Social Question

King_Pariah's avatar

Nuclear power plant gets green light from the NRC, what do you think?

Asked by King_Pariah (11484points) February 9th, 2012

The nation’s first new nuclear power plant in a generation won approval Thursday as federal regulators voted to grant a license for two new reactors at a site in eastern Georgia.

Atlanta-based Southern Co. hopes to begin operating the $14 billion reactors at its Vogtle site south of Augusta as soon as 2016. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the company’s plans on a 4–1 vote.

More here

Just saw this article pop up, this is the first Nuclear plant approved by the NRC since the Three Mile Island incident. Your feelings, thoughts on the matter?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

jaytkay's avatar

Ten years ago I hated the idea but today I say build them as fast as safely possible. Right now nuclear power generation is the best choice to replace fossil fuels.

Wind and solar are good for “topping off” the grid’s needs, but they can’t meet the baseload 24-hour 365-day demand. Hydro is isolated to relatively few locations (and susceptible to water shortages).

There are newer, safer designs which (in theory) have little chance of a meltdown – in case of a Fukushima-like loss of water circulation, the plant settles down to a cool equilibrium.

jerv's avatar

I like it!

Part of the danger of nuclear power is using older designs that are less safe, less efficient, and overall inferior to the current designs. I like safety and efficiency. And the fact that some of the newer reactors can be fueled by the waste of older reactors and thus eliminate the long-lived isotopes (I’d rather waste with a 12 year half-life than waste with a half-life of >10,000 years) only adds to my joy.

Part of the danger of nuclear power is running older plants beyond their planned life expectancy; building new plants allows us to get the old plants offline before old age takes its toll.

mazingerz88's avatar

Im such a cynic, everytime I hear nuclear reactor, I see a mushroom cloud. But unless the human global population growth slows down drastically, which ain’t happenin, we would consume more and more energy. Long after oil says sayonara, these reactors would be around to power my porn. And I’m grateful for that. That my descendants could enjoy porn as I did. Lol.

I have a friend who works at NRC and he mentioned some power companies are not easy to regulate. Shocking that some of them sometimes disregard the rules.

marinelife's avatar

I, personally, am opposed to nuclear power. The consequences of an accident are too devastating.

jerv's avatar

@marinelife By that logic, you should be at least as opposed to elections.

marinelife's avatar

@jerv With term limits the consequences of accidents in elections only have half lives of a few years not a few thousand.

elbanditoroso's avatar

It’s about time. They should have been building more of them for the last 30 years. We are suffering energy issues now because of the scare mongers.

jerv's avatar

@marinelife Yeah, nobody remembers any of the consequences of things like The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the colonization of North America at the expense of the native, or anything of the sort.

FYI, nuclear plants cannot be built or run without government authorization or oversight. Vote for someone who turns a blind eye to corner-cutting when it comes to running a plant or handling the waste and then tell me that voting for the wrong person won’t have long-lasting consequences. Hell, ask the residents of Hiroshima!

Also, only the President has term limits; legislature doesn’t, and they are the ones that actually write the laws and have the power to override a presidential veto. Think about it ;)

MollyMcGuire's avatar

I think the human race is absolutely insistant on destroying itself.

mattbrowne's avatar

Very irresponsible and unfair for our grandchildren. Works like the debt trap. Let future generations worry how to pay it back. People simply ignore the tremendous costs of nuclear waste storage and dismantling nuclear power plants when they reach the end of their life cycle. Costs a lot more than building a plant.

The other risks were already mentioned.

jerv's avatar

Here is your hydro power. Over 1,500 square miles of forest flooded out, 40,000 indigenous people forced to move, deforestation, killing a few species, all certain.

Seems like a high cost to me compare to a mere risk. And if the dam breaks which is more likely than a nuclear disaster… who knows?

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther