Barrett, a 2nd-year bioengineering college student, opined in late November, 2021 that as a native Augustan, he has always been much more fond of the nearby hydroelectric Clarks Hill Dam than the equally nearby nuclear power plant, Plant Vogtle. The tragedies[?] of similar plants such as those in Fukushima and Chernobyl scar my mind, resulting in an almost automatic repugnant disfavor of this clean-ish energy. [Note: A common conflation of incidents by many people. Chernobyl was a clear disaster; more than 25 people died of radiation and many children contracted thyroid cancer (from contaminated milk), but all but a very few recovered with treatment (caused by "Cold War" pressure on Soviet Union to cut corners in plant design and poor management procedures). Fukushima was only an incident. No one died, no one was irradiated, but yes, scared many. The meltdown was well handled and safely managed despite fear-mongering by the local and international media]]
While these disasters [one only] are extremely rare and safety procedures have evolved to protect against them, nearly half of Americans hold an unfavorable view of nuclear energy, according to Morning Consult. Should we simply cast off these doubts as visceral, knee-jerk responses to deadly accidents? Or should we take a deeper look into the fears about nuclear energy and reconsider our path on its dependence? [Should always conduct both]
First, it is worth looking at the status of current nuclear energy projects. On Oct. 22, Georgia Power announced even more delays on Plant Vogtle’s expansion of two new reactors. These reactors, which were due to be in operation by 2016 and 2017, have faced four delays in just the past six months. These delays have racked up the total project cost to $11.1 billion, significantly higher than the projected cost of $6.1 billion.[Note: Most of the over run was created by anti-nuclear opposition and frivolous lawsuits, some was result of management issues]
This may just seem like a financial issue for the state’s largest energy firm, but customers might have to cover some of the burdens. The Georgia Public Service Commission agreed to an addition of $2.1 billion into Georgia Power’s rate base, possibly affecting typical customers with an increase of $3.78 a month in bills after the first reactor is finished.
Plant Vogtle is expected to produce 17 million megawatt-hours of energy, which is enough to power 1.6 million average households. This seems to make the case that the plant is worth the investment. But even with these tremendous increases in the power grid, the cost of nuclear power often outweighs the production amount. Across the country, 34 of the total 61 power plants are losing money, totaling $2.9 billion in losses a year. [Suggest student Barrett take an advanced economics course to better understand issues] However, this is not stunting the expansion of Plant Vogtle. In fact, Georgia Power has profited off of the delayed construction of the plant. Customers have already footed a $2.3 billion bill for the new units, half of which has been straight profit for the company. By being late and over budget, Georgia Power stands to make $5 billion in extra profit. [In any event, (after Barrett studies the issues with foundation), as of mid-2021, Georgia Power today announced Vogtle Unit 3 plant systems have successfully reached normal operating pressure and temperature during hot functional testing. Over the next several weeks, plant systems will continue to be tested at normal operating pressure and temperature (more). The building of the larger nuclear plants should be compared to major hydroelectric plant construction and cost, not to wind & solar and natural gas plants becasue they have short lifetimes, while hydroelectric and nuclear power plants have very long lifetimes].
Furthermore, nuclear energy presents waste management issues [Fact Check: Another typical anti-nuclear claim, which is not true. There are no serious issues regarding used fuel, even with being stored on site, see (here)]. While nuclear energy does not emit a handful of common pollutants, including carbon dioxide, extraction of raw uranium gives rise to an abundance of other problems. Required for nuclear power plants, uranium needs energy-intensive mining and milling [Note: It is not energy intensive, just BS, no foundation]. Twenty-eight tons of uranium — which will keep an average reactor going for about a year — requires the extraction of half a million tons of waste rock and over 100,000 tons of toxic mill tailings. [Bias Alert: Picking such a reference making such claims is not relevant to issues here. More typical, unfounded BS from anti-nuclear authors / groups. Most uranium is mined using the in-situ mining methods, no moving tons to mine. Even with the few open-pit uranium mines, it is a gross exaggeration to term mill tailings toxic. This is pure Mudd BS]].
Additionally, the plant generates 159 tons of solid radioactive waste and 47,000 cubic feet of liquid waste. Around 30 tons of such waste generated is known as high-level waste [Note: reference cited has major exaggerations and misinformation] and has no way of being safely disposed of. [Note the waste radiation levels has been exaggerated] Instead, the waste is stored near the plant facility, emitting dangerous radiation and awaiting the development of a permanent disposal method.[Note: Outright misinformation. Onsite storage is safe, see (here)].
Nuclear energy is not the future for a sustainable Georgia. The source is too costly, too time-consuming and not nearly as green as proponents wish you would think. While nuclear energy would reduce carbon emissions significantly, these other factors turn the tides against the energy source. [Student Barrett has fallen for anti-nuclear BS. The basis/claims being used are exaggerations in sum and blatantly misrepresented in others].
This does not mean that opponents to nuclear energy are wholly correct either. As expensive and inefficient as the building of new plants may be now, restructuring power grids to be completely renewable-based would be incredibly costly and take considerable amounts of time. And while it may have flaws, nuclear energy is still integral in the fight against climate change. [But Student Barrett at least has an open mind and can entertain such possibilities that nuclear power is an important energy source, wart's and all].
If nuclear energy was completely eliminated today, more than half of the United States’ carbon-free electricity would be wiped out as well. Unfortunately, this would lead to a fallback on fossil fuels, not renewable powers like wind and solar. This backstep would be even more dangerous than the risks posed by keeping current nuclear energy running.
Georgia should prioritize the expansion of renewable energies over the expansion of nuclear energy, [but what is the basis for this claim? Do you actually think wind and solar are free energy sources?] However, transitioning away from nuclear energy may be counter-productive in the fight against climate change and for a carbon-free energy supply. Instead, the focus should be laid upon switching from fossil fuels to renewables while keeping nuclear energy at a bare minimum. The future for nuclear energy definitely should not be unwanted, over-budget and delayed expansions, but rather in the maintenance of our current plants while they are needed as we make investments in truly sustainable energy sources in the future. [Barrett needs to see all the warts with solar and wind, (here), and (here) and (here) and and coal, just not for burning (here)].
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
