The debate over more nuclear power in Georgia.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june12/nuclear_02-15.html

Above is a link to an article that transcribes and has a recording of a recent PBS interview conference with two prominent figures in the debate over the contraction of new nuclear reactors in Georgia's Burke County. The interviewer is Jeffrey Brown of PBS and the interviewees are Stephen Smith of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and Tony Pietrangelo from the Nuclear Energy Institute. The debate is centered around questions of safety and prospects of potential economic benefit/ promise that this project holds for Georgia's collective future, including the governing bodies, residents and communities that should all have a say in the project and, of course, the investors who have a monetary stake in it. Pietrangelo represents the industry and its vested interests in building the plant, and Smith represents the dissenting public opinion that opposes the construction of more reactor cores. The interview is prefaced by with an excerpt from an Obama speech in which he reiterates his commitment to the goal of 80% of national power production being generated from clean-energy sources by 2035.

In the large picture it seems wind and solar power are the least environmentally invasive. Although wind turbines can pose threats to migratory birds and may be an eye-sore, and large scale photovoltaic energy production through the use of solar panels could be a threat to native species desert environments as a previous post elaborated on, these two sources of power are arguably the cleanest even in comparison to 'clean coal,' natural gas, and of course nuclear, which inevitably generates some radioactive waste which must be contained and is difficult to dispose. In the wake of the disasters in Japan where an earthquake induced tsunami devastated a nuclear power plant in Fukushima causing a meltdown that killed five hospitalized others and made for a radioactively toxic environment that has contaminated the surrounding areas in multiple ways. While Pietrangelo argues that this new "AP1000" design is safer and will conform to all the applicable Fukushima requirements and the plan has integrated some insights and design improvements acknowledging lessons learned from the Fukushima catastrophe (these include an ability for the reactor to shut down safely even in the event of a power outage). Stephen Smith argues that the design is indeed new and that poses a danger in and of itself given that there is no precedent for this type of reactor as no other exists in the United States, and the design is still in experimentally functional stages in the other countries. There are potential benefits to Georgia that the new Vogtle plant may provide. As it is an economically depressed area, it could use the stimulus in jobs and potential state revenue that the Plant might generate along with the electricity. Pietrangelo stresses that this $10 billion project has already been under construction for over a year and has $4 billion sunk into it. There is a governmental financial involvement in the form of $8 billion worth of conditional loan guarantees, however even without government involvement if the conditions are not met and funding is not appropriated, Pietrangelo feels there is enough private interest for the project to go ahead anyways. Stephen smith argues that the price tag is actually much higher than what was original projected, and tax-payers bear the risk if government money is used in the construction, Pietrangelo acknowledges this reality but feels Georgia also stands to gain economically. If the investment is made publicly on their behalf, and the project is not entirely bankrolled by private financiers, the money may recirculate into the Georgian hands, and could be spent on programs and projects that bolster the local economy and boost the state governments budget. Given that Georgia residents will have to bear the brunt of the nuclear burden of the in their backyard, a proverbial yard already dotted with reactor cores and relatively contaminated from past nuclear weapons facilities that have created current superfund sites, it seems that they should also deserve to reep the rewards. Stephen Smith argues that the rewards might not outweigh the risks, and that the public sentiment in Georgia is not sympathetic to a larger nuclear presence in their immediate environment.