U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia | Measures moving through Congress to encourage new reactors are receiving broad bipartisan support

www.nytimes.com

U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia

News @lemmy.world

MicroWave @lemmy.world

1y ago

U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia

www.nytimes.com /2024/03/01/climate/nuclear-power-legislation-congress.html

36 comments

Best time to build a nuclear reactor was 20 years ago.
Second best time is now.
- Isn't nuclear one, if not the most, expensive form of energy production once you factor in stuff like maintenance and disposal?
  Not trying to do the whole hot take thing here, I genuinely don't get why investing in nuclear is still pursued versus investing in renewable sources when mobility and land isn't an issue.
  EDIT:
  “Tackling the climate crisis means we must modernize our approach to all clean energy sources, including nuclear,” said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado. “Nuclear energy is not a silver bullet, but if we’re going to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, it must be part of the mix.”
  kind of provides at least a partial answer: Time. Though this quote gave me graphite control rod vibes:
  Some Democrats and Republicans in Congress have criticized the N.R.C. for being too slow in approving new designs. Many of the regulations that the commission uses, they say, were designed for an older era of reactors and are no longer appropriate for advanced reactors that may be inherently safer.
  
  There's a lot to unpack in nuclear being the most expensive form of energy production, like:
  While nuclear absolutely must be held to extremely rigorous safety standards, I seem to remember that the fossil industry leveraged the nuclear panic in the 80s to lobby all manner of bullshit red tape on top of good regulations, and that has dramatically increased time and financial cost to building new reactors.
  Does that also factor in all externalities, like radiological waste from coal fire plants, and the damage from carbon emissions contributing to climate change? Or are we only counting the externalities of nuclear?
  Are we also including new generations of reactors, which are supposedly safer, produce less waste, and less able to be used for nuclear weapons production? Or are we just looking at the reactor designs from 70 years ago that represent all of what's in operation in the US today? Can you imagine trying to argue for solar or wind with designs from 70 years ago? It'd be a pretty hard sell.
- I think we could go back another decade or two and still be correct.
- France just brought an older reactor back online using recycled fuel https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/French-reactor-using-full-core-of-recycled-uranium
- Best time to build a reactor is never. Better to use the fuckton of money for cheaper and better renewables...
  
  But then you would need another excuse in 2 decades but having build not enough expensive nuclear power, still struggling to get the ones in production finished and still burning fossil fuels...
  And we all know that destroying the planet for profits is the actual goal here.
  The exact same people spending huge sums on deying climate change for decades are now paying for "it's all too late and we are doomed anyway, so why try to do anything" and "nuclear power, especially future designs far from actually being production ready, will safe us" messaging.
  
  Hydro and wind kill more people per terawatt hour. That leaves solar (and possibly tidal as that development ramps up). Putting all your eggs in just one form of renewables (solar) would be an insane risk. Base loads need to be addressed in order to phase out the fossil fuels.
  There are more options with modern reactor designs. Small modular reactors can be built and brought online cheaper and faster than previous designs. That would allow a faster ROI (reducing fossil fuel usage faster).
  Solar, wind, tidal and nuclear should be scaled simultaneously to reach our goals and not think it's just one or the other.
The only thing nuclear has going for it at the moment is jobs for the boys. Have a look at Hinkley C in the UK. It's certainly not for cheap or clean energy.
- It's not carbon. That's the biggest thing right now; first and foremost, we need to stop carbon emissions. Nuclear is one pathway there, and there's no reason it can't be complimentary to renewables.
  
  I agree with you about carbon but nuclear has ended up being one of the most expensive alternatives.
  
  Nuclear is one pathway there, and there's no reason it can't be complimentary to renewables.
  The reason is limited resources. Whatever we invest into nuclear can't be invested in renewables.
Nuclear is bad. We need to invest in renewables. (Sidenote, phasing out nuclear for fossil energy like what Germany did is worse than nuclear.)
If you say “well we need more energy to grow,” then I say we should degrow until renewables are sufficient for our needs.
- Nuclear is bad. We need to invest in renewables.
  It's better to explain your reasoning a bit more. If you want expensive electricity prices, choose nuclear. If you want something which will only be built if the government takes all the risk, choose nuclear.
  It's a bit strange to go for nuclear while ignoring that any energy company will not build it on their own. Only if all the risk and possible cost overruns are on the government.
  Renewables are way cheaper. And there are cheaper solutions to solve volatility of renewables.
  
  For my own country, which seems intent on investing in nuclear energy like with small modular reactors, the plan makes no sense. We don't have proven uranium or plutonium reserves, much less the capability to mine and refine it. Then there's how to store nuclear waste indefinitely, even if nuclear disaster is not a problem. Nuclear is just a bad problem all around and it should be left in the past.
  If nuclear fusion energy is solved, I might support it, but only under conditions of communism, otherwise the harvesting the power of the atom would only mean more labor exploitation and valorization under a capitalist mode of production.
- Nuclear is bad.
  Well there we have it boys, the authority has spoken.
  Please do not search the deaths per kWh energy produced for each form of energy, or the amount of radioactivity produced.
  Nuclear is bad tho, so the death-rate and lower efficiency of other forms of energy must be accepted. /s
  
  Obviously fossil fuels are worse asshole. It's literally in the comment when I mentioned Germany.
- if you say “well we need more energy to grow,” then I say we should degrow until renewables are sufficient for our needs.
  Well, that’s their cruel little trick they play. Because, while capitalism is the driving force behind everything, “degrowing” means endless financial suffering for millions, if not billions, because anything but constant growth triggers a cascading effect of shittiness, where big business gets bailed out, people lose money, inflation grows, and “reinvestment”has to begin or people keep starving.
  Capitalism is a death cult, but it’s also like one of those traps you can only go further into, as backing out causes severe damage. You know, like the protectors someone created to insert into a vagina, that have the spikes only facing inward so during a sexual attack, it’s like hotel California?
  
  No idea what the heck you are trying to say, but it seems you're trying to say it in bad faith. Seems like you're making stuff up about degrowth or repeating stuff that others made up. Please read this to actually learn what degrowth means: Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help
  
  Degrowth means suffering for millions, but a better life for billions. The richest 10% of the world are resposible for half the worlds emissions. The world primary energy consumption is 18.2% low carbon. As energy consumption and emissions are linked that means by cutting smartly we can half our global emissions that way. Btw a lot of people in rich countries are not in the global 10% either. Really only the USA and richest European countries have even roughly half their population in the global 10%.