YetAnotherSecretAnonymousPseudonymeArs Tribunus Militumet Subscriptorreply2 months agoignore user
Bdnzor wrote:
Everyone seems to love nuclear plants, but do they forget about the tons and tons of waste you have to store somewhere basically forever?

1. Not all "radioactive" waste is the same.

Amongst the amount of radioactive waste generated by nuclear power, research, medical and a few others activities, there are different kind of waste, distinguished by their activity and their half life.

I'm most familiar with the French classification, so I'll use that one, but countries usually account for this is similar ways.

High Activity waste represent 0.2% of the volume and 94.9% of the radioactivity.

Medium Activity with long half life represent another 2.9% fo the volume and 4.9% of the activity.

The volume in France of those two categories is 4 000 + 42 000 m3. If you spread these on a football field, it raises up to 7 meters. That's the waste for the whole country.

The remainder usually is composed of shorter half life (<31 years) and medium activity, low and very low activity waste, and very short half life stuff that you can keep in storage until they get inert.

Dealing with those is significantly easier. (And generally no worse than dealing with normal industrial waste, of which we have significantly larger volumes).

2. Proper underground storage is a reliable way to deal with High Level Waste.

The underground storage projects are not stupid dig how, bury, forget process. They are designed using serious geology studies, including what can be learn from the Oklo natural reactor that ran 2 billions years ago.

The vitrified waste is in such a form that water has to actually dissolve the glass to free-up the waste (that's not happening very fast, especially given that there are a few barriers before water even comes into contact with the glass), and the storage is built in low permeability rocks were water barely flows at all. As such by the time water manages to dissolve some amount of waste, it usually has decreased significantly and gets diluted to homeopathic doses by the time it gets anywhere near surface.

The Left’s animus towards energy independence and corresponding human flourishing must be challenged. //

A new book from philosopher Alex Epstein, however, argues continued use of fossil fuels and its byproducts will positively impact our future.

Epstein’s new book, Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less, masterfully makes the case for continued usage of coal, oil, and natural gas against so-called “renewables.”

The author articulates to readers the importance of refuting hostile viewpoints concerning fossil fuels. //

Epstein notes fossil fuel benefits far outweigh the negative side-effects attributed to them. Oft-dismissed benefits, he writes, include “affordable food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.” //

Nuclear energy, in Alex’s view, especially raw materials for it, are “far more abundant in nature than even fossil fuels” because it has massive scalability potential. And it boasts a reliable base load and isn’t intermittent like solar or wind.

Talk about an inconvenient truth. //

In his book, Epstein challenges readers to advance the “human flourishing framework” and associate it—not the “anti-impact framework” espoused by “designated experts”— with cleaner environmental standards and overall climate safety.

An unimpacted environment, he says, leads to more disasters —like high-intensity fires raging across the American West. And vice versa.

This framework parallels the debate surrounding conservation stewardship versus preservationist environmentalism. Preservationists intentionally conflate preservation (no use of natural resources) with conservation (wise use of natural resources).The former admonishes human input and calls for nature to take its course compared to the latter, which welcomes positive human impact (including multiple-use management of public lands) on the landscape.

On this token, environmental policies shouldn’t prefer nature over people but safeguard the interests of both. After all, this is the essence of America’s true conservationist ethos.

In 1999 three workers received high doses of radiation in a small Japanese plant preparing fuel for an experimental reactor.
The accident was caused by bringing together too much uranium enriched to a relatively high level, causing a 'criticality' (a limited uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction), which continued intermittently for 20 hours.
A total of 119 people received a radiation dose over 1 mSv from the accident, but only the three operators' doses were above permissible limits. Two of the doses proved fatal.
The cause of the accident was "human error and serious breaches of safety principles," according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A new generation of reactors promises a nuclear energy renaissance, but critics say the US needs to figure out what to do about its radioactive garbage first. //

But there’s a new type of nuclear on the block: the small modular reactor (SMR). For a long time, the US nuclear industry has been stagnating, in large part because of the tremendous costs of building massive new plants. SMRs, by contrast, are small enough to be built in a factory and then hauled elsewhere to produce power. Advocates hope this will make them more cost-effective than the big reactors of today, offering an affordable, always-on complement to less-predictable renewables like wind and solar. According to some, they should also produce less radioactive waste than their predecessors. A Department of Energy-sponsored report estimated in 2014 that the US nuclear industry would produce 94 percent less fuel waste if big, old reactors were replaced with new smaller ones.

