Majority of US states pursue nuclear power for emission cuts

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Majority of US states pursue nuclear power for emission cuts

By JENNIFER McDERMOTT
January 18, 2022

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — As climate change pushes states in the U.S. to dramatically cut their use of fossil fuels, many are coming to the conclusion that solar, wind and other renewable power sources might not be enough to keep the lights on.

Nuclear power is emerging as an answer to fill the gap as states transition away from coal, oil and natural gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stave off the worst effects of a warming planet. The renewed interest in nuclear comes as companies, including one started by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, are developing smaller, cheaper reactors that could supplement the power grid in communities across the U.S.

Nuclear power comes with its own set of potential problems, especially radioactive waste that can remain dangerous for thousands of years. But supporters say the risks can be minimized and that the energy source will be essential to stabilize power supplies as the world tries to move away from carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels.

-snip-

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

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. Well that is great friggin news indeed! How about we also don't decom old NPP's that are currently

providing power, such as Diablo Canyon?

Eh, Gavin?

[abqtommy]

2. They'll decide later whether to ship the nuclear waste to or through your/my town. nt

[hunter]

4. Could be a hundred years or more later...

... since the volume of fuel waste is so small it can be safely contained on site indefinitely.

Unlike, say the huge volumes of coal wastes, which include toxic ash, greenhouse gasses, and air pollutants.

If we site nuclear plants carefully, expecting them to be power generating sites for a thousand years or more, then the used fuel can be shipped off site a few hundred years later when the most intense radioactive elements have decayed and it has a hazard profile similar to more common non-radioactive industrial wastes.

But used fuel from light water reactors is probably too valuable to leave sitting around like that because light water reactors extract such a small fraction of the potential energy contained in their uranium fuel. This used fuel can be reprocessed for use in more efficient modern reactor designs. Some of these designs might run thirty years or more without refueling.

Other than nuclear fission there's no energy source on the horizon capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely.

We need to quit fossil fuels now. We have the technology.

The longer we fuck around waiting for some miracle technology like fusion, or miraculous changes in human behavior, the worse things will be for future generations and whatever is left of the natural environment we are familiar with.

Large scale wind and solar projects built on previously undeveloped land or seascapes are vile. They will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels, especially natural gas.

Aggressive renewable energy schemes in places like California, Germany, and Denmark have failed. It's time to move on.

[Finishline42]

6. How accurate is google on this???

How much uranium does a reactor consume?
Most of today's reactors contain several hundred fuel assemblies, each having thousands of small pellets of uranium fuel. A single pellet contains as much energy as there is in one tonne of coal. A typical reactor requires about 27 tonnes of fresh fuel each year.

Of course Uranium is one of the heaviest elements so 27 tons might not take up a lot of space...

And of course there is the other part of going on a big nuclear power plant splurge - nobody wants one in their back yard! Where are we going to find the $$$ to double our capacity (build another 100 reactors)? Or triple? Do we have 20-30 years for them to come online?

[NNadir]

5. On the other hand, since the volume is small and the materials..

...therein are highly valuable, it makes sense to recycle used nuclear fuel on site.

I note that is the case with similar arguments od this type, it involves selective attention. Nobody has a choice to be forced to breathe dangerous fossil fuel waste. It is continuously deposited directly into the lung tissue of every breathing organism on Earth. In the case of human beings who call this waste "air pollution" it kills about 7 million people per year.

Nevertheless we are required to listen to "what if" stories about used nuclear fuel. The obvious comparison in modern times is to note the inherent similarity of anti-nukes to antivaxxers. To my mind, they are equivalent. They apply their ignorance and paranoia in the elevation of irrational fears to kill people. Let's be clear, nuclear energy saves lives. It need not be risk free to be vastly superior to everything else; it only needs to be vastly superior to everything else.

[Eko]

3. Dont think we have much choice at this moment.