Nuclear power
Sometimes I think I'm runnin' out of energy
Seems like we use an awful lot for
Heatin' and lightin' and drivin'
It seems we’ve finally gotten Schoolhouse Rock’s message about the energy blues, as it is clear we can no longer continue to rely on non-renewable sources in this energy crisis. With the move toward clean green energy, many, including the Obama administration, believe that nuclear power is one of the ways we’ll achieve high marks in clean and green.
Energy ... We're looking to try and find some new kinds.
Energy ... Exploring to try and make a new find.
Nuclear and thermal and solar,
If we miss we'll get colder and colder.
Energy ... We've gotta stop usin' you up.
Although we’ve now come to realize the problem is our planet getting hotter and hotter, we are still singing the same energy blues thirty years later. So is a reinvestment in nuclear power really the way of the future?
It’s looking that way. President Obama made the announcement last week that the federal government would be offering an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to a company looking to build two reactors in Burke County, Georgia. The money, approved under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is the first awarded of the $18.5 billion allotted under the act. And President Obama has promised to triple this number, underscoring his support for nuclear power initiatives. The administration sees it not only as a way to create new industry, jobs and clean energy, but also to get republican support for the energy bill.
As of today, there are 104 operating nuclear reactors in the US, supplying about 20 percent of our nation’s electricity needs. Generating nuclear power doesn’t give off greenhouse gases like petroleum does, but many people are concerned about the radiation that comes along with the power. According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) radioactive materials are heavily monitored with numerous safety regulations and specifications in place to limit radiation exposure. The NRC also monitors offsite releases (AKA dumping “low-level” radioactive waste into waterways, into sites that leak into groundwater sources, or simply burning the waste) and restricts this to levels below those allowed in the 1960s-70s, according to the site.
Many proponents of the nuclear power debates believe it is reasonable enough that since nuclear plants rarely see catastrophes of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island proportions, it is safe and “clean.” Interestingly, though, beyond the normal dumping of low-level waste, no one is entirely sure what to do with the high-level irradiated fuel rods after they’ve been spent. For now, it’s stored in on-site reactor buildings. In France, that waste is reprocessed, but until the US decides that doing that will not lead to nuclear proliferation, we’re going to have a lot of waste on our hands.
And nuclear power gets even ‘dirtier’ than that, with tons of harmful environmental impacts. Then, there is the issue of human health. We’ve recently discovered that at least 25 percent of the 104 existing nuclear plants are now leaking radioactive tritium (linked to cancer if ingested or inhaled through the throat or skin). The State Senate in Vermont recently voted to close down Vermont Yankee, an aging plant found to be leaking tritium. They’re still looking for the source of the leak.
As we’re seeing 20-30 year old plants becoming leaky and even defunct, and we realize the existing environmental impact of a normally functioning plant, is Obama’s budget going to be incentive enough to build a second fleet of US reactors? Residents stay tuned; I’m sure they’ll patch those leaks soon enough, and with new plants we won’t have to worry about it for another 20-30 years (putting it off until later has always worked for us in the past).
So don't be cross when momma says turn that extra light out.
Just turn it off till we find us a fuel that never runs out.
If everyone tries a bit harder,
Our fuel will go farther and farther.
Energy ... We're gonna be stretchin' you out.
Source: BecauseAction.com
