3/26/2009

CONCURRENT with President Obama's release of federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research a couple of weeks ago, the White House published a memorandum stating that, with the action, the administration was "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making." The clear implication: The Bush crew, blinded by ideology, had ditched objective science. Mr. Obama, by golly, would reverse that foolishness.

Fine. Then let's talk nuclear energy.

Achieving energy independence, moderating climate change, and stimulating economic growth are three clear Obama goals. All would benefit from a renewed effort to embrace nuclear power as an alternative energy source. Yet that focus is fuzzed: We're still stuck in 1979, when an accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., frightened the nation back into the nuclear Dark Ages.

The timing was unlucky: Just two weeks before, Hollywood had released a film called "The China Syndrome," which depicted the terrifying results of a nuclear-plant meltdown. Whereupon, a combination of mechanical failure and human error at TMI caused a tiny release of radiation--and a huge public reaction.

In the three decades since the TMI incident, a dozen studies have concluded that those who lived near TMI suffered no ill health effects from the episode. The plant has been cleaned up and Reactor 2 placed in "monitored storage." There was no catastrophe, and in fact, TMI validated the effectiveness of federal containment regulations. Yet the incident, with some human assistance, haunts U.S. nuclear-power policy.

Safety measures at nuclear-power plants worldwide are extensive. The one exception has been Soviet Union plants, which Moscow built without adequate containment facilities. Thus, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

These days, the International Atomic Energy Agency monitors the 439 reactors operating worldwide. Operators undergo rigorous training; inspections are rigorous. Consequently, nuclear is proving a safe, relatively cheap energy source. Pakistan, Japan, China, and India are among countries swiftly pursuing atomic power. In France, 78 percent of the electricity comes from the atom, giving that country the cleanest air and cheapest voltage in the entire world.

Currently, 104 reactors produce electricity in the United States, including those at Lake Anna and Surry. All of these facilities generate about 20 percent of the nation's energy--and 70 percent of all clean energy, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group.


1  2  Next Page  


Follow us on
twitter
fredericksburg.com Facebook page


Date published: 3/26/2009


Most recent reader comments:

Viewing all 2 comments. (Sorted in reverse order, with most recent post at the top.)

Display comments on this page. | Sort:

PLEASE READ: These reader comments are not moderated. Each user is solely responsible for any message (s)he posts here. The Free Lance-Star does not endorse the views expressed within these comments. All users who post to this Web site must agree to the terms of the FredTalk User Agreement. We rely on our readers to police themselves, and report any content that violates our User Agreement. In accordance with our User Agreement, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms. Any reader can report inappropriate content by clicking the "Report this post to admins" link at the bottom of each comment. You need not be registered to report a post.

Is Nuclear power more expensive than coal-power? (posted by larryg , Mar. 29, 2009 8:51 am)   
I think the answer is yes it is. so Question #2 - is Solar and Wind more expensive than coal power? The answer to that question is also yes. Question #3 - in the LONG RUN - is wind/solar more or less expensive than NUKE power? Question #4 - if it turns out that in the LONG RUN that wind/solar is actually CHEAPER than NUKE Power what will the response be from the advocates of NUKES?

Real Solutions (posted by MisterBee , Mar. 28, 2009 9:11 am)   
We need real energy solutions, nuclear, clean coal, our own oil resources, not some fantasy of Obama and the global warming bots, like wind and solar power. If wind and solar were really feasible, then the private market would have gotten into development 35 years ago. Leave it to the government to dump billions down the wind/solar sinkhole.

What do you think?
Enter your FredTalk username and password to post a comment on this story. If you are registered on FredTalk or another part of this site, use that login here. Otherwise, you can just REGISTER here... .

Posting guidelines

1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
2. Please avoid offensive, vulgar, abusive, hateful or defamatory language.
3. Agree to read & follow THE RULES.
4. Use the "report to admins" link for posts which violate the rules.

Username:
Password:

Post title:


Please keep it brief: (512-character limit)
Please make sure CAPS LOCK is off. Posts in ALL CAPS will be deleted.)


By checking this box, you agree to the terms of the FredTalk User agreement.