Nuclear energy emits zero carbon dioxide, and helps end dependence on foreign oil. Yet, nuclear energy still seems not to be the choice policy by congress. The reason for not using a greener energy source is somewhat unclear. Most believe that it involves the great amount of time (almost 10 years to be approved and built) and expensive price tag which makes investors unlikely to support such projects. Although President Obama promised to look into nuclear energy as the next step to energy independence, only two new nuclear sites have been approved by regulatory boards. Nuclear energy while a viable option seems to just be stuck under red tape.
Michael Rocus
http://www.economist.com/node/17254442?story_id=17254442
I think a big concern with nuclear power plants is safety. The Three-mile island accident is a haunting reminder of how easily something can go wrong. Chernobyl is an even scarier thought. Both of those meltdowns were caused by a small human error. When someone makes a mistake at a hydroelectricity dam a river may flood at worst but if something goes wrong at a nuclear power plant you can lose whole cities. For this reason the private sector fears the responsibility of the projects. I agree that the government needs to take this up with strict regulations or provide incentive for private businesses to specialize in nuclear power in safe environments.
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to the speech Thomas Friedman gave about sustainability. Friedman argued that in order to keep America from falling behind her competitors we must embrace the future of clean energy. To do this Americans must push for politicians and lawmakers to change policies on energy. Although it may take time to put infrastructure in place for clean energy the transformation must start sooner rather than later. The new nuclear plants mentioned in the article would help our country in the long run even if they are costly now.
ReplyDelete