America should expand nuclear energy production.

As Con, I will be arguing that the United States should not seek to build more nuclear power plants. Undeniably nuclear power could generate an enormous amount of electricity while releasing virtually no greenhouse gases; given numerous reasons including the potential safety risk, and the challenge of disposing of nuclear waste, however, it is unwise to build more nuclear power plants. Exorbitant Cost Construction & Operational Cost While no one knows exactly how much a new nuclear reactor will cost, the estimation for new construction continue to rise. A collection of new studies suggest that the actual cost of building a new nuclear reactor would be between $3,600 and $4,000 per installed KW. According to Synapse Energy Economic Inc. , companies that are planning new nuclear units were expected to pay $5,500/kW to 8,100/kW or between $6 billion and $9 billion for each 1,100 MW plant (2008 figure). [2] In October 2007, Florida Power & Light (FPL) announced a range of overnight costs for its two proposed nuclear power plants (total of 2200MV) as being between $3,108/kW and 4,4540/Kw. FPL also estimated the total cost of the project (including escalation and financing costs) as being between $5,492/kW and $8,081/kW. These estimated costs translated into a projected total cost of $12.1 billion to $17.8 billion, for just two 1100 MW plants. [2] As if the things were not bad enough, one company, MidAmercian Energy Holding, announced at the end of 2007 that it had cancelled a proposed nuclear power plant because no longer made made economic sense for its ratepayers. [2] Comparing to other energy source, nuclear-powered energy costs 14 percent more than gas to produce a unit of electricity and it costs almost 30 percent more than coal. [1] The increased cost of nuclear energy includes a taxpayers subsidy of up to 80 percent of nuclear power"s operating costs. [2] Subsidizing costly nuclear power plants directs that money to large, centralized facilities, built by a few large companies that will take the profits out of the communities they build in. To make the things worse, private sectors are unwilling to finance the new plant due to its high financial risk, which necessarily leaves the government subsidy as the only option. [3] Storage Cost The above cost estimation does not take expense of storing nuclear waste in to consideration. In August 2008, the U. S. Department of Energy offered an updated estimate of the cost of building and operating Yucca Mountain, the planned centralized repository being erected in Nevada. The DOE noted that the expected cost for Yucca Mountain was $96.2 billion in 2008/2009, and this figure only covers the costs of building the facility and transporting waste until 2133. [4] Potential Risk & Safety Issue Another great concern that frequents Nuclear energy is safety issue. Undeniably, in the wake of 9/11, the safety of nuclear plants have greatly improved. The safety problems, however, persist. A disaster like the Chernobyl, Three Island, and Japan Fukushima Diichi plant accidents can happen anytime anyplace. In fact, as super-storm Sandy punched the East Coast hard in the stomach and claimed many innocent lives, three nuclear power plants were forced to shut down and an alert was issued for the Oyster Creek Plant for potential safety issue. [5] Prior to Japan Fukushima accidents, industries including national government tend to believe that the current design is sufficient to sustain every situation that mankind can possibly image. It seems that none of earthquakes, hurricanes, direct strikes by jets/airplanes, and terrorists could breach the concrete wall surrounding the nuclear reactor. [6] Shortly after the accident on March 11, 2011, however, those perceptions of safety began rapidly changing. Nuclear facility remains vulnerable. A well-designed, highly redundant system can still fail catastrophically. Do anyone really want to see what will happen to them if a terrorist attacks a nuclear power plant or experience a nuclear meltdown if tropic storm like Sandy breach the safety design of a nuclear facility? Waste Management The primary waste product of nuclear power, spent fuel rods, remains highly toxic for literally thousands of years. On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste. [7] So far, there are 104 operational nuclear power plant in the United States, and the combined total climbs to approximately 2,080 metric tons a year. [8] Since all of this waste emits radiation and heat, it will eventually corrode any container that holds it. Although most experts agree that the best way to dispose of waste is deep underground, when the Department of Energy picked Yucca Mountain in southwestern Nevada for repository, however, the proposal immediately became a political non-starter. No matter how supportive the communities are with respect to nuclear energy, no one would want a box of highly toxic substance buried in his or her backyard. Today, the nuclear waste goes into "spent fuel polls" at nuclear power plants like the one at Indian Point, just 35 miles north of New York City. Consider that the U. S. Government recommended a 50-mile evacuation radius during the Fukushima disaster, a catastrophe would ensue with a mathematical certainty if anything happens to the nearby nuclear reactor. [5] Serious failing in storage technology has resulted in widespread opposition. Conclusion Americans do not need nuclear power. Energy demands can be and also should be met from other sources from clean coal energy to natural gas. It is undeniable that climate change is real and people should actively attempt develop new technology to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and reduce energy costs. The nuclear energy, however, is not the answer to this enduring question. It is not unreasonable to assert that Nuclear energy is relatively clear energy, but numbers suggest that the technology is not cost-effect and inherent risk associated with nuclear energy is too great to ignore. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Fukushima accident had taught us a great lesson: nuclear energy is not the solution. Thank you References [1]. . http://reason.com... [2]. . http://www.synapse-energy.com... [3]. . http://www.greenamerica.org... [4]. . http://scitizen.com... [5]. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [6]. . http://science.howstuffworks.com... [7]. . http://www.howstuffworks.com... [8]. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...