Krall was skeptical about that last part. “SMRs are generally being marketed as a solution—that maybe you don’t need a geological repository for them,” she says. So as a postdoc at Stanford, she and two prominent nuclear experts started digging through the patents, research papers, and license applications of two dozen proposed reactor designs, none of which have been built so far. Thousands of pages of redacted documents, a few public records requests, and a vast appendix full of calculations later, Krall, who is now a scientist with Sweden’s nuclear waste company, got an answer: By many measures, the SMR designs produce not less, but potentially much more waste: more than five times the spent fuel per unit of power, and as much as 35 times for other forms of waste. The research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences earlier this week.

Startups seeking licenses to build SMR designs have disputed the findings and say they’re prepared for whatever waste is generated while the US sorts out permanent disposal. “Five times a small number is still a really small number,” says John Kotek, who leads policy and public affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade association.

But the authors say the “back-end” of the fuel cycle, which includes waste and decommissioning, should be a bigger factor in what they consider to be the precarious economics of the new reactors. “The point of this paper is to prompt a discussion,” says Allison Macfarlane, a former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a coauthor of the paper. “We can’t get to how much it is going to cost until we understand what we’re dealing with.”

Providing energy for a global economy in which billions of people in developing countries aspire to a lifestyle similar to that of Europe, North America, and East Asia is one of the most daunting challenges of the 21st century. //

When its development began in the 1950s, power generated by nuclear fission was heralded as the energy source for the future. I am old enough to remember when the “atomic age” was used in a non-ironic fashion. The energy density of uranium, exploited optimally, is more than a million times greater than than of fossil fuels, and producing electricity from it emits no carbon dioxide, smoke, or noxious gas pollutants. Since its energy density is so great, nuclear power plants are compact and require little land compared to low density sources such as solar power farms or wind turbine arrays. Finally, the mining and refining of the small quantities of uranium fuel required and the modest quantities of radioactive waste produced have a small environmental impact compared to producing, transporting, and burning fossil fuels.

But due to historical accidents, lack of imagination, government bungling and regulation, incompetent engineering and operation leading to a small number of highly-visible accidents, fear mongering by media and ignorant advocates of other technologies or abandonment of our energy-intensive modern civilisation, nuclear fission power never achieved the ambitious goals (“too cheap to meter”) it originally seemed to promise.

Today, nuclear power is not usually considered among the “sustainable” alternatives to fossil fuels and, since it relies upon uranium as a fuel, of which a finite supply exists on Earth, is classified as “non-renewable” and hence not viable as a long-term energy source. But what do you mean “long-term”, anyway? Eventually, the Sun will burn out, after all, so even solar isn’t forever. Will ten thousand years or so do for now, until we can think of something better?

Energy “experts” scoff at the long-term prospects for nuclear fission power, observing that known worldwide reserves of uranium, used in present-day reactor designs, would suffice for only on the order of a century if nuclear power were to replace all primary power generation sources presently in use. But is this correct? In fact, this conclusion stems not from science and technology, but stupidity and timidity, and nuclear fission is a “bird in the hand” solution to the world’s energy problems awaiting only the courage and will to deploy it.

