Renewables are soaring more urgently than ever, but not only because of the ecological transition but also because of the need to reduce dependence on those countries that export fossil fuels, such as Russia. However, in this process we have made a historic mistake in America with nuclear energy: we are going to put 94 GW into play and demonstrate that the future was perhaps not so optimistic with catastrophic generators on.
Not atrium, but nuclear energy: America comes back in search of this “new” proposal
America too is preparing to generate nuclear power with the establishment of nuclear power plants, and Vogtle is one of the plants to have been developed in the USA. A nuclear facility called Vogtle Units 3 and 4 situated in Waynesboro, Georgia has graduated through the commercial operation stage, making it the first nuclear unit new construction in the USA in over 30 years.
It is intended to achieve several goals, one of which is to deliver safe, sustainable, and accessible energy to millions of residents in GA and across the US. The new units which have been planned would be capable of producing sufficient electricity to supply about half a million households as well as organizations making them an important part of the country’s energy system.
The Vogtle project is also important because it features more modern nuclear reactor designs as well The Vanguard project was a proposed nuclear power plant in the United States to be located near San Clemente, California on seismically active land. The units that were constructed at Vogtle 3 and 4 also have Westinghouse AP1000 reactors with Generation III+.
It’s not as easy as it seems: why this invention could be unsustainable to America?
However, as seen with the Vogtle project, such huge projects come with questions about their financial sustainability. The three plants that have so far been completed have cost more than $30 billion instead of the initial planned $14 billion due to construction infringement and cost inflation.
The Vogtle project itself remains significant for Southern Company and its partners; however, some doubts regarding the fiscal profitability of the project remain. The entire cost of the project which was estimated to be $14 billion has now risen to $10- $30 billion through construction, setbacks, and other related costs.
More questions than answers: is it a good idea? 94 GW of energy “we do not need”
Of course, it causes questions about the validation of this project and its potential to become financially successful and profitable in the long run. One major issue that is currently being debated is the exact effects that Vogtle will have on the natural surroundings. However, nuclear energy is wished to be considered a clean energy source. But, is it?
For instance, the Vogtle project has drawn a lot of criticism due to its dirty consequences on the underground water sources and the soil too, not to mention its effect on the ecosystems. We cannot ignore the fact that radioactive residues can remain contaminating for more than 20,000 years, as is currently happening in Fukushima and as many experts fear will happen in America someday.
This nuclear energy is designed to dismantle arguments, according to several brands that have collaborated, but there is one that they will not be able to: WWF continues to remind that this type of source is not renewable and that, at the very least, it can pollute for several centuries (you have already seen what happened in Japan, where they now have to clean up with an ammonia bomb that we told you about several weeks ago). Therefore, we should not make the same mistake.
