Moving into the next decade of the 21st Century, the fight to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels is growing stronger. And while the Department of Energy is pushing millions of funds into alternative energy, such as wind farms, hydroelectric plants, and hydrogen fuel cells, the president is pushing a return to a classic, but domestic form of power.
Nuclear energy is one of the areas President Obama aims to develop, and has allotted $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to construct two new power plants in Georgia. The reactors will be part of the first new nuclear construction in 31 years.
According to the Department of Energy, in 2008, nuclear power was the third-largest generator of American electricity, behind gas and coal, producing 806 billion kilowatt-hours or one-fifth of our electricity. In this country, nuclear power is utilized in 31 states. With 104 reactors, the United States operates more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world.
However, in recent decades, the U.S. government and the American people have been adverse to nuclear power after a partial meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island in 1979. The meltdown did not cause any deaths or lead to any detectable health issues, but it caused an immediate cessation of new nuclear plant construction in the United States.
“On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we can’t continue to be mired in the same old stale debates between left and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs,” said President Obama about nuclear power.
Obama’s $3.8 trillion 2011 budget proposal to Congress will contain $36 billion in new federal loan guarantees for new nuclear facilities. These new guarantees will join $18.5 billion already allocated for such tasks that have yet to be spent. The move has the support of moderate Democrats and Republicans, including former Republican presidential rival Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Obama acknowledged that nuclear energy does have some “serious drawbacks,” notably concerns over the security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. These are concerns that he also stated needed to be addressed as a candidate during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Some critics suggest President Obama is making the wrong move. Erich Pica of The Huffington Post calls the president’s plan a “raw deal” saying, “if anything, the challenges facing the nuclear industry have grown worse.”
Pica mentions a potential lack of safety regarding the reactors. Noting FBI documents that call many nuclear facilities “target rich” for terrorists and places of possible proliferation, Pica said he is very alarmed. He, like many critics, also point out the growing lack of space for nuclear waste. One such site, Yucca Mountain in Nevada can no longer be used and the increasing pressure to reprocess spent fuel is “dangerous and costly.”
Supporters view the move as a step in the right direction. Supporters say that while focus on alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar, and water are great, they cannot meet the current or future demands of energy that nuclear power can. They also point out the fact that despite being possible targets for attack, the reactors and plants are in fact very strong and very safe.
Regardless of both sides of the debate, experts are glad the president is moving to address the nation’s energy crisis.
Be the first to comment on this article!