N two weeks the Tennessee Valley Authority, America’s largest public power producer, will decide whether to complete construction of a long-deferred generating unit at the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, in northeast Alabama. If we proceed, Bellefonte 1 would become the T.V.A.’s third nuclear unit brought into service in the 21st century.This is, understandably, a controversial issue. Why are we thinking of expanding our fleet of nuclear plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster? After all, some countries seem to be going the other way: Germany and others are planning to cut back or eliminate their nuclear power facilities altogether.
Indeed, whether the Bellefonte project moves forward or not, the T.V.A. is committed to demonstrating that a methodical, safety-driven approach to nuclear development works. Along with the possibility of restarting work at Bellefonte, in recent years we have upgraded our Browns Ferry 1 reactor, also in Alabama, and we are completing a second reactor at our Watts Bar plant, in eastern Tennessee.
Continue reading at Why We Still Need Nuclear
Choose Language / 言語
Updates / 最新記事
- Lawmaker resurrects radioactive waste bill via My San Antonio
- 保管のセシウム汚泥 1年で3倍に via とある原発の溶融貫通(メルトスルー)
- 核融合発電の安全性は識者の間でも意見が割れている via 週プレNews
- Living above Germany’s old nuclear waste via Deutsche Welle
- Fukushima No. 1 can’t keep its head above tainted water via The Japan Times
- Feds again delay San Onofre nuke restart decision via San Francisco Chronicle
- Japan, India to resume talks on nuclear cooperation pact via Global Post
- 日本とインドが原子力協定検討 原発輸出を加速 via msn.産経ニュース
- 放射性セシウム、深部で濃度高く 海洋機構が分析結果 via 日本経済新聞
- Why Ernest Moniz matters via Herald Everett, Washington
カレンダー
Archives / 月別アーカイブ
- May 2013 (117)
- April 2013 (156)
- March 2013 (199)
- February 2013 (191)
- January 2013 (173)
- December 2012 (92)
- November 2012 (198)
- October 2012 (229)
- September 2012 (207)
- August 2012 (255)
- July 2012 (347)
- June 2012 (231)
- May 2012 (168)
- April 2012 (116)
- March 2012 (150)
- February 2012 (198)
- January 2012 (292)
- December 2011 (251)
- November 2011 (252)
- October 2011 (364)
- September 2011 (288)
- August 2011 (513)
- July 2011 (592)
- June 2011 (253)
- May 2011 (251)
- April 2011 (571)
- March 2011 (494)
- February 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
By Topic / トピック一覧
anti-nuclear energy movement
Atomic Age
Capitalism
East Japan Earthquake + Fukushima
energy policy
EU
food
France
health
Hiroshima/Nagasaki
IAEA
India
Inequality
labor
nuclear waste
Nuclear Weapons
Oi
Radiation exposure
restart
Russia/Ukraine/Chernobyl
TEPCO
U.S.
UK
エネルギー政策
メディア
ヨーロッパ
ロシア/ウクライナ/チェルノブイリ
上関
健康
公正・共生
兵器
再稼働
労働における公正・平等
原発推進
反原発運動
大飯原発
女性・フェミニズム
広島・長崎
教育
東京電力
東日本大震災・福島原発
米国
脱原発
被ばく
資本主義



The author only talks about “risks” in running the power plant. But what about nuclear waste? What about the warm water flowing into the river after having circulated in the plant?