Departments



Articles

Less

Editorial: Timely Guest Editorials & Letters Are Welcome
May 14th, 2010

Editorial: But He Wasn`t Taking His Meds
April 24th, 2010

Editorial: Editorial: Earth Day 2010
April 20th, 2010

Editorial: Editorial: New Cross-Florida Canal?
April 5th, 2010

Editorial: Editorial: State of the Birds
March 31st, 2010

Editorial: Editorial: Our Members Are Vital to Our News Mission
March 6th, 2010

Editorial: Editorial: Follow the Money
January 21st, 2010

Editorial: Editorial: Thanks to All
January 14th, 2010

Editorial: 2009 In Review
January 10th, 2010

Editorial: Editorial: Concussion in Athletes Deserves More Attention
December 13th, 2009

Editorial: Editorial: Thanksgiving 2009
December 1st, 2009

Editorial: Editorial: Domestic Violence Affects All of Us
November 13th, 2009

Editorial: The Obscenity Conundrum
November 6th, 2009

Editorial: Editorial: The Obscenity Conundrum
October 30th, 2009

Editorial: Cedar Key 2009 Seafood Festival
October 9th, 2009

More

Are Some Technological Wonders Economically Impractical?

Are Some Technological Wonders Economically Impractical?

Editorial

The Supersonic Transport (SST) is sometimes cited as a step backward in technology. It was a technological wonder that was an economic failure. The Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) may have the same history. At the dawn of the nuclear age an optimistic bureaucrat at the Atomic Energy Commission predicted that electricity would become so cheap that there would be no need for meters. Are NPPs like SSTs, technical wonders with problems that make them economically impractical?

The SST, a joint venture between the British and French governments, made transatlantic flights in half the time of subsonic planes. However, high fuel costs and stratospheric maintenance costs made tickets prohibitively expensive. This was a case of government subsidized technology that was not economically sustainable.

The nuclear power plant concept has been subsidized by governments for sixty years. When the Atomic Entergy Commission was renamed the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) it was to make the commission into a regulatory agency rather than the nuclear industry's public relations body. However, a visit to the NRC web site will find enthusiasm for nuclear power and little recognition of the problems. Recently Edward McGaffigan, one of the five NRC Commissioners, was criticized by his agency for speaking out about the billions of dollars spent on a nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada while the citizens of Nevada refuse to accept the waste. The industry wants to build more NPP's, but there is no state that will accept the permanent storage of nuclear waste. The waste processing plant in Washington State has construction costs that have risen from $4 billion to $14 billion and still is not finished. The "promise" of reprocessing nuclear waste for reuse in reactors is a technology that remains theoretical, and perhaps theological.

NPPs are said to be an answer to global warming, the balance of payments and cheaper electricity. Designs of NPP's have been improved since the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Training of NPP operators is now more rigorous. Security at NPPs has been tighter since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. France and Japan have embraced NPPs. However, Germany is rethinking a plan to decommission its NPP's in the face of global warming. Global warming may be sufficient threat that we must turn to NPP's for our electricity. But one may ask, "Where will we store the nuclear waste that is dangerous for millions of years?"

In the end, political and economic considerations will determine policy and location of NPPs. The political debate will be right here in Levy County and in every county that is asked to host a nuclear power plant or waste disposal site.

Click for printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend

 

 

© 2013
Cedar Key News

cedarkeynews@gmail.com