Nuclear power

anti
Total votes: 3 (20%)
yes in my backyard
Total votes: 7 (47%)
unsafe in practice, not crap in theory
Total votes: 4 (27%)
only if you're NASA or the Navy
Total votes: 1 (7%)
Total votes: 15

Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power

1
the debate that will never die.
pew research wrote: BY REBECCA LEPPERT AND BRIAN KENNEDY
As the first new U.S. nuclear power reactor since 2016 begins operations, more Americans now say they favor expanding nuclear power in the United States than a few years ago, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

A majority of Americans (57%) say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity in the country, up from 43% who said this in 2020.

Americans are still far more likely to say they favor more solar power (82%) and wind power (75%) than nuclear power. All three energy sources emit no carbon.

Advocates for nuclear power argue it could play a crucial role in reducing carbon emissions from electricity generation. Critics highlight the high cost of nuclear power plant projects and the complexities of handling radioactive waste.

Support for nuclear power has increased among both parties since 2020. Half of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now say they favor expanding nuclear power, an increase from 37% in 2020. And two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners now favor more nuclear power, up 14 percentage points since 2020, when 53% said they support more nuclear power.

When asked about the federal government’s role, 41% of Americans say it should encourage the production of nuclear power. Some 22% think the federal government should discourage the production of nuclear power, and 36% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it. The share of Americans who think the federal government should encourage nuclear power production is up 6 points from last year.

Still, a far larger share of Americans think the federal government should encourage the production of wind and solar power (66%).

Gender, partisan differences in views of nuclear power
Attitudes on nuclear power production have long differed by gender and party affiliation.

Men are about twice as likely as women to say the federal government should encourage the production of nuclear power (54% vs. 28%). Similarly, men are far more likely than women to favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity (71% vs. 44%).

Views differ by gender globally, too, according to a Center survey conducted from fall 2019 to spring 2020. In 18 of the 20 survey publics, men were more likely than women to favor using more nuclear power as a source of domestic energy.

In the U.S., Republicans are more likely than Democrats to favor more nuclear power and to say the federal government should encourage its production.

Two-thirds of Republicans say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, compared with half of Democrats.

Republicans have supported nuclear power expansion in greater shares than Democrats each time this question has been asked since 2016.

The 17-point partisan difference on nuclear power is smaller than those for other energy sources, including fossil fuel sources such as offshore oil and gas drilling (48 points) and coal mining (47 points).

A look at U.S. nuclear power reactors
The U.S. currently has 93 nuclear power reactors, plus one that’s under construction in Georgia. These reactors collectively generated 18.2% of all U.S. electricity in 2022, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Half (47) of the United States’ nuclear power reactors are in the South, while about a quarter (22) are in the Midwest. There are 18 reactors in the Northeast and six in the West, according to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The number of U.S. reactors has steadily fallen since peaking at 111 in 1990. Nine Mile Point-1, located in Scriba, New York, is the oldest U.S. nuclear power reactor still in operation. It was first connected to the power grid in November 1969. Most of the 93 current reactors began operations in the 1970s (41 reactors) or 1980s (44), according to data from the IAEA. (The IAEA classifies reactors as “operational” from their first electrical grid connection to their date of permanent shutdown.)

One of the many reasons nuclear power projects have dwindled in recent decades may be perceived dangers following nuclear accidents in the U.S. and abroad. For example, the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident led the Japanese government to greatly decrease its reliance on nuclear power and prompted other countries to rethink their nuclear energy plans. More recently, Russian military attacks in Ukraine have raised fears of nuclear power plant accidents in the area.
ChudFusk wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2024 1:36 amenjoy your red meat.
Krev wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2024 12:58 pmEnjoy your Hydroxychloroquine

Re: Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power

2
There will be no more 3rd generation nuclear facilities built in the US and the simple reasons are economic: Nuclear is a loss-leader for producers, even before accounting for the costs to decommission and dispose.

Even with a smooth approval process, it takes a decade to bring a facility online. In the three or so decades that facility will operate, it will never produce a net profit for its operator. Shareholders like profit. Producers want to generate shareholder value. That is difficult to do with nuclear.

The simple reality is that wind and solar cost far less per MWh to bring online, can be brought online quickly, with fewer regulatory hurdles, take less staff to operate and maintain, and have end-of-life costs that are much lower. And, at the end of the day, wind and solar can be very profitable for producers, with none of the risky "optics" of nuclear.

And I'm not some hippy-dippy anti-nuclear fool either. I think nuclear energy is cool as shit. But the economics are stupid, and the timeframe to ramp it up is time we don't have. If producers can generate shareholder value with wind, solar and pumped storage, then by all means, those should be the preferred methods.