That is the conclusion by the authors of a paper with the same title as this post, “Nuclear Fission Fuel is Inexhaustible 1” [PDF, 8 pages], presented at the IEEE EIC Climate Change Conference in Ottawa, Canada in May 2006. Here is the abstract:

Nuclear fission energy is as inexhaustible as those energies usually termed “renewable”, such as hydro, wind, solar, and biomass. But, unlike the sum of these energies, nuclear fission energy has sufficient capacity to replace fossil fuels as they become scarce. Replacement of the current thermal variety of nuclear fission reactors with nuclear fission fast reactors, which are 100 times more fuel efficient, can dramatically extend nuclear fuel reserves. The contribution of uranium price to the cost of electricity generated by fast reactors, even if its price were the same as that of gold at US$14,000/kg, would be US$0.003/kWh of electricity generated. At that price, economically viable uranium reserves would be, for all practical purposes, inexhaustible. Uranium could power the world as far into the future as we are today from the dawn of civilization—more than 10,000 years ago. Fast reactors have distinct advantages in siting of plants, product transport and management of waste.

The nuclear power industry has been pushing the fantasy of yet another “renaissance” of nuclear power, based on the absurd idea that atomic reactors — which operate at 571 degrees Fahrenheit, produce substantial greenhouse gas emissions and, periodically, explosions — can somehow cool the planet. //

As a green power advocate since 1973, I’ve visited dozens of reactor sites throughout the U.S. and Japan. The industry’s backers portray them as high-tech black boxes that are uniformly safe, efficient and reliable, ready to hum for decades without melt-downs, blow-ups or the constant emissions of heat, radiation, chemical pollution and eco-devastation that plague us all.

In reality, the global reactor fleet is riddled with widely varied and increasingly dangerous defects. These range from inherent design flaws to original construction errors, faulty components, fake replacement parts, stress-damaged (“embrittled”) pressure vessels, cracked piping, inoperable safety systems, crumbling concrete, lethal vulnerabilities to floods, storms and earthquakes, corporate greed and unmanageable radioactive emissions and wastes — to name a few.

Heat, radiation and steam have pounded every reactor’s internal components. They are cracked, warped, morphed and transmuted into rickety fossils virtually certain to shatter in the next meltdown. //

Today, the utility’s two uninsured Diablo Canyon reactors threaten more than ten million people living downwind with potential catastrophes made possible by any of a dozen nearby earthquake faults (including the San Andreas). [All nuclear power plants are insured by the federal government] //

Desperate atomic cultists including Bill Gates are now touting small modular reactors. But they’re unproven, can’t deploy for years to come, can’t be guarded against terrorists and can’t beat renewables in safety, speed to build, climate impacts, price or job creation.

Our energy future should consist of modern solar, wind, battery and LED/efficiency technologies, not nuclear reactors. Let’s work to guarantee that none of them explode before we get there. //

Uneducated article.
The entire preface of the article is predicated around fear, uncertainty, and doubt; evidently motivated by emotions instead of factual information.

Not a single compelling argument against nuclear has been made here - move along.

JOËL LANGLOIS 23 HOURS AGO //

Saying No to Nuclear Power is what brought us the Climate Crisis
It is increasingly apparent that solar, wind, batteries & efficiency cannot provide a complete solution to decarbonise the grid. Anti-nuclear campaigners have promised this for the past 50 years but it is an unattainable goal. Such dogma has simply prolonged the use of fossil fuel, causing millions of avoidable deaths. We could, and should, have decarbonised the grid with nuclear power in the 20th century.

Even if batteries could someday work on the required scale, for the lengthy durations needed, they have a far, far higher environmental footprint than nuclear power. The recent UN report on Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options shows (p35 ) that electricity from batteries has a carbon footprint of 175 g CO2/kWh. Whereas nuclear's footprint is only 5g. (p74). The same document shows solar emits 11-37g, and wind 12-14g. Batteries are simply not sustainable as a large-scale alternative to nuclear baseload.

The evidence shows nuclear energy has significantly lower environmental impacts than wind and solar. Lower carbon emissions, lower freshwater pollution (eutrophication), lower carcinogenic effects, lower land use, and lower consumption of metals & minerals.

