published Sunday, July 24th, 2011

Bellefonte, Japan and Germany

Suppose you had a theory that a disaster of some type might someday cause a release of radiation at a U.S. nuclear power plant, leading to thousands of deaths. But suppose you also had a historical record showing that similar disasters had not caused deadly releases of radiation.

Which should you trust? The theory or the actual history?

As a rule, it’s wiser to go with history.

Well, the historical record of nuclear power in the United States shows that it has been produced safely and responsibly. So we believe that TVA’s plan to complete an idled reactor at Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, near Scottsboro, Ala., southeast of Chattanooga, is sensible.

Assuming TVA gets approval for the project, the Bellefonte reactor will generate enough power to supply 750,000 homes. In addition, it will produce none of the “greenhouse gases” that environmental activists blame for global warming. That’s important in a time when heavy federal regulation is restricting our nation’s ability to use coal — which releases greenhouse gases — to make electricity.

Nevertheless, we understand the fears some people have about nuclear power. It produces radioactive waste that must be safely stored long term.

Because of those and other legitimate concerns, no one need apologize for insisting that nuclear power generation be closely monitored to ensure its safety.

But looking at the long track record of safe nuclear energy production by TVA and by other utilities around the country, we do not see indications that TVA will be unable to operate Bellefonte safely. The United States’ worst nuclear “disaster” was at Three Mile Island in 1979 — but no one died or was seriously hurt in that incident.

Some have raised issues surrounding the nuclear facility in Japan that was damaged by an incredibly powerful earthquake and tsunami in March. Those worries are understandable. But often left out of the discussion on the disaster in Japan is the fact that not a single person has died from radiation as a result. The quake and the tsunami tragically claimed thousands of lives, but radiation from the damaged plant hasn’t claimed one.

Far from being a reason to drop nuclear power, the events in Japan suggest that nuclear power can be a safe, reasonable means to meet a country’s energy needs.

In fact, Japan was on track to produce more than half its electricity with nuclear power by 2030. But regrettably, Japan’s prime minister is now pushing for his country to drop construction of nuclear power plants and eventually to eliminate all nuclear power production there. That seems like a gross overreaction, since radiation didn’t kill anyone in the wake of Japan’s tsunami and quake.

And how Japan will be able to meet its energy needs without nuclear power is unclear. When Germany recently took some of its nuclear plants off-line in response to the problems in Japan, Germany immediately became a net importer, rather than a net exporter, of energy. Its energy exports to the Netherlands and Switzerland stopped, and imports of electricity from France doubled. That means higher energy costs for German individuals and businesses.

Japan and Germany obviously are entitled to set their own policies on nuclear energy production. But it would be extremely ill advised for the United States to follow their lead by slow-walking — much less abandoning — the production of reliable, plentiful nuclear power.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
hambone said...

For those of us who have worked at TVA nuclear plants, we are all familar with the "but what if"

TVA plants are built to withstand a tornado or earthquake or elephant stampead.

"but what if" a tornado, earthquake or elephant stampead all occured at the same time?

July 24, 2011 at 3:52 a.m.
nucanuck said...

A nuclear plant has a life expectancy after which we are stuck with a non-producing, very expensive and permenant maintenance bill. No one talks about that.

July 24, 2011 at 2:48 p.m.
hambone said...

nucanuck, one word CONDOS

July 24, 2011 at 5 p.m.
carlB said...

If any of you are using electric power off of the "grid," who is forcing you to do so?
If the US went into another great depression there would be millions of people who could not pay their utility bills therefore reducing the demand for electric power. Would that help decrease global warming?

July 24, 2011 at 9:59 p.m.
Plato said...

There is a very tiny, almost infinitesimal probability that if you live in the valley you might someday have to deal with the effects of radiation from a nuclear accident.

However if we don't have nuclear power there is 100% probability that you are going to suffer some negative health effects up to and including a premature death from breathing sulfur dioxide and other toxic emissions from coal-fired steam plants.

Nuclear power on balance is safe clean and affordable. It's not the ultimate answer to our power needs but it is one of the best options we have right now.

I worked at TVA when Bellefonte was originally under construction in the 80s. It would be great to see that plant built and operational.

July 24, 2011 at 11:18 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.