America actually returns to nuclear power

After more than 30 years of not building any nuclear power plant (NPP) since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the US has started to build a new nuclear power plant.

America needs about 45 more reactors by 2030 - Photo: Planetark.com

The weight of the statement

Last week, on February 16, 2010, in front of the press during a visit to a training center on the outskirts of Washington, President Obama made an impressive statement, attracting the attention of residuals. World Comment

That: the federal government will bail out to help the Southern Company power company located in Atlanta borrow 8.3 billion USD to build two new 1,100 MW generating nuclear reactors to expand the current NPP now near Augusta, Georgia.

These two reactors will reduce 16 million tons of carbon pollution per year, and can supply electricity to 550,000 households or nearly 1.5 million people. The project will also create 3,000 jobs in the construction sector and about 850 plant operators.

President Obama also stressed: 'This is just the beginning . We will continue to secure other clean energy projects . throughout the United States'. The White House also noted: in 2011, it will triple the guarantee amount for NPPs, exceeding USD 54 billion.

Professor Chu, the head of the US Energy Agency, added: We must act hard and quickly with every ability to regain the leading position in technology . We stand on the roadside for too long .

With the weight and importance of the United States and the globe, Obama's announcement was immediately broadcast by US and world news agencies, such as CNN, BBC etc. In Vietnam, Vietnam News Agency and Voice of Vietnam also announced this brief information soon.

The situation of choice

The situation that led the United States to the choice of returning and continuing to develop nuclear power did not surprise anyone. Because of that situation, like President Obama's words, there are "relations to the economy, security, and the future of the Earth."

First of all, it comes from the country's requirement to 'meet the demand for electricity'. With the largest number of energy reactors in the world, 104 scattered stations in 31 states, nuclear power ensures 20% of US electricity consumption. To meet the demand for increasing electricity, the United States is considering, from now until half of the 21st century, nuclear power will increase the density from 20% to 50% in the diagram of the total national electricity, if there is no power source. What new alternative is possible.

Diagram of nuclear power plants in the US - Photo: Wikimedia

Another pressing cause is the 'greenhouse gas' (GHG) emission reduction pressure to prevent the enormous consequences of global climate change. In particular, the United States is the leading country (along with China) in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, mainly by fossil fuel-fired thermal power plants; like coal, oil etc

The time has come for the United States to be irresponsible in its responsibility, unable to delay further international commitments and devise concrete measures to prevent climate change such as delaying pen signing. into Kyoto Decree.

The situation above forced the United States to build more energy reactors, while reducing or stopping construction of thermal power plants using fossil fuels. And it is the incumbent President of the United States, Barack Obama, who asserts this choice: "In order to meet the needs of increasing power and preventing the negative consequences of climate change, we need to increase the power supply. The truth is very simple. '

Consistency of policy

America's policy of continuing to develop nuclear energy actually started with the predecessor of the Republican Party.

Three years ago, concerned about dependence on Middle Eastern oil, President George Bush's government launched a campaign to encourage atomic nuclear research centers to build a generation of nuclear reactors. new kernel at the end of this decade.

Also three years ago, in the US 'Vision 2020' on the development of nuclear power, the Bush Administration signaled the intention to build 7 new reactors to add 10,000 MW of electrical capacity and towards building 30 plans. oven.

And since then, US nuclear law regulators have allowed reactors that were put into use in the 70s and 80s to increase their electricity generation time, extending their life by another 20 years.

A nuclear power plant is under construction at Koodankulam, USA - Photo: The Hindu.com

Taking over the government from the Republican Party, after a year of running the country, with a statement on February 16, 2010 Democratic Obama President clearly continued to assert that the United States will continue its electricity development policy. The cause of the predecessor. And investing in the construction of two nuclear power reactors is just a concrete action to enforce that policy.

Thus, the US nuclear policy is consistent, whether the government belongs to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And America has a definitive choice, derived from objective needs and this, say Obama, is simply 'truth'.

Of course, with big policies involving millions of people, there are always people who support and oppose. In the case of US nuclear power policy, some people are questioning the issue of radioactive waste burial sites, requirements for improving the safety of reactors, etc.

In response to this situation, the current US President demanded: "Due to the relationship with the economy, security, and the future of the Earth, we should not go into the old path, creating a conflict between the rightists. and left-leaning, or confrontation between environmentalists and atomic entrepreneurs and slowing down the progress of developing clean energy sources (nuclear energy).