When it comes to clean energy production nuclear power should really be the first choice for any environmentalist.

https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf

COLIN GLASGOW 1 DAY AGO

until President Carter, many people could legitimately dismiss campaign promises, but President Carter actually made a book of his various promises and worked to try to keep them.

Much to the detriment of nuclear energy development in the United States, two of his kept promises were to halt used fuel recycling in the US and to avoid creation of a “plutonium economy” by stopping the breeder reactor program.

Unlike Dr. Rossin, I am a suspicious guy who believes that many important decisions in the politics can best be understood by following the money. The obvious beneficiaries of a policy to avoid a “plutonium economy” are those entities who already have control over “the hydrocarbon economy”.

Up to $6 billion total, with plants already scheduled to shut down the top priority. //

On Tuesday, the US Department of Energy announced it was releasing guidance that would help nuclear plant operators apply for a slice of $6 billion available under its new Civil Nuclear Credit Program. The money will be coming out of the funds allocated through the infrastructure law that was the centerpiece of President Joe Biden's legislative accomplishments.

The money intends to keep plants operational that would otherwise close due to economic issues. Priority in the first round of funding will go to plants where their operators have already announced closure plans. Next year, the remaining funds will be available to any plant operator, regardless of plans to close it. //

When the money runs out, however, the plants will be facing even stronger headwinds from wind and solar energy, which are likely to see their prices decline even further in the intervening years.

In Poland, which boasts both by far the largest military and economy of the surveyed states, almost two-thirds of the public openly declared their support for a national nuclear weapons program.

The change in attitudes is striking. When Poles were asked the same question in 2018, 83.6% favored abolishing nuclear weapons. However, the newfound realization that a non-nuclear country can be rather helpless in a confrontation with a nuclear-armed enemy has led Poland to request the US to base nuclear weapons in Poland; see Poland Says That if the U.S. Has Some Spare Nukes They’d Be Happy to Take Care of Them. //

Even when Russia loses this war with Ukraine, you can bet Putin will still use threats of using nuclear weapons to try and intimidate anyone who offends him. He will also believe that his possession of these weapons will prevent NATO from taking action under Article 5.

The strategic question is how do we live in a world in which the collapsing Third World kleptocracy that is Russia possesses nuclear weapons but can’t use them to bully other nations or drag us into a nuclear conflict. //

The only way we break the cycle of cringing in fear every time Putin has bad borscht and decides to threaten someone with nukes is to place Russian cities at risk. We can do this by either walking away from the non-proliferation regime that has limited the ownership of nuclear weapons or by providing some allies with nuclear-capable delivery systems and holding the weapons until that nation requests their release. It’s not a wonderful thought to contemplate, but it is better than endless wars in Eastern Europe brought on by Russia’s ability to threaten nuclear attack unless appeased.

BOISE, Idaho -- Scientists at the Idaho National Laboratory have completed a rare overhaul of one of the world’s most powerful nuclear test reactors and normal operations are expected to resume later this spring, officials said Monday.

The 11-month outage at the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Test Reactor, or ATR, in eastern Idaho allowed a core overhaul that's done, on average, about every 10 years. The changeout was the sixth since the reactor started operating in 1967 and the first in 17 years.. //

The ATR is unique because unlike commercial nuclear reactors that produce heat that’s turned into energy, the ATR produces neutrons so that new materials and fuels can be tested to see how they react in high-radiation environments. The test reactor’s unique cloverleaf design includes a core that’s surrounded by beryllium metal to reflect the neutrons.

But all those neutrons put wear on the internal parts of the test reactor, meaning it would lose the ability to conduct experiments if it is not refurbished.

The reactor’s designers foresaw that problem and created a reactor with internal components that can be periodically replaced.

Unlike the United States, which has a policy of no use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, Russia has no such policy. In fact, Russia has a strategic theory called escalate-to-deescalate.

