Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

Taking your other fronts into account, what is a clean energy?

Beggars can’t be choosers. We have a lot of constraints and not a lot of options.

Coal energy puts out more radioactivity into the atmosphere than nuclear power.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

Learn about Small Modular Reactors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yofGtxEgpI8

In modern politics, you simply cannot defend your left flank

Easily outweighed by the savings in emissions over the lifetime of the plant.

Generation 3 and 3 "Advanced" reactors already generate significantly less waste than the Gen2 reactors that make up the majority in operation. Generation 4 reactors are in the design phase (some with proven technology, others with technology that is scientifically sound in theory but need some additional advances made) that reduce it by even larger amounts.

Even Gen2 reactors with all their faults over their lifetime are a huge net win over coal and gas fired power plants.

Producing photovoltaic panels generates tons of waste, as well, much of it quite toxic to humans and generally bad for the environment. Even building wind turbines isn't a perfectly clean task.

Our primary problem at this point is carbon emissions. Nuclear is a very viable option for significantly reducing them even at current technology levels, and with huge strides on the way.

I'd be interested in seeing information that counters the features of the 'Generation IV' nuclear reactors[0]. Among other promises, they purportedly can consume existing waste from Generation I-III reactors, and reduce the total nuclear waste on the planet, rather than increasing it.

Some purported advantages (there are different technologies):

- Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia

- 100–300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel

- Broader range of fuels, and even un-encapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).

- In some reactors, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.

- Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.

Any information filling out this picture is appreciated.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Think of the scale of those emissions and you realize they are insignificant.

> Clean nuclear energy is and will always be a fairy tale!

What type of energy is "clean"?

Wrong - please do your research and fight ignorance.

When you find out the real impact even a day of your life has on the planet you are gonna flip out. The mining required to keep you alive is going to drive you nuts.

> lets just ignore the waste and emissions that it generates at all other fronts (building the plant and materials for it, mining and processing of the fuel, processing and storage of spend fuel, disassembly of the plant)

Because of course wind turbines just appear by themselves and don’t need steel, concrete, composites, and, well, turbines (with the associated material sourcing and recycling issues). And solar panels are just picked on trees and do not need any fabrication.

The overall carbon impact for the different energy sources are well known. Solar is slightly worse and nuclear and wind are even. All three are orders of magnitude better than any fossil fuel.

I upvoted because a lot of people feel the way you do and those of us with pro-nuclear views should practice making our case constructively.

And because I don't like my contrarian views to be silenced, either.

> building the plant and materials for it, mining and processing of the fuel, processing and storage of spend fuel, disassembly of the plant

All of these things are currently far more severe with photovoltaic panels and wind turbines. Per unit of energy, nuclear is far kinder to the Earth on all of these fronts.

> Anyway, keep downvoting my opinion.

If you insist.

I don't think many people consider nuclear "clean", certainly no conversation I've ever seen has ignored the waste or the other immense lifecycle costs, and if we had enough time left I'd be all for focusing on transitioning solely to renewables.

But of all the realistic options left on the table ones that include some amount of nuclear baseload seem the least bad.