It is well known that using nuclear fuel to generate power can have both risks and benefits. Rather recently, Yankee Nuclear Power Plant made headlines for the risks it imposed on its surrounding environment.In late January, it was discovered that the facility was leaking tritium, a radioactive substance that can pose serious health risks if exposed to humans at concentrated levels. Analysts measured the amount of radioactivity leaking from the facility to be on the scale of 70,500 picocuries, a unit used to measure radioactivity. If any facility in the U.S. is leaking in excess of 30,000 picocuries, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must be notified immediately. Officials of the NRC, EPA, and facility authorities began to look for the source of the leak before the situation got any worse.
Well over a month later, on March 25, The source of the leak was pinpointed. The leak had been traced to the underground piping system used to transport wastewater for the facility. What is so alarming about such a case is that these underground pipes exposed soil and groundwater to the radioactive element. While officials do not believe that any drinking water was polluted, one can imagine that the effects of such an event could be catastrophic.
Because of the implications of the event, the Vermont Senate voted to close all operations of the plant after 2012. this represents the first time in over twenty years that representatives have voted to close a reactor. The implications of such an action are weighted. Clearly, while energy production is an important issue in the realm of public policy, in this case it does not outweigh the benefits of a safe environment conducive to a healthy population. Even as the power plant fought for the ability to remain active, promising reparation payments and better performance in the future, it was denied the privilege.
The situation of the Yankee Nuclear Power Plant illustrates an pivotal trade-off in regard to nuclear energy. While some thinkers believe that nuclear power is within the scope of "green" energy, Yankee Power causes me to believe otherwise. Even with the regulations the NRC and EpA have in place on the nuclear industry, risks are still out there and there consequences have the possibility to be grave indeed. While nuclear energy and its associated waste products are handled properly, a task that can take hundreds of thousands of years, it is my opinion that there are other alternative energies that do not pose such great risk to humans and their environment. While alternatives like wind and solar may not have the production capacity of large-scale nuclear power plants, maybe the money that is going into those nuclear plants should be invested in improving technologies and efficiencies in other alternatives so that one day they will be as productive as their more risky counterpart.
Saying that alternative energies are available is much easier said than done. There are dozens of nuclear power plants that are projected to provide energy for a long time coming. To shut them down and simply replace them with "alternate energy." Much time and energy would have to go into this. Although I agree that alternative energies need to come along much faster and are the answer in the future, it is not done with the snap of a finger, and very rarely have there been disasters from nuclear power plants.
ReplyDeleteI like that there are plans for the plant to be shut down. I know that leaks like these are rare but the potential problems it could cause are could be terrible for the surrounding community. At least the problem is being corrected. Totally closing the plant does seem strict but better safe than sorry in these situations. I agree with you that although nuclear energy is often cited as sustainable, the waste is so dangerous and there are plenty of other truly sustainable technologies to invest in that are much less dangerous.
ReplyDelete