Be it 3 Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl in Ukraine, or now Fukushima in Japan..these catastrophic meltdowns of Nuclear Plants have raised big questions as to the future of the Nuclear Energy field.  They have the potential to do catastrophic damage when the plants fail, but output extraordinary amounts of energy with little environmental impact….minus of course the radioactive waste from it.  With Enviro-nuts always attacking unclean energy up to the level of congress with the cap & trade systems, how is it Nuclear Energy remains solvent and untouched by large protests?  We see much more action towards a non-existant pipeline and spilled oil versus what could be universal armageddon if a plant exploded.

The reasoning is why I remain neutral on the matter….because its too expensive to simply shut them down and get rid of them.  They stay alive for much of the same reasons coal plant still exist; they cannot be closed right away.  Nuclear plants simply have the deck stacked against them in the long run with growing power on the environmental left and perhaps a cold shoulder from the hesitant right.  The disaster in Japan takes the core of nuclear power use today into question with unforeseen circumstances taking place that perhaps do not justify its use.

My own opinions are stick with what we have now due to the incredible amount of energy we can obtain, but any kind of growth with new plants seems near-impossible.

In America, the three main reasons are as follows:

One, Poor Infrastructure.  America has a low-quality infrastructure rating according to the American Society of Civil Engineers….in terms of power, that means the generation of and foundation for the power plants themselves.  Nuclear plants are of no exception, and their risks of failure can cause devasting results due to these faults.

“All 104 nuclear reactors currently operational in the US have irreparable safety issues and should be taken out of commission and replaced, former chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gregory B. Jaczko said.” -(1)

Also, the waste from the Nuclear plants.  A plant produces radioactive waste, which is masde fun of in countless cartoons as hot green oil-drums of stuff that turn fishes into mutants, and give people an extra arm and limb.  Where does all of this waste go, particularly in the United States?  Enter Yucca Mountain;

“The U.S. government has set aside an area of the Western Shoshone Nation, Yucca Mountain, as a final repository for high level nuclear waste from the U.S. nuclear industry. At present, the Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting a scientific investigation of the site that will cost $63 billion and will allow for the repository to be opened by the year 2010. Although they are still investigating the area, the DOE is no longer looking for a site elsewhere. The tribe is extremely concerned about observed health and environmental effects on its members, but currently the federal government has not initiated or implemented any official health studies, remedies to the environmental pollution, programs for early detection of environmental disease, or disease surveillance programs.”

Nevada Senator and Senate majority leader Harry Reid has done major work to stall any kind of dumping of radioactive waste on this mountain…for obvious reasons.  The waste is already an environmental hazard, and it has no possibly way of being reused or safely eliminated…therefore it cant only be stored and held in remote locations away from the general public.    Something seems very rotten about this far from an environmental standpoint…

That leads to the final issue; policy issue.  Does it not seem wrong to have the nuclear facilitates of other states to tell Nevada they will be the sole recipient of their nuclear waste?  Why should the citizens of the great state of Nevada have to deal with the toxic waste the state of New Jersey or Pennsylvania produces?  It goes to show any form of state sovereignty doesn’t exist when the bureaus in the federal cabinet find some moral high-ground to stand on….but it seems hard to justify in this case seeing as how the alternative is “we have no-where else to put it”.

What does this all mean in terms of Fukushima?  National oversight of energy is not a good  idea because it doesn’t produce safer, smarter, or even better results.  A nation as small in mass as japan could not have kept up with the maintenance of the plant in order to perhaps prevent the plant from its ultimate demise….a story you will find on the other blogs.  top-to-bottom control of the nation’s energy is dangerous..leave the power with the states alone to determine their own decisions with their energy, maintaining of said energy facilities, and their decisions on how to deal with their waste from other states nearby.

 

 

 

1)  http://rt.com/usa/us-nuclear-reactors-should-replaced-592/