In a recent article in the New York Times, Nancy Folbre addresses the development and usage of nuclear power plants in the United States. Alternative power sources like solar, water and wind power are cheaper than nuclear power. However a utility giant, Southern Company, has recently received a $8.3 billion Energy Department guarantee to build reactors in Georgia. Folbre states "Buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly." On a similar note, $563 million loan guarantees to the solar panel manufacturer Solyndra by the Obama administration did not go through.
Another point she makes is the possible threat these reactors place on our country. Out of all the possible ways of producing energy, nuclear power is by far the riskiest. A recent example of this would be the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan that led to the evacuation of 90,000 residents who have yet to return home. The event also led to the resignation of the prime minister and the German government process of phasing out all nuclear generation of electricity by 2022. Even in the U.S., the demand for safer and more efficient power sources has risen while the public demands and private supply of nuclear power has fallen. Currently there are 23 aging nuclear power plants operational in our country today. The Vermont Yankee and Indian Point nuclear plants have reached the end of its projected lifetime operation, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission favors extending its license, despite local opposition and past catastrophes.
For a market that is loosing popularity and is extremely costly, it doesn't seem ethical to continue its progression for it violates the cost-benefit principal. Travis Hoium, an analyst who has written extensively about the industry on the investment Website The Motley Fool, calls nuclear power a "dying business". With some push from the recent recession, many producers are pushing for a cheaper means of producing power, which has caused the demand for shale gas and other alternatives to rise greatly. So with a market that is clearly unprofitable and has lost public and private interest, the benefits from the subsidy of nuclear power plant productions, the actual power, must be conceived by its investors to have a greater utility than the costs incurred by its creation, production and externalities to the nearby residences living near the reactors.
Source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/the-nurture-of-nuclear-power/?ref=economy
Another point she makes is the possible threat these reactors place on our country. Out of all the possible ways of producing energy, nuclear power is by far the riskiest. A recent example of this would be the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan that led to the evacuation of 90,000 residents who have yet to return home. The event also led to the resignation of the prime minister and the German government process of phasing out all nuclear generation of electricity by 2022. Even in the U.S., the demand for safer and more efficient power sources has risen while the public demands and private supply of nuclear power has fallen. Currently there are 23 aging nuclear power plants operational in our country today. The Vermont Yankee and Indian Point nuclear plants have reached the end of its projected lifetime operation, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission favors extending its license, despite local opposition and past catastrophes.
For a market that is loosing popularity and is extremely costly, it doesn't seem ethical to continue its progression for it violates the cost-benefit principal. Travis Hoium, an analyst who has written extensively about the industry on the investment Website The Motley Fool, calls nuclear power a "dying business". With some push from the recent recession, many producers are pushing for a cheaper means of producing power, which has caused the demand for shale gas and other alternatives to rise greatly. So with a market that is clearly unprofitable and has lost public and private interest, the benefits from the subsidy of nuclear power plant productions, the actual power, must be conceived by its investors to have a greater utility than the costs incurred by its creation, production and externalities to the nearby residences living near the reactors.
Source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.
