Last week there was an article in the Grand Forks Herald concerning a new nuclear energy facility to be built in the Red River Valley. While the proposal is in the infancy stage, it is claimed that building a new plant would create 3000 jobs in North Dakota, and further expand North Dakota’s influence on American energy.
Over the next two decades, roughly two dozen currently standing nuclear plants will be decommissioned, and those will need to be replaced. The plant in North Dakota would be close enough to provide energy for eastern United States. The Red River Valley is one of the most seismically stable areas in North America, and thus provides a prime location for a new reactor.
Currently, 19% of all electricity in the United States is created from nuclear power plants, and according to 2011 CNN poll, 57% percent of people support domestic use of nuclear energy. However, after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, public support for building new plants fell to 43% in the United States.
Because of the nuclear reactor disaster at Fukushima, and previously Chernobyl, there are many negative opinions of nuclear powered energy. While none of those major accidents happened on American soil, the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 scared enough Americans to stop building nuclear energy facilities. According to the Congressional Research Service, during the 1980s 120 nuclear reactor orders were cancelled. Since then nuclear energy and its potential have dwindled.
In my opinion, nuclear energy is a source of energy that often gets overlooked in terms of its usefulness. While the dangers of nuclear energy can be extremely deadly, when properly utilized nuclear power is one of the cleanest and most efficient. Currently, most of the electricity is produced from fossil fuels in the United States. Electric cars are becoming very popular, but are they truly helping erase our carbon footprint? As long as a majority of our electricity is produced from fossil fuels, that answer is no.
The “not in my backyard” premise rings true to most people in North Dakota, but in reality, North Dakota is sparsely populated compared to the rest of the country. Building a facility would bring less human and monetary damage if something catastrophic would happen. If correctly done, a nuclear facility in the Red River Valley would potentially lower energy costs for the public, create jobs in North Dakota, and continue to assist North Dakota in keeping a balanced budget.
Over the next two decades, roughly two dozen currently standing nuclear plants will be decommissioned, and those will need to be replaced. The plant in North Dakota would be close enough to provide energy for eastern United States. The Red River Valley is one of the most seismically stable areas in North America, and thus provides a prime location for a new reactor.
Currently, 19% of all electricity in the United States is created from nuclear power plants, and according to 2011 CNN poll, 57% percent of people support domestic use of nuclear energy. However, after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, public support for building new plants fell to 43% in the United States.
Because of the nuclear reactor disaster at Fukushima, and previously Chernobyl, there are many negative opinions of nuclear powered energy. While none of those major accidents happened on American soil, the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 scared enough Americans to stop building nuclear energy facilities. According to the Congressional Research Service, during the 1980s 120 nuclear reactor orders were cancelled. Since then nuclear energy and its potential have dwindled.
In my opinion, nuclear energy is a source of energy that often gets overlooked in terms of its usefulness. While the dangers of nuclear energy can be extremely deadly, when properly utilized nuclear power is one of the cleanest and most efficient. Currently, most of the electricity is produced from fossil fuels in the United States. Electric cars are becoming very popular, but are they truly helping erase our carbon footprint? As long as a majority of our electricity is produced from fossil fuels, that answer is no.
The “not in my backyard” premise rings true to most people in North Dakota, but in reality, North Dakota is sparsely populated compared to the rest of the country. Building a facility would bring less human and monetary damage if something catastrophic would happen. If correctly done, a nuclear facility in the Red River Valley would potentially lower energy costs for the public, create jobs in North Dakota, and continue to assist North Dakota in keeping a balanced budget.
No comments:
Post a Comment