|
Speak Out
How will Japan’s nuclear crisis affect energy in the United States?
In the wake of a massive earthquake and tsunami last week, the nation of Japan found itself thrust into another crisis – not natural, but nuclear.
A series of explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant sent the region into a state of emergency. Evacuations were ordered in the 12-mile radius surrounding the plant, and iodine pills – which help prevent against radiation sickness – were distributed to residents as the region teetered on the verge of a nuclear catastrophe.
| Energy policy in the United States is overseen by the U.S. Department of Energy – part of the executive branch that includes a seat in the president’s cabinet. The department regulates construction of energy plants, plans the implementation of alternative energy sources, and oversees safety rules and regulations for all energy producers. |
Here in the United States, the nuclear crisis has stoked fears among the public; a run on iodine pills on the West Coast reportedly left one manufacturer sold out through mid-April. Experts say that it’s too early to really tell how the contamination across the ocean would affect us, but that most likely airborne radiation would be dissipated by the time it reaches our shores.
But the crisis is nonetheless changing the way the United States looks at nuclear energy.
Right now, the country has 104 nuclear reactors in 31 states, providing 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Supporters say that these energy plants are responsible for 70 percent of our “clean” energy – or power that comes from pollution-free sources like wind, solar and hydroelectric.
But following a partial meltdown at central Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in 1979, the United States went into a nuclear panic. Fear about the plants’ safety intensified and no new nuclear reactors have come online since then. The Obama administration hoped to change that, viewing nuclear technology as a way to reduce the nation’s dependence on imported oil.
Obama wants to give his Energy Department $36 billion to help finance the first new U.S. nuclear reactors since Three Mile Island, and plans were drawn up in Georgia and Ohio. While approval was still years away on those projects, local advocates fear that the Japanese crisis would throw them into limbo.
This week, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu spoke before a panel at Congress and reaffirmed the nation’s commitment to nuclear energy – and to learning from the disaster in Japan.
“The American people should have full confidence that the United States has rigorous safety regulations in place to ensure that our nuclear power is generated safely and responsibly," Chu told the panel.
But critics say this might not be enough. Tyson Slocum, director of the Washington, D.C., advocacy group Public Citizens Energy Program, told the Cincinnati Community Press: “The Japanese are arguably the best prepared to deal with earthquakes, yet they failed to adequately plan for the impact of a tsunami. This demonstrates the difficulty in planning for both the ‘known unknowns’ and the ‘unknown unknowns’ that impact nuclear reactors from natural disaster and terrorism.”
In his statements before the congressional panel, Chu said that U.S. officials included both earthquakes and tsunamis in their energy and safety plans.
What do you think?
How will Japan’s nuclear crisis affect energy in the United States? Should new nuclear power projects be put on hold? Does the interest in reducing our dependence on foreign oil justify the risk? How could safety plans be strengthened? Join the discussion!
|
Join the Discussion
|
|
Related News
|
Related Resources
|
Share
|
|