SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As the country looks to decarbonize, nuclear’s popularity climbs to the highest level in a decade:
A Gallup survey released in late April found that 55 percent of U.S. adults support the use of nuclear power. That's up four percentage points from last year and reflects the highest level of public support for nuclear energy use in electricity since 2012.
[...] Nuclear energy has historically been a source of immense controversy. A series of high-profile nuclear accidents and disasters, from Three Mile Island in 1979 to Chernobyl in 1986 to Fukushima in 2011, have raised safety concerns — even though the death toll from fossil fuel power generation far outstrips that of nuclear power generation. Several government nuclear programs have also left behind toxic waste that place disproportionate burdens on Indigenous communities.
But nuclear power doesn't produce carbon emissions, and it's more consistent and reliable than wind and solar energy, which vary depending on the weather. For these reasons, the Biden administration has identified nuclear energy as a key climate solution to achieve grid stability in a net-zero future. The administration is pushing for the deployment of a new generation of reactors called "advanced nuclear": a catch-all term for new nuclear reactor models that improve on the safety and efficiency of traditional reactor designs.
In a recent report, the Department of Energy found that regardless of how many renewables are deployed, the U.S. will need an additional 200 gigawatts of advanced nuclear power — enough to power about 160 million homes — to reach President Joe Biden's goal of hitting net-zero emissions by 2050.
Gallup has tracked several swings in public opinion since first asking about nuclear in 1994. From 2004 to 2015, a majority of Americans favored nuclear power use, with a high of 62 percent in support in 2010. But in 2016, the survey found a majority opposition to nuclear power for the first time. Gallup speculated that lower gasoline prices that year may have "lessened Americans' perceptions that energy sources such as nuclear power are needed." In recent years, views on nuclear power had been evenly divided until the latest poll, conducted between March 1 and 23.
The new poll found that 62 percent of Republicans support the use of nuclear power, compared to 46 percent of Democrats. The support from Republicans is likely driven by "a focus on energy independence, supporting innovation, supporting American leadership globally, and supporting American competition with folks like China and Russia specifically in terms of the nuclear space," said Ryan Norman, senior policy advisor at the center-left think tank Third Way.
[...] In addition to the Department of Energy's modeling, the International Energy Agency's Net Zero by 2050 scenario found that in order to fully decarbonize the global economy, worldwide nuclear power capacity would need to double between 2022 and 2050.
In Congress, nuclear power has enjoyed some rare moments of bipartisan support. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have joined forces to pass a few successful pro-nuclear laws. The 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law injected $6 billion toward maintaining existing nuclear power plants. And while the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act was an entirely Democratic effort, it included a technology-neutral tax credit for low-carbon energy that can be used for nuclear power plants. The climate spending law also allocates millions in investments for advanced nuclear research and demonstration.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 10, @04:43PM (5 children)
I'm betting it is "I support nuclear energy... but NIMBY."
"I LOVE nuclear energy...but NIMBY."
Let's do a survey.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @05:19PM (1 child)
Thing is I'm betting there'll always be crazy people and incompetent people. For bonus points add guns and explosives to the crazies.
Expose a solar or wind farm near my backyard to crazy and/or incompetent people and I might still not even need to move house.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday May 11, @07:04PM
Already achieved.
They could blow off the blades, which are pretty big, and one could destroy your house. Or they could topple one of those tall towers which could destroy your house.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RS3 on Wednesday May 10, @05:49PM (2 children)
As I commented in another discussion, I think people look at things in a "snapshot" way. Everyone needs to look at timelines. Nuclear power is relatively new compared to other forms of electric power generation. That and it has mysterious layers that only advanced engineers and scientists understand. We're still learning about what radiation does to various materials.
We're also learning how to do nuclear much more safely. Public opinion can be pretty fickle and easily swayed, sometimes gullible either way. But overall as time progresses, and the need increases, I think the public is getting used to nuclear. They've seen the accidents, and despite the many problems, life goes on for most of us. All of the media hype over TMI just made the media look like stupid fearmongers selling sensationalism. (yes, really!)
I live ~ 20 miles from a nuke. I have no worries, I've never heard of any, nor have I heard of anyone worrying, including people who live very close to it. I think people are more worried about some other things.
I like the idea of much smaller reactors, and Westinghouse has introduced the AP300: https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newswestinghouse-launches-ap300-small-modular-reactor-10836205 [neimagazine.com]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 10, @07:18PM (1 child)
--Top article
--https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/
Would not this money be spent better on green tech?
Make all new housing/buildings be built with solar/wind, and with green space/gardens built on top: but i guess that would cut into profits too much.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Wednesday May 10, @08:58PM
Generally I agree, understand, and empathize with the sentiment, but back to the time thing: we need something to carry us over until we have (much) more "green" energy in place. It's like so many things in life: people need to look at trends, progress, movements, economics, supply-chain, transportation / logistics, on and on.
For example, the more rules, laws, mandates, etc., the govt. puts in place, the more the price skyrockets- for anything and everything. It's all about supply and demand.
But to make it personal- 10 or so years ago I had a gig job installing PV systems. I didn't make a lot of money doing it, but I felt like I was helping a little. Just showing I agree, not just in words, but actions.
Again, I absolutely agree qualitatively, but again, that mandate will drive PV prices way up. IMHO, we have more of a manufacturing problem. I've railed against "offshoring" when it closes down North American factories and boosts China. Now they own the production. We may do some partial PV assembly here, but I'm not aware of large scale polysilicon manufacturing in the US or Canada (or Europe?) If we could scale up production, then by all means, please please put them everywhere, especially large buildings like shopping and office buildings.
I don't have numbers, but the guy I was working for doing PV installs (he's also a BSEE + MBA) said that solar hot water heating saves much more dollars than PV, but PV was getting all the press and govt. grants at the time.