This does not mean that Russia will use such weapons, and deterrence at the strategic level appears to be robust. At the tactical level, however, the situation is different. The 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review ascribed to Russia the view that “the threat of nuclear escalation or even first use of nuclear weapons would serve to de-escalate a conflict on terms favorable to Russia.” Russian military theorists have certainly discussed this idea of “escalating to de-escalate,” though whether it is a part of Russian doctrine is disputed among students of Russian strategy. “Escalating to de-escalate” in a war with NATO would run the serious risk of escalation rather than de-escalation. In a local war with a non-nuclear adversary, however, the small-scale tactical use of nuclear weapons might be a serious temptation, especially if the war were not going according to plan. In short, the impulse to escalate in a tight corner could be strong.

In other words, if the war in Ukraine goes pear-shaped, and I think it is safe to say we are getting close to that point, it would not be outside Russian strategic thinking to pop a smallish nuke somewhere in Ukraine and say to NATO, “stop supplying Ukraine right now or I’ll do the same to you.”

I think we are in the middle of that strategy right now. //

Russia is a nuclear power. Even though the odds of a nuclear weapon surviving 30 years of Russian-quality maintenance, we have to assume some of them still work. That fact is not going to change. That said, the fact that Russia has nukes and is becoming increasingly casual about threatening to use them is no reason for us to engage in submissive urination when he does. Under no circumstances can we allow ourselves to be intimidated into submission because Putin is making public noises about what he might do. If we go that route, we will find ourselves abandoning all the NATO states bordering Russia and more. Because once he finds he can get his way using this tactic, he will not stop.

What we do know is that there is no reason to believe that any moral or humanitarian case will persuade Putin not to pop a nuke on Kiev or some other Ukrainian city. What we have an obligation to do is spell out very clearly, in private, that if he does use a nuclear weapon, we reserve the right to retaliate with a similar weapon on a similar target inside Russia. And we will hunt to the ends of the earth anyone who had any role in its use, from Putin down to the guy who changed the flat tire on the vehicle used to transport the warhead and kill them.

My personal suspicion is that Putin and his nuclear threats are a lot like Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles. They only work if we buy into the framework Putin is constructing.

With monotonous regularity over the last generation, the American people have had the following statements so constantly drummed into them by the media that most Americans, it seems, have come to believe them:

1. Fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, are dangerous pollutants, and anyway we are running out of them.

2. Nuclear power is so dangerous that it cannot safely be used; indeed, the nuclear facilities already in existence represent such a mortal danger that they should be shut down.

3. But there is one hope: power derived from the sun and winds. These are infinite in quantity, or at least indefinitely great; and they are also safe and clean. All we need is a few years in which to develop this kind of power, and our energy needs will be taken care of.

Only the first of these three statements is true, with some qualifications. The second and third statements are utterly false, although it is popular to believe that they are true. //

How is it possible, in the span of a brief article, to prove the comparative safety of nuclear power? Here are a few examples of how nuclear power works and what its effects are on consumers of that power. For an excellent longer treatment, see Petr Beckmann’s incomparable book The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear.

Underexposed: What If Radiation Is Actually GOOD for You?

By: Ed Hiserodt

There is a very large disconnect between the actual dangers of exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation and the fears of such exposure. A tiny leak at a nuclear power plant is front page news, while there has never been a death or even an injury to the public from escaping radiation. Meanwhile 50,000 deaths from auto accidents go almost unnoticed. 

This fear is particularly ironic since hundreds of studies show that low doses of ionizing radiation result is lower cancer rates and overall mortality. One of these studies examined in some detail was done by Johns-Hopkins involving an initial pool of 700,000 workers, some of whom worked on ships with nuclear propulsion, while others (randomly selected) were employed on non-nuclear ships. The nuclear workers had a standard mortality rate of 0.76 times that of non-nuclear workers.

In largest "ecological" study in history, Professor Bernard Cohen of Pittsburgh University was attempting to correlate level of residential radon with lung cancer. He was astonished to find that the opposite was true -- the more radon, the less cancer. Of course these data, from 1,729 counties (about 90% of the U.S.), didn't faze the Environmental Protection Agency that has continued its crusade against radon exposure.

