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: 0s | 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 #

notJim ◴[02 Apr 21 19:29 UTC] No.26675068[source]▶

>>26674051 #

I couldn't agree more. Retiring reactors before a green replacement is available has been a total disaster for Germany. To be honest, I'm pretty agnostic as to what the replacement is, but at least keep them going until it's available.

replies(3): >>26675238 #>>26675494 #>>26675596 #

legulere ◴[02 Apr 21 20:17 UTC] No.26675494[source]▶

>>26675068 #

I would call it unwise, but there has been no disaster. Electricity production through fossil fuels went down, renewables reached 50% last year while Germany still has one of the most stable electricity network worldwide:

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...

replies(2): >>26675799 #>>26677679 #

1. belorn ◴[03 Apr 21 01:33 UTC] No.26677679[source]▶

>>26675494 #

Here in nearby Sweden we are currently giving subsidizes to oil and gas in order to act as "reserve" energy, ie stability. Those fossil fueled plants get paid first once just to keep the engines running, the fuel tanks full and employees ready, and then they get paid a second time if demand start to rise and energy is actually produced.

I suspect Germany does the same thing, but it would be interesting to hear if my guess is correct.

Sweden is also currently investing heavily in connecting power lines with nearby countries in order to increase the capacity to buy energy with countries that produce energy through fossil fuels when needed.

↑