Long road to power

These recent articles seem a bit unbalanced. For instance, today they quote the Nuclear Energy Institute, a pro-nuclear organization, and to balance that they could have provided a perspective from an organization that opposes nuclear power.

The pro-nuke advocates make a big deal out of the temporary jobs provided by construction, but as the developer is a French company, it would seem that the bulk of the investment will flow out of Ohio and out of the United States.

Also, the majority of power made by Duke goes to states other than Ohio, which will be stuck with the risks and the health problems.

And, where exactly will the highly-toxic waste be stored? And, when the plant expires in a couple generations, who will bear the cost of decommissioning the plant, that will require disposal of highly radioactive material. One gallon of high-level waste, theoretically, is enough to toxify the entire human race.

We also know that the prior nuclear facility in Piketon had at least one major accident, that released thousands of pounds of radioactive material into the environment. It is also a highly toxic site now, according to the government. Will it continue to be cleaned up?

Finally, the journalists might provide the public with more information about the health risks of nuclear power--areas and communities surrounding plants generally have abnormally high cancer and disease rates, for instance.

And let's not forget that the accident at Chernobyl, caused by human error, destroyed 1000 square miles of highly productive farmland. If a similar accident occurred in Ohio, the price would be devastating. This is a risk that needs to be assessed as well.

We don't want to go from "Go Bucks" to "Glow Bucks"!

Just a few points
1) Temporary jobs? Each plant has 500-700 permanent works for over 60 years at an average salary of $50k/years. Does not sound very temporary to me.
2) Power outside Ohio? Did you not read the side bar? 690,000 Ohio customers. Does not sound like Duke is a small player in Ohio.
3) Health problems? A recent University of Wisconsin study determined that the cancer rate of nuke workers is less than the cancer rate for general civilians. Additionally, no un-biased survey has ever been able to substantiate a higher rate of detrimental health problems. With 104 plants and a major accident, this should have been easy to prove.
4) Waste? I would rather have the waste on site in a metal canister, then in the air or in sludge ponds, causing deaths and deleterious breathing diseases as the coal plants do. I did not have asthma until I moved to within 4 miles of a coal plant. Now I do. I do not think it is coincidence. By the way, the coal plant is not paying for medicine or clean up.
5) Chernobyl ? A little research will show that the old Russian design has never and will never be licensed for the US. In short the Chernobyl event cannot happen in the US. This is based on the laws of physics.
Just a few points.

DouglasJay wrote:

Finally, the journalists might provide the public with more information about the health risks of nuclear power--areas and communities surrounding plants generally have abnormally high cancer and disease rates, for instance.

Generally the areas surrounding nuclear power plants have no increase in any health problems. That was proven by a major study that was requested by anti-nuke US Senator Kennedy. That wasn't a surprise to anybody who knows anything about radiation. The seven US states with the highest US radiation dose are consistently among the ten US states with the LOWEST age-adjusted cancer mortality. The high background radiation areas of Kerlala Province, India and Ramsar, Iran have no unusual health problems. Many people in those areas have received more dose every year than US nuclear plant workers are allowed to receive.
Not that journalists haven't been consistently putting out the false propaganda that you desire.

Yes, it takes years to build a nuclear power plant. Any utility that undertakes construction on one will not only pay huge construction costs years before the plant is operating, but will also pay huge carbon taxes. All of these costs must be passed on to the consumer.

It would be better to defer the carbon taxes until after 2020 to at least give utilities and their customers a fighting chance to lower their carbon production via nuclear, wind, and biomass.