US to build two new nuclear power stations

President Barack Obama said the project would create thousands of jobs

President Barack Obama has announced more than $8bn (£5bn) of federal loan guarantees to begin building the first US nuclear power stations for 30 years.

Two new plants are to be constructed in the state of Georgia by US electricity firm Southern Company.

Mr Obama said the plants would be "safe and clean" and were needed to meet the country's future energy needs.

There have been no new nuclear power plants started in the US since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island.

The accident was caused by the partial core meltdown of one of the reactors at the site in Pennsylvania, which resulted in a release of radioactive gases into the atmosphere.

While the president said the US had not "broken ground on a ... new nuclear power plant in 30 years", some US nuclear plants only became operational in the 1980s, despite construction beginning years earlier.

'Well-paid jobs'

MARDELL'S AMERICA This one plant will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared with a similar coal plant - it won't persuade all the environmentalists, but it is an argument that does weigh heavily with some of them Mark Mardell Read Mark's thoughts in full

The president said the project would create "thousands of construction jobs over eight years and then hundreds of well-paid jobs" when the facilities become operational.

He added that it was "only the beginning" of efforts to develop a new generation of safe and clean energy-efficient technologies, which would help fight climate change.

The two new reactors will be built at an existing nuclear facility in Georgia.

Southern Company said the work would create about 3,000 construction jobs and 850 people would subsequently be permanently employed when the reactors became operational.

'Meet energy needs'

"On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," said President Obama.

THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT Partial core meltdown of one of the two reactors at the site, on 28 March 1979 Caused by a faulty valve which allowed large amounts of reactor coolant to leak Resulted in radioactive gases being released into the atmosphere About 140,000 people evacuated from the local area No fatalities, but dispute remains over long-term health impact Most significant accident in the history of the US nuclear power industry The reactor in question remains mothballed, but the other at the site is still in operation

"To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple."

Southern's chief executive David Ratcliffe said the president's announcement was "an important endorsement in the role nuclear power must play in diversifying our nation's energy mix and helping to curb greenhouse gas emissions".

There are currently 104 operating nuclear reactors across 31 states in the US, which provide about one-fifth of the country's electricity.

Meanwhile, there are currently 56 new nuclear reactors being built around the world.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Commentary

Why we shouldn't go nuclear:

1) Price: The price to set up a nuclear reactor far outweighs the benefits of making one. This fact alone, where reactors are not cost conscious should tell us not to waste our money on them. This is especially true when we are running deficits in our budgets and bleeding money in every direction. So why waste money now with alternatives?

2) Safety: Each facility is a terrorist attack waiting to happen. Remember Chernobyl? If someone were to bomb a working nuclear facility, you'd have a working Chernobyl in our back yards. Each facility is a liability to our safety. What if war occurs? Do we want the enemy to be able to give us 20 Chernobyls all across the country?

3) Nuclear Waste: We have no where to store it. Yucca mountain is the only place that has been looked at but is not accepting nuclear waste because the people of Nevada don't want it in their state. Assuming Yucca does open, it would be filled instantly. Yes, there is that much nuclear waste and it's currently stored on site at each plant. If each plant were to ship their waste to Yucca, again, it would be filled immediately. Some say we'd need a new Yucca mountain yearly to keep pace with our nuclear waste.

A new Yucca yearly? We can't even approve 1, where will we be able to get more?

4) Alternatives: Solar, wind, and geothermal are nearly untapped. If we mandated a law that said every home must have a solar panel up on their roofs and that the government would pay for 90% of it's cost, then we would have more energy than we'd know what to do with.

We'd actually export our oil simply because that solar energy would more than meet our needs. Wind is already being tapped as well but not to the degree it should be.

I used to be in favor of Nuclear energy a while back until I learned the prices associated with adopting it. It seemed like the answer to our Energy crisis. I learned that every solution comes with a cost.

Nuclear Energy's cost is far too high.