The positive benefits of low doses of radiation is known as "hormesis" and is identified in over 150 studies and other documented evidence presented in the book.

The truth is this: every source of energy has costs and benefits that have to be carefully weighed. Wind and solar are no different. Most people are familiar with the benefits of wind and solar: reduced air pollution, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced reliance on fossil fuels. But not as many recognize the costs of wind and solar or understand how those costs hurt both the environment and people—especially people with lower incomes. //

Solar advocates often gloss over the solar-panel manufacturing process. They just say, “We turn sand, glass, and metal into solar panels.” This oversimplification masks the real environmental costs of the manufacturing process.

Solar panels are manufactured using minerals, toxic chemicals, and fossil fuels. In fact, solar panels require 10 times the minerals to deliver the same quantity of energy as a natural gas plant.[1]Quartz, copper, silver, zinc, aluminum, and other rare earth minerals are mined with heavy diesel-powered machinery. In fact, 38% of the world’s industrial energy and 11% of total energy currently go into mining operations.[2]

Once the materials are mined, the quartz and other materials get melted down in electric-arc furnaces at temperatures over 3,450°F (1,900°C) to make silicon—the key ingredient in solar cells. The furnaces take an enormous amount of energy to operate, and that energy typically comes from fossil fuels.[3] Nearly 80% of solar cells are manufactured in China, for instance, where weak environmental regulations prevail and lower production costs are fueled by coal. //

First, many buildings are not suitable for rooftop solar panels. Rooftop installations are typically exposed to less direct sunlight due to local weather patterns, shade from surrounding trees, the orientation of a building (which are often not angled toward the sun), or the pitch of the roof.

Second, the average cost to buy and install rooftop solar panels on a home as of July 2021 is $20,474.[7] This makes rooftop installations cost-prohibitive—especially for lower-income families.

Finally, even if we installed solar panels on all suitable buildings in the U.S. we could generate only 39% of the electricity the country needs according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.[8]

Solar panels also have a shorter lifespan[9] than other power sources (about half as long as natural gas[10] and nuclear plants[11]), and they’re difficult and expensive to recycle because they’re made with toxic chemicals. When solar panels reach the end of their usable life, their fate will most likely be the same as most of our toxic electronic waste: They will be dumped in poorer nations. It is estimated that global solar panel waste will reach around 78 million metric tons by 2050[12]–the equivalent of throwing away nearly 60 million Honda Civic cars.[13] //

Adding more renewable energy to the grid is not only expensive; it’s dangerous! The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), a nonprofit organization that monitors the reliability, resilience, and security of the grid, says that the number-one risk to the electrical grid in America is adding more unreliable renewables.[16]

The reliability of a power source is measured by capacity factor. The capacity factor of a power plant tracks the time it’s producing maximum power throughout the year. When we compare the capacity factors of power plants, we see that solar is the least reliable energy source: natural gas is twice as reliable as solar, and nuclear energy is three times more reliable. //

A study conducted across 26 countries over two decades by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) concluded for every 1 megawatt of solar or wind power installed there need to be 1.12 megawatts of fossil fuels (usually natural gas) as backup capacity because solar and wind are unreliable.[21] Moreover, using backup diesel generators and ramping power plants up and down to meet energy shortfalls are two of the worst ways to use fossil fuels; they’re inefficient and cause unnecessary pollution.

