Coming soon - Get a detailed view of why an account is flagged as spam!
view details

This post has been de-listed

It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.

69
Should the US construct more nuclear power plants to establish a low CO2 emissions energy source that can serve as a bridge to the future until technologies, such as storage capacity, improve enough to meet the demand?
Post Flair (click to view more posts with a particular flair)
Post Body

Here are some factors to consider:

Storage:

To rely on wind and solar power, we need significantly more battery storage capacity. Wind and solar power generation are intermittent and variable, depending on weather conditions. For the USA to completely phase out the use of fossil fuels, and to address the intermittency of renewable sources and provide a stable power supply, we would need to dramatically increase our battery storage capacity—many estimates suggest 50-85 times our current capacity. Another concern is availability of minerals required to manufacture storage batteries.

CO2 Emissions:

Nuclear power plants produce electricity with minimal direct carbon emissions, similar to wind and lower than solar. Unlike solar and wind, nuclear power can provide continuous and reliable baseload power, helping to meet energy demands around the clock.

Deaths Related to Power Generation:

Although public perception is that nuclear power is dangerous, the truth is that nuclear, wind, and solar are by far the safest three sources of energy. According to statista.com, the number of deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity produced worldwide in 2021, by energy source, are as follows: brown coal 32.72, coal 24.62, oil 18.43, biomass 4.63, gas 2.82, hydropower 1.3, wind 0.04, nuclear 0.03, and solar 0.02. There have been ongoing technological advancements in nuclear energy, such as next-generation reactors and innovations in waste management.

Public Opinion:

According to a 2023 Pew Research poll, 57% of Americans say they favor the construction of more nuclear power plants for electricity generation in the country.

Comments

Deaths Related to Power Generation:

Although public perception is that nuclear power is dangerous, the truth is that nuclear, wind, and solar are by far the safest three sources of energy. According to statista.com, the number of deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity produced worldwide in 2021, by energy source, are as follows: brown coal 32.72, coal 24.62, oil 18.43, biomass 4.63, gas 2.82, hydropower 1.3, wind 0.04, nuclear 0.03, and solar 0.02. There have been ongoing technological advancements in nuclear energy, such as next-generation reactors and innovations in waste management.

This kind of misses the point of the objection to nuclear power.

For context, I don't support the use of nuclear power and one of the reasons is safety.

I'm less concerned about the deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity than I am about the ultimate failure state of these systems.

Worst case scenario for the vast majority of power generation methods, while definitely not good, don't represent a massive and sustained danger to life.

That is not true of nuclear power. I will be the first to agree that accidents are extremely rare with regards to nuclear power and the safety measures taken in modern facilities utilizing modern reactor designs are quite safe. But there is no such thing as a system that cannot suffer a catastrophic failure and when that catastrophic failure could potentially kill many, many people and render vast swathes of land unusable for hundreds or thousands of years, that's not a risk worth taking in my opinion.

I'm aware that Chernobyl isn't a good example of a safe, well run facility however it holds up as an example of the consequences of a nuclear disaster in that there are still large parts of the Exclusion Zone that are still very radioactive and hazardous as Russian soldiers recently found out.

If we had no other options, I'd support the use of nuclear power. But we do have other options. Renewable energy has the capacity to provide the vast majority of what we need and has the added benefit of starting a domestic market for power generation equipment within the US, something that would allow us to bootstrap our own renewable energy sector instead of having to import.

I would compare this to a special multivitamin that you take every day that allows you to eat dramatically less food but still guaranteed get all of the nutrition you need to be healthy...except every time you take it there's a 0.001% chance that you're going to just spontaneously start bleeding out of every orifice until you literally just melt and die.

To me, that's not worth the risk.

[not loaded or deleted]

Imagine we could have very small nuclear reactors which were safe.

You're already working in the realm of fantasy. There's just no such thing as a system that cannot suffer a catastrophic failure. All systems can and will fail over a long enough time span and the question is what happens when that failure occurs.

Again, if renewables weren't an option I'd be in favor of nuclear power but that's not the case.

[not loaded or deleted]

And those consequences are still less than the ongoing consequences of fossil fuel power.

Absent a large scale nuclear accident, I agree.

Author
Account Strength
70%
Account Age
3 years
Verified Email
Yes
Verified Flair
No
Total Karma
1,343
Link Karma
1,183
Comment Karma
160
Profile updated: 7 hours ago

Subreddit

Post Details

We try to extract some basic information from the post title. This is not always successful or accurate, please use your best judgement and compare these values to the post title and body for confirmation.
Posted
9 months ago