Have an account?

Monday, March 14, 2011

Earthquake Dangers and Nuclear

The last nuclear power plant built in the United States was completed in 1996, and with the current argument in this country about our growing population and demand for energy, a few, including our current president, have suggested that we consider building some new nuclear plants.

Last week an 8.9 earthquake struck off the coast of Japan causing a massive tsunami, killing thousands and destroying entire towns. Add to that, the impact the earth quake has caused to power generation industry.

There are currently 5 plants that are declared in the state of emergency. One of which has already experienced and explosion and thousands are being evacuated in danger of radiation poisoning, according to MSNBC.

Japan is an earthquake prone country, and technologically advanced, to the point that we can be assured that buildings and power plants are built to the highest possible standards when it comes to the subject of dealing with earthquake damage.

Here is the United States we aren’t as prone to earth quakes, with the exception of the west coast. Half of the power plants in this country are over 24 years old, according to the EIA.
So let’s see, we have earthquakes in the west, hurricanes in the south-east, tornadoes, snowstorms, and of course we’ve managed to piss-off every mid-east, terrorist prone, bomb-totting, plane-jacking country.

So, should we really be building new nuclear plants? Or should we consider utilizing wave energy off our costs, and wind and sun across the county? Or, do nothing, and continue to destroy mountains for coal, destroy the oceans for oil, and have meltdowns for nuclear?




1 comment:

Quorri Scharmyn said...

Might as well build them and usher in the apocalypse. No stopping it now. At least we'll all get to meet Jesus soooner.... OH! That's why they want to build them! Duh... ;)