Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Nuclear Power The Alternative

When doing a study on nuclear power in the United States, I found something interesting on how it benefits the overall growth of an economy. This might be something that this country needs because of the current deficit .

Nuclear Power brings overall benefits to the economy.. Although there is the general argument that nuclear power brings major subsidies and cost to an economy, there is an argument that nuclear power benefits and helps an economy thrive in more then one way. In a study done by the Nuclear Energy Institute, in cooperation with PPL Corporation, there were findings that there are economic benefits of the PPL Susquehanna nuclear power plant. The plant, which is located in Pennsylvania, is a two-reactor plant that generates low-cost electricity and makes purchases of goods and services has stimulated the local economy since 1970. Besides its economic output, the plant provides jobs, labor income, and tax revenue to the area, in 2005 Susquehanna increases Pennsylvania’s economic output by 51.7 million (Nuclear Energy Institute and PPL Corporation 2008, p.1). If I am Barrack Obama, I look at these numbers and realize that nuclear power is something that could help benefit all different aspects of the economy. This country is in a deficit; with unemployment reaching high levels, an investment in a nuclear power plants can help stimulate more jobs therefore raising the overall economic input and output.

Citation:

Economic benefits of ppl susquehanna nuclear power plant. (2006).

Nuclear Energy Institute and PPL Corporation.

9 comments:

  1. This data certainly shows that investing in nuclear power can have positive economic benefits. But, wouldn't other alternative energy industries have the same capacity to create jobs, labor income, tax revenue, ect. ? I think that investing in any other alternative energy industries such as solar and wind could potentially have very similar economic benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was just wondering the same thing. Wouldn't other alternative energy industries provide the same benefits? And they wouldn't produce the nuclear waste (which we still have yet to figure out where to dispose), and an accident on a wind or solar farm would never be nearly as expensive or dangerous as a disaster from a nuclear power plant.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In regards to pursuing nuclear power in the US, President Obama did just sign a $8.3 billion loan guarantee to build new nuclear reactors in Georgia (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/2964-obama-pledges-nuclear-power-loan-guarantees). But i think we should be pursuing renewable energy sources instead of nuclear power for one main reason. Nuclear power is a finite energy source. The fuel used, Uranium is going to eventually run out and we will be dealing with the same situation as we are with fossil fuels. If we invest in renewable energy sources we will have an energy source as long as there is wind and sun.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that the economic values behind Nuclear Power do seem to make it a very efficient source of energy, however there are many more risks involved with Nuclear Power than can be seen economically. The use of Nuclear power creates so much heat that if the fuel rods are not stored under water to 10-20 years after their use they could melt through literally any substance on earth. Because of this, maintaining Nuclear Power plants can be very dangerous. Nuclear plants also face the problem of disposing of radioactive waste as it takes thousands of years for uranium and other radioactive materials to fully decay. There has yet to be found any safe way to dispose of the spent fuel rods which leaves a very large problem in the way of Nuclear Power.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nuclear power is a great way to generate electricity without greenhouse emissions. Of course the risk is much higher due to the radioactive materials it takes to run the facility. The trade-off with nuclear energy is that it is currently much more efficient than solar or wind in terms of producing energy on a large scale. Investing in Nuclear energy will provide what we are looking for in terms of creating power, but the risk and radioactivity that comes from disposal is the primary concern with nuclear power.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One thing I'd point out is that 29 people died in a West Virginia coal mine and 2 more in a Kentucky mine just this month. Meanwhile, Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident ever, killed only 30. Nuclear is historically no more dangerous than conventional energy production.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think there is a big hesitance to trust nuclear power plants. The public needs to be educated on the true risks and benefits. This is hard to overcome with the Chernobyl incident being so visible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nuclear power in my opinion is just to risky, not to mention extremely expensive. With the anniversary of Chernobyl this last Monday as a reminder of how extremely catastrophic nuclear power can be, we should look to other sources of power in the future. Also, Obama recently abandoned the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste facility in Nevada, leaving no place for this 2,000 tons + of nuclear waste produced in the US every year to go. Currently it sits on site at the power plants, over 100 locations. It is a huge risk having high-level radioactive waste sporadically scattered throughout the country, and with no new facility in the foreseeable future, nuclear just shouldn't be on the plate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes nuclear power plants can help boost the economy and create jobs but I think the hazardous waste it makes outweighs the benefits. The waste stays for thousands of years, we really don't know what effects it will have on the environment in the long run.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.