What problems might these new power plants encounter if they were built in South Florida with a lifespan of 40 years?
Florida Power & Light Co., United State’s leading company, plan on pushing its project of building two additional nuclear power plants in South Florida. Opposed groups say that not only the large area of mangroves and wetlands are at risk to sea level rise and storm surges (Hemlock, 2014) but also the nuclear reactors to be built. And according to Harold Wanless, chairman of Geological Sciences at the University of Miami, Turkey Point will be the only one that can be seen if there will be a rise of 4 to 6 feet in the sea level in the future, as the researchers predict. The area is prone to hurricanes, too.
What advantages are there in giving FPL the licenses for these new plants?
Peter Robbins, FPL spokesman, gave a lot of promising points to the advantage of why the new plants must be built. One of these is that the new power plants could generate power that is enough for 750,000 households with 1,100 megawatts each. He also said that there will be a cut in the cost of fuel by about $170 billion, compared to that of natural-gas power plants. Robbins added that if these two reactors were to be built, about 250 million tons, or more, of carbon dioxide can be avoided with their lifespan of 40 years. He also said that compared to solar, there is 2% more energy that can be generated from the FPL nuclear-powered plants.
What disadvantages are there in giving FPL the licenses for these new plants?
The most obvious disadvantage to this project is the total cost for them to be built. The budget needed for this is about $12 to $18 billion. There are a lot of concerned groups that are against this major project. One of which is the mayor of Pinecrest, Miami-Dade, Cynthia Lerner, who believe that FPL’s plan would restrict the growth of business in the area and thus, resulting to lost of jobs.
What are some other alternatives to the nuclear power plants?
A natural gas power plant can be an alternate to nuclear power plants. Solar energy is also a source of power that can be harness nowadays. Wind and water can also be sources and alternates to the nuclear reactors.
What precautions would you demand if these power plants were built?
If these power plants will be built, there is a need to practice caution because these are not simple things. And because these nuclear energy needs Uranium, a radioactive element that can be used as an explosive. When there is too much radiation entering a body, fatal could cause damages like aplastic anemia, the cause of death of Marie Curie (Pappas, 2015), and leukemia. To avoid these diseases, all the safety standards that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must be followed (World Nuclear Association, 2015). And only people with the right permits should be able to get in.
Given what you know, if you were in a position to approve or disapprove the licenses, what would you vote, and why?
In my opinion, I will disapprove the licenses because I believe that we have already used up all of the non-renewable resources that Mother Earth can offer. I strongly suggest that we switch to natural resources like the sun’s rays since they are plenty abundant. According to the article, solar is only 2% less than the production of the nuclear power plants. That is not that bad, provided that we can still invest on making better equipment in order to harness this energy.
References
Hemlock, D. (12 May 2014). FPL seeks two more South Florida nuclear reactors. Sun Sentinel. Retrieved Mar. 3, 2016, from http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-05-12/business/fl-fpl-nuclear-preview-20140512_1_turkey-point-fpl-reactors
Pappas, S. (9 July 2015). Facts about Uranium. LiveScience. Retrieved Mar. 4, 2016, from http://www.livescience.com/39773-facts-about-uranium.html
World Nuclear Association. (Aug. 2015). Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors. Retrieved Mar. 3, 2016, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
