←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: 0.201s | source
Show context
philipkglass ◴[02 Apr 21 18:07 UTC] No.26674051[source]▶
I hope that the federal government can provide incentives to keep reactors running that would otherwise close prematurely.

5.1 gigawatts of American reactors are expected to retire this year: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46436

It's a shame that the US is retiring working reactors while still burning fossil fuels for electricity. Reactors are far safer and cleaner than fossil electric generation. It's mostly the low price of natural gas that is driving these early retirements. Low gas prices have also retired a lot of coal usage -- which is good! -- but we'd make more climate progress if those low prices didn't also threaten nuclear generation.

Some states like New York already provided incentives to keep reactors running for climate reasons:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41534

Federal policy could be more comprehensive.

replies(6): >>26674195 #>>26675068 #>>26675523 #>>26675557 #>>26679016 #>>26681646 #
DennisAleynikov ◴[02 Apr 21 18:20 UTC] No.26674195[source]▶
if we are to come out the other side of this climate emergency we must keep our reactors online. the purity testing of what do we do with the waste is not helpful critique when we are still reliant on coal
replies(2): >>26674304 #>>26674654 #
1. thisisbrians ◴[02 Apr 21 18:54 UTC] No.26674654[source]▶
The way I think about the waste: for nuclear, the waste can be reliably (and safely) contained in a very small area, far from civilization and habitats, where it can't cause much of a problem. When we burn hydrocarbons, they pollute the atmosphere — for the entire planet.