If IV and V generation fission plants can be brought online quickly, cheaply and safely - I'm all for it. Same for fusion. But the timeframes and economics don't make sense, and you can't fight bad economics.

Re: Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power

3
as a larger point: Crap. The last 4? 5? decades have had their version of X will slow down global warming/climate change: remember the push to convert everything to natural gas in the '90s, then it was bio diesel, etc. Even if those things would have helped, they were never widely adopted, and ignored the bigger issue that unless the Western-nized world drastically alters course, you can probably get used to those 130 degree summers, brown outs, and catastrophic storms every week.

On a more optimistic note: solar and wind farms have come a long way in the last decade or so, especially in 'red state' areas, as opportunity and common sense outweigh whatever political baggage is attached to 'green' energy. I still don't know if it will be enough, nor does it address the aging, crumbling grid.

People in the 'nuclear will save us' column do realize that it takes 5-15 years to build a single plant, right. (sorry for the wide range but search answers really did vary to that degree)
Music

Re: Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power

4
I'll also add. Thermal power production is a dinosaur. This whole Rankine Cycle, boiling water with heat to spin things, is a 19th century, three-piece tweed suit and monocle wearing dandy's wet dream. The future is direct power production without the inefficiencies of thermal steam/condensate gradients.

If nuclear is a way forward, it'll be a direct conversion of photons and neutron flux to current, not some ancient low-efficiency multi-stage conversion process that can never get beyond 30-45% efficiency in practice.

Re: Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power

5
Geiginni wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:20 pm I'll also add. Thermal power production is a dinosaur. This whole Rankine Cycle, boiling water with heat to spin things, is a 19th century, three-piece tweed suit and monocle wearing dandy's wet dream. The future is direct power production without the inefficiencies of thermal steam/condensate gradients.
Not to mention that steam is (surprisingly?) a greenhouse gas.

Re: Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power

6
losthighway wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:27 pm
Geiginni wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:20 pm I'll also add. Thermal power production is a dinosaur. This whole Rankine Cycle, boiling water with heat to spin things, is a 19th century, three-piece tweed suit and monocle wearing dandy's wet dream. The future is direct power production without the inefficiencies of thermal steam/condensate gradients.
Not to mention that steam is (surprisingly?) a greenhouse gas.
Sure, but in a Rankine Cycle, you need to extract that heat and produce condensate, ideally as cold as you can get it. If you retain steam at the output, your efficiency tanks and might only be at 10% or lower.

Re: Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power

7
With 50% (plus or minus a few percentage points) of Illinois's power coming from nuclear, I'd feel like a hypocrite if I said that nuclear power is complete CRAP. But I think it should be a thing of the past. We are finding ways to generate clean, renewable power with far less risk, and that should be our path forward.

I don't think we should (rapidly) decommission existing nuclear power plants (like Germany did after Fukushima... who were then forced to lean back on coal power) as they do serve as a good basis of relatively clean power, but I certainly wouldn't expand their use. We still don't know how to effectively dispose of spent nuclear fuel rods. I don't want more of those lying around.

(The Zion Nuclear Power Plant in the county I live was decommissioned over twenty years ago. The fuel rods are still onsite because they don't have a feasible solution to dispose of them. Thankfully, they didn't try shipping them through the Great Lakes. File under: thing that could pollute the drinking water of tens of millions of Americans and Canadians.)

Voted for "not crap in theory".
jason (he/him/his) from volo (illinois)

Re: Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power

8
Geiginni wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:39 pm
losthighway wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:27 pm
Geiginni wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:20 pm I'll also add. Thermal power production is a dinosaur. This whole Rankine Cycle, boiling water with heat to spin things, is a 19th century, three-piece tweed suit and monocle wearing dandy's wet dream. The future is direct power production without the inefficiencies of thermal steam/condensate gradients.
Not to mention that steam is (surprisingly?) a greenhouse gas.
Sure, but in a Rankine Cycle, you need to extract that heat and produce condensate, ideally as cold as you can get it. If you retain steam at the output, your efficiency tanks and might only be at 10% or lower.
Color me schooled, Mr. Burns!

Re: Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power

9
losthighway wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 6:06 pm
Geiginni wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:39 pm
losthighway wrote: Wed Sep 06, 2023 1:27 pm

Not to mention that steam is (surprisingly?) a greenhouse gas.
Sure, but in a Rankine Cycle, you need to extract that heat and produce condensate, ideally as cold as you can get it. If you retain steam at the output, your efficiency tanks and might only be at 10% or lower.
Color me schooled, Mr. Burns!
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests