Is nuclear energy a safe source of power for Arizona's future?
Sunday, April 24, 2011
There is no safe level of exposure to radiation and even small exposures to radioactive agents released during a nuclear accident are capable of causing thyroid cancer and leukemia.
PHOENIX - The push for cleaner, alternative forms of energy is well underway.
But in light of last month’s earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and the subsequent nuclear crisis there, the debate over the role of nuclear power in our country and our state intensifies.
Each Sunday, ABC15.com debuts an Arizona issue - along with two opposing sides on the topic.
Don’t worry, you always have the opportunity to make comments at the bottom of the page. Yeah, your opinion matters, too.
This week we're tackling the debate on whether or not nuclear power should be a part of Arizona’s energy future.
Arizona Public Interest Research Group Executive Director Diane Brown is critical of the idea. She says nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. She sites studies by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission documenting potentially dangerous situation at 17 US nuclear stations.
President And CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute Marvin Fertel disagrees. He says nuclear power is safe. He goes on to say that nuclear energy can bring prosperity to developed and merging economies worldwide.
So, is nuclear energy a safe source of power for our energy future?
Click “next page” to read the first of two positions, “Nuclear energy is a lousy investment and inherently dangerous”.
But in light of last month’s earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and the subsequent nuclear crisis there, the debate over the role of nuclear power in our country and our state intensifies.
Each Sunday, ABC15.com debuts an Arizona issue - along with two opposing sides on the topic.
Don’t worry, you always have the opportunity to make comments at the bottom of the page. Yeah, your opinion matters, too.
This week we're tackling the debate on whether or not nuclear power should be a part of Arizona’s energy future.
Arizona Public Interest Research Group Executive Director Diane Brown is critical of the idea. She says nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. She sites studies by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission documenting potentially dangerous situation at 17 US nuclear stations.
President And CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute Marvin Fertel disagrees. He says nuclear power is safe. He goes on to say that nuclear energy can bring prosperity to developed and merging economies worldwide.
So, is nuclear energy a safe source of power for our energy future?
Click “next page” to read the first of two positions, “Nuclear energy is a lousy investment and inherently dangerous”.
“Nuclear energy is a lousy investment and inherently dangerous”: By Diane Brown, executive director of the Arizona Public Interest Research Group
Is nuclear power safe and should it be a major part of our energy policy going forward?
No and no. Here are three reasons why:
1. Risk. The Arizona PIRG Education Fund recently released a report documenting a history of safety problems at nuclear reactors in the U.S. Since 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rated 17 instances at domestic nuclear power plants as a “significant precursor” of core damage, meaning a dramatic increase in the risk of a serious accident. American nuclear power plants are not immune to the types of natural disasters, mechanical failures, human errors, and losses of critical electric power supplies that have characterized Fukushima and other major nuclear accidents. Unforeseen events could occur at any plant outside the scope of their emergency planning.
In addition, there is no permanent solution for storing nuclear waste, which is radioactive for tens of thousands of years at any plant, old or new. There is no safe level of exposure to radiation and even small exposures to radioactive agents released during a nuclear accident are capable of causing thyroid cancer and leukemia. Even without an accident, spent nuclear fuel must be stored safely for an indefinite period of time. Any lapses could result in radioactive contamination of our drinking water or other critical resources.
2. Cost. Nuclear power is among the most costly approaches to meeting our energy needs. Over the last fifty years, American taxpayers have subsidized nuclear power to the tune of $145 billion. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the value of government support has exceeded the value of electricity the technology produced.
On top of that, the nuclear industry reaps all of the rewards and none of the burden. U.S. policy has essentially given the nuclear power companies a preemptive bailout - if a nuclear power plant has an accident, taxpayers are on the hook for up to 98% of the liability – which could run into the hundreds of billions.
Even Wall Street investors will not touch nuclear energy because the technology is too risky and too expensive.
3. Better Options Exist. Nuclear power currently generates about 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. While it would be difficult to immediately shut down existing nuclear reactors, they do not need to continue to operate beyond the 40 years for which they were originally designed nor do new reactors need to be built.
There are safer and less expensive energy resources that can keep the lights on without the potential to explode, spill, or contaminate food supplies. For example, energy efficiency is the quickest, cheapest and cleanest way to meet our energy needs. Energy efficiency also provides five times as much power per dollar of investment as nuclear energy. Building 100 new nuclear reactors would cost approximately $300 billion. If that money went to energy efficiency instead, energy savings in 2030 would be equivalent to the output of more than 80 nuclear reactors and consumers could save more than $600 billion.
In short, nuclear power is a lousy investment, inherently dangerous, and there are better options to meet our energy needs.
Do you agree with this opinion? Add a comment below to sound off.
Click “next page” to read the second position, “U.S. Nuclear power plants verifying defense-in-depth protective measures”
“U.S. Nuclear power plants verifying defense-in-depth protective measures”: By Marvin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute
By a narrow margin, Arizona voters passed an initiative last November legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana, putting into motion a measure that will have profound effects on Arizona’s workplaces, communities and neighborhoods.
The new law leads the state down a “hazy” path for our local communities and family neighborhoods.
Arizonans will now face workplaces where workers could be under the influence of a drug that the federal government classifies as a banned Schedule 1 controlled substance. As a result, employers who have undertaken strict measures to ensure a “drug free” workplace must now permit employees to use the drug. Meanwhile, workers will be working alongside co-workers who could be under the influence of the drug.
The potential effects on workplace safety and productivity are immense. That is why I sponsored House Bill 2541, which establishes a clear definition for the concept of “impairment,” something the ballot initiative failed to do. While the ballot initiative allows employers to take disciplinary action against employees who are impaired, employers deserve clear guidelines on how they can deal with employees under the influence of marijuana or other prescribed drugs in the workplace.
My bill also permits employers to reassign to a different position those employees who might be under the influence of a prescribed drug, including marijuana, which could negatively affect their ability to perform in a “safety sensitive” position. This is common sense. If an employee is under the influence of a drug, then employers should have the ability to protect themselves and their business from liability.
The new law could also have broader economic impacts. Consider the case of a large manufacturer located in my north Phoenix legislative district. The company is considering investing millions to renovate its facility. But the company is taking great pause to make this investment because the neighborhood in which it is located is the site of a new marijuana dispensary.
Companies consider where they invest based on a host of factors, including the quality of the neighborhood in which they are located. If companies are concerned that marijuana dispensaries will attract a customer base they find undesirable, then local communities could lose out on the opportunity to attract and retain good jobs. From the Fortune 500 corporation to the local mom and pop shop, companies might think twice before doing business nearby a marijuana dispensary—and in this economy, we can’t afford further job loss.
City councils and their planning and zoning commissions should encourage public input when determining where to locate dispensaries. Local residents have an important voice in keeping the integrity of our neighborhoods, where our families live and our children go to school.
Medical marijuana is now the law of the land, but we should do all we can to implement the law in a way that respects the concerns of employers, encourages workplace safety, and reflects the character of our local communities and neighborhoods.
No comments:
Post a Comment