A final point: solar and wind have low power densities. According to a facts guide on nuclear energy from the U.S. Department of Energy, a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate. Solar farms, by contrast, need 75 times more land and wind farms need 360 times more land, to produce the same amount of electricity.[22]

Even if we could overcome all the practical constraints on storing, transmitting, and distributing solar power, supplying a country the size of the U.S. would require over 22,000 square miles of solar panels[23]—approximately the size of New Jersey, Maryland, and Massachusetts combined.[24] And the unreliability of solar power means that even with that many solar panels, we would continue to need most of our existing power plants. //

Some people theorize that we will eventually be able to store surplus solar energy in batteries, but the reality is batteries cost about 200 times more than the cost of natural gas to solve energy storage at scale.[34] In addition, batteries don’t have enough storage capacity to meet our energy needs. Currently, America has 1 gigawatt of large-scale battery storage that can deliver power for up to four hours without a recharge. A gigawatt is enough energy to power 750,000 homes, which is a small fraction of the amount of energy storage we would need for a grid powered mostly by renewables. It is, for instance, less than 1% of the 120 gigawatts of energy storage that would be needed for a grid powered 80% by renewables.[35]

Manufacturing batteries also takes a serious toll on the environment, as they require lots of mining, hydrocarbons, and electricity. According to analysis completed by the Manhattan Institute, it requires the energy equivalent of about 100 barrels of oil to make batteries that can store a single barrel of oil-equivalent energy. And between 50 to 100 pounds of various materials are mined, moved, and processed for one pound of battery produced. Enormous quantities of lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earth elements, and cobalt would need to be mined in China, Russia, Congo, Chile, and Argentina where weak environmental regulations and poor labor conditions prevail.[36] //

Here are five steps we can begin to take towards making things better for both people and the planet:

• End subsidies and incentives for solar and wind power;
• Invest in research and development to advance new energy technologies;
• Build new efficient natural gas power plants (and hydro and geothermal where possible);
• Reform regulations and build nuclear power plants;
• Retire the worst coal power plants (5% of power plants create 73% of carbon emissions from electricity generation)[38].

Every day we spend chasing fantasies causes unnecessary harm and suffering. Let’s pursue energy solutions that benefit people and also save the environment.

Fortunately, the United States also maintains a nuclear triad that can strike all of Russia, providing a strong deterrent to a Russian attack.

The difference is that while Russia has modernized its nuclear forces about 90% of the way through, the U.S. still relies on platforms built during the Cold War. For instance, the U.S. is still squeezing life out of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile that was designed in 1960.

Programs to replace these outdated capabilities with modern systems are just getting underway, and each year must overcome opposition from far-left members of Congress. //

Bottom line: As much as U.S. policymakers might like to wish away nuclear weapons from existence, unfortunately, the enemy gets a vote. Putin’s recent inflammatory rhetoric, nuclear saber-rattling, and military actions in Ukraine are proof of the need for a strong, modern U.S. nuclear force.

With the attention of the world focused on events in Ukraine, one of the questions people are asking is about the country’s nuclear power industry. Here is a brief overview. //

Ukraine is heavily dependent on nuclear energy, with 15 reactors generating about half of its electricity. All its current reactors are Russian-designed VVER types. //

As of mid-2021, six of Ukraine’s 15 reactors were operating using fuel manufactured by Westinghouse, fabricated at its plant in Västerås in Sweden. //

"In the event of loss of the external power supply at the nuclear power plant, the autonomous power supply system starts working by means of powerful diesel generators. Ukrainian nuclear power plants are ready for such a mode of operation: the stock of diesel fuel located at nuclear power plants significantly exceeds the established standards. //

He added that two years' worth of nuclear fuel had been stockpiled in case of interruption of supply.

Europe’s aggressive leap towards ‘green’ energy is proving to be a grave mistake, making it reliant on aggressive foreign neighbors. //

Gas, coal, and nuclear are needed to offer instantaneous energy when unreliable renewables, which also pollute, fail to meet the job. Europe’s energy needs have complicated negotiations with Russia as Putin appears ready to deploy troops into Ukraine in the face of a divided opposition.

The European Commission put forward a plan today that defines what counts as a “sustainable investment,” something that’s all but required to manage a transition to clean energy. But to the chagrin of several EU countries, environmental groups, and asset managers, the proposal would allow both natural gas and nuclear to qualify as “contributing substantially to climate change mitigation.”

