Race to cut carbon emissions splits U.S. states on nuclear

[dalton99a]

https://apnews.com/article/climate-technology-business-nuclear-power-environment-and-nature-cfb21ab68a9e7005cc08873f2a5a7031

Race to cut carbon emissions splits U.S. states on nuclear
By JENNIFER McDERMOTT

...

An Associated Press survey of the energy policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia found that a strong majority— about two-thirds— say nuclear, in one fashion or another, will help take the place of fossil fuels. The momentum building behind nuclear power could lead to the first expansion of nuclear reactor construction in the U.S. in more than three decades.

Roughly one-third of the states and the District of Columbia responded to the AP’s survey by saying they have no plans to incorporate nuclear power in their green energy goals, instead leaning heavily on renewables. Energy officials in those states said their goals are achievable because of advances in energy storage using batteries, investments in the grid for high-voltage interstate transmission, energy efficiency efforts to reduce demand and power provided by hydroelectric dams.

The split over nuclear power in U.S. states mirrors a similar debate unfolding in Europe, where countries including Germany are phasing out their reactors while others, such as France, are sticking with the technology or planning to build more plants.

The Biden administration, which has tried to take aggressive steps to reduce greenhouse gases, views nuclear as necessary to help compensate for the decline of carbon-based fuels in the nation’s energy grid.

[DFW]

1. It has been a hotly raging debate for many years where we live (western Germany)

After Fukushima, Merkel was so freaked out by what she saw (she is, after all, a physicist by training), that she did a complete 180° on her party's pro-nuclear power stance, and set Germany on a path to slowly but surely abandon nuclear power altogether. Although all-renewable energy was the long-term plan, and ditching coal was on the agenda even before Fukushima, Germany's energy needs could not be met in the short term by renewables alone. They can't get by without natural gas, and Russia is providing most of it. Now, Putin is threatening to shut it off if Germany follows America's hard line against Russia's westward imperial expansion. His dream of re-establishing the Soviet Empire is alive and well. Germany is phasing out its nuclear reactors, but many are still online, waiting their turn to be shut down, but still producing "clean (until something goes wrong)" energy.

Many Germans, my wife included, are apprehensive as all hell about all the aging nuclear reactors still in use right on Germany's borders with France and Belgium. She points out, and rightly so, that Germany going nuclear-free doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot if there are twenty potential Chernobyls within 30 kilometers of Germany--especially since we live near the western borders with Holland, Belgium and France.

[cinematicdiversions]

2. There are zero potential Chernobyls in Europe.

Replacing aging plants with modern designs is a must but there is a lot more radiation released from coal burning than modern nuclear.

[DFW]

3. The Chernobyl design wasn't used in the West, so that is correct. However,

The aging reactors are not all being monitored or kept up to the extent they need to be in order to ensure complete safety from any meltdown--if 100% safety is even a possibility:
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/belgien-wieder-panne-in-atomkraftwerk-100.html

Being the immediate neighbors of such installations is not as comforting as living nowhere near one. Coal releases unimaginable amounts of pollutants into the air (especially sulfur, with the kind mined in the Eifel and the Ruhrgebiet), but that it released substantial radiation is a new one on me. I must admit, I had never heard that before.

[Klaralven]

6. Fukushima was a General Electric Boiling Water Reactor of a flawed design

These early boiling water reactors should be shut down.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-reactor-background.aspx

[hunter]

4. Nuclear power is the only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely.

Aggressive renewable energy schemes in places like Germany, Denmark, and California have failed and will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels, especially natural gas.

The human race has worked itself into a corner. We can't feed and shelter 8 billion people without high density energy sources. If we continue to burn fossil fuels, even as "backup power" for our renewable energy schemes, billions of people are going to suffer and die.

[retread]

5. Third paragraph says, ..."radioactive waste that can remain dangerous for thousands of years"

Light Water Reactors should be viewed in the same manner we view coal plants. Dangerous relics of the past.

Modern plants being built today are still just improved LWR's. They still produce huge amounts of nuclear waste and are prohibitively costly.

4th generation reactors, specifically Integral Fast Reactors and Liquid Fluoride-Thorium Reactors should be researched and developed in any future plans that include nuclear fission.

"Both IFR and LFTR are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect."

Prompt development and deployment of safe 4th generation nuclear power is essential to a "post fossil fuel future".

[hunter]

7. These reactors produce negligible amounts of waste compared to fossil fuels...

... in volumes small enough that this waste can be contained indefinitely.

Compare this to coal ash ponds, gas fracking wastes, or the most dangerous wastes of all, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses which are just dumped carelessly everywhere.

Modern Light Water Reactors are still preferable to any sort of fossil fuel generated electricity, even electricity generated by hybrid gas-wind-solar schemes.

Building more LWRs and extending the service life of some existing reactors is not a mistake. Used fuel from these reactors, along with huge stores of depleted uranium and nuclear weapon cores, will eventually be used to fuel the safe 4th generation nuclear power plants you describe.

I used to be an anti-nuclear activist and some kind of Luddite. I'm not anymore.

I'm still a radical environmentalist and social justice warrior.

We need to quit fossil fuels now and we have the technology to do it.

Waiting for new technologies like fusion, cheap batteries, IFR and LFTR, etc., will only increase the fossil fuel miseries to come.