US to Get 2 New Nuclear Reactors

Without a doubt, nuclear energy is a contentious debate for environmentalists. On one hand, it’s a heck of a lot better than coal because it doesn’t emit greenhouse gasses. On the other hand, it generates hazardous waste which, in it’s way, is a whole lot worse.

Many people were hoping the day would never come, but this week, the New York Times reports that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted 4-1 to grant a license to build two nuclear plants in Georgia. They haven’t approved a license since 1978, so this is a huge step forward for nuclear energy.

The plant is estimated to cost a whopping $14 billion, and $4 billion has already been spent on initial construction.

The one person to vote against the license was Gregory B. Jaczko. He said he voted against construction because, he believes that all the safety issues the agency is trying to implement because of Japan’s Fukushima meltdown won’t be in place by the time the plant starts operating, in 2016 or 2017. However, the design for these new plants is brand new; the new design is more resistent to earth quakes and plane crashes, and better able to cope with power outages.

For instance, large water tanks are perched above the water tanks, so water pumps don’t have to be used in the event of a power outage. The design also allows fresh air to circulate between the concrete shield building (the big dome you see at most reactors) and the liner; this cools the reactor using natural convection.

The two new reactors will be added to the Vogtl plant, which already employs 1,500 people. Once these two are built, the Vogtl plant will be the largest nuclear power center in the country. And, they’re hoping to employ 5,000 people by the time these two reactors are added.

As you can imagine, however, there are plenty of objectors. NPR reports that a coalition called the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy is planning to sue to stop the reactors.

I have to say, I’m against the project. Part of me can certainly see the appeal of nuclear energy, but it’s not clean energy. In my opinion, the waste that’s produced just outweighs the benefit of no offgassing. The world watched in horror during the Fukushima crisis, and I was one of them. Can you imagine something like that happening here?

I know we already have plenty of working nuclear reactors in this country. But it just seems to make more sense to me to take that $14 billion and invest it in clean energy instead.

What do all of you think?