The split-the-baby approach came about because some countries, including Germany and Poland, lobbied for the inclusion of natural gas, while others, notably France, lobbied for nuclear power. Germany, which is in the process of shuttering its nuclear power plants, remains heavily dependent on coal and has been boosting its use of natural gas to “transition” away from coal. France, on the other hand, uses relatively little natural gas and gets nearly all of its electricity from nuclear power plants.

The end result appeased many EU countries, which tend to favor one fuel or another, but four, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, expressed their displeasure. “We are undermining the entire credibility of our Green Deal,” Bas Eickhout, a member of European Parliament from the Netherlands, told CNN. “And on the gas side, I really don’t see it. I fail to see the added value.”

Unhealthy proposal
Even people who had a hand in the plan aren’t happy. Andreas Hoepner, a professor at University College Dublin who helped advise the EU on the plan, told The Washington Post that the proposal was the equivalent of “calling french fries salad.”

While nuclear power is a true low-carbon fuel, producing lifetime carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions on par with wind and solar, its inclusion as a sustainable energy source is controversial in Europe. Several countries, including Germany, Denmark, Austria, and Spain, oppose the construction of new nuclear power plants, mostly because of concerns about safety and waste storage.

Will green energy goals suffer as aging nuclear infrastructure is phased out? //

The French government is hoping a new kind of reactor could provide a boost for its nuclear efforts. French president Emmanuel Macron has announced a €30 billion ($35 billion) investment plan that includes funding for small modular reactors—lower-capacity plants would theoretically be faster and cheaper to build and could be placed in areas that are unsuitable for large plants. The UK government has also put £210 million ($286 million) behind the development of small modular reactors, but so far the only such reactors to have been connected to a grid anywhere in the world are two that make up a floating power plant docked in Pevek harbor, in the remote northeast of Russia.

Dries thinks the share of nuclear power in Europe's energy mix will continue to decline, even if plans for proposed plants in the Czech Republic and Poland go ahead. “I think that the declining trend is stronger than the upward trend in Europe,” he says. The question is whether countries replace their aging plants with more renewables or lean on fossil fuels to plug the gap. Not every nation will take the same approach. As Akshat Rathi and Will Mathis note on Bloomberg, the same social and political forces that led to Germany turning its back on nuclear helped it become a powerhouse for renewable energy. The path to zero emissions, it turns out, does not necessarily run in a straight line.

The EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities (EU Taxonomy) became law in July 2020, but the law left several decisions to be finalized in “delegated acts.” These decisions required additional technical evaluation. The treatment of nuclear energy was one of those technical issues. On December 31, 2021, a draft delegated act was published that recognized that nuclear energy could make a substantial contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions.

In other words, nuclear energy is considered a sustainable, “green” investment. There are some conditions that are still being debated. //

As a result of intensive politicking and compromise, the delegated act also includes provisions for the inclusion of natural gas in the EU Taxonomy. Both nuclear energy and natural gas are recognized as useful tools, but both technologies must meet specific conditions and restrictions to be considered “sustainable.”

Including natural gas sounds like a cop-out to many climate activists, but it is part of a political compromise seen as necessary to avoid German rejection of the delegated act. Replacing coal with natural gas might be a reasonable step forward for the climate, but it risks deepening European energy dependence on Russia. That’s not one of the considerations influencing the EU Taxonomy.

Many articles on this subject give the impression that there is a balance between the countries that oppose nuclear and those who want it to be recognized for its obvious attributes. Those articles usually list Germany as leading a group of opponents and France leading a group of supporters. Most of those articles name two or three countries in each camp.

There are five EU members that strong oppose nuclear’s inclusion (Germany, Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and Spain) while there are at least 10 who have formally expressed their support to the European Commission in a letter sent in mid December 2021 (France, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania). After that letter was sent, the Netherlands announced that their CO2 reduction plans would include a major reliance on nuclear power.