←back to thread

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

(arstechnica.com)
425 points nixass | 1 comments | 02 Apr 21 18:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.264s | source
Show context
einrealist[dead post] ◴[02 Apr 21 18:30 UTC] No.26674327[source]▶
Yeah, and 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). "_Clean_" nuclear energy is and will always be a fairy tale!

Edit: Emphasized the word "Clean". I am not per se against Nuclear. Anyway, keep downvoting my opinion.

1. cthalupa ◴[02 Apr 21 18:42 UTC] No.26674494[source]▶
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.