Skip to navigationSkip to content

The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 'Green New Deal' Wants to Get Rid of Nuclear Power. That's a Great Idea.

By Popular Mechanics

Nuclear power is simply too risky and complicated to supply our country's energyRead full story

Comments

  • Also share to
  • The overt opinion of this article's author strong negative bias against nuclear power is either because of a Lack of sufficient technical background and experience for such, or they did not do the required research.

    Any transition to carbon free emission for electric generation in the United states that

    The overt opinion of this article's author strong negative bias against nuclear power is either because of a Lack of sufficient technical background and experience for such, or they did not do the required research.

    Any transition to carbon free emission for electric generation in the United states that doesn't include nuclear power as part of the long term strategy, is doomed. And, will result in embarrassing political stance reversals.

    Take the very recent ruling in the state of New Jersey. The state had previously decided to exclude nuclear from its tax credit program for carbon, ( for popular vote political reasons), in spite of the fact that nuclear is the largest carbon free emissions electric Source in the United States.

    Currently nuclear supplies about a third of New Jersey's total generation demand, but over 90% of its green power. The state planned on the early shutdown of its 3 nuclear plants. Faced with the prospect of being the only state that would have a greater than 90% carbon footprint, the dirtiest state in the union, the Governor reversed the prior decision and included nuclear in the tax credit programs, thereby allowing continued long term operation of the nuclear plants. It was an unpopular decision, because state government hid behind the PC correct anti-nues stance, and didnt educate the public on carbon free emission.

    As for the authors point about Nuclear being extremely costly to build in the US, that's correct for the recent few plants proposed. But worldwide, nuclear power is undergoing a huge Renaissance, with more nuclear power plants on order and being built Globally, than any other time in its history.

    That is because their governments embrace the energy source, because of its extremely high electric density ( wind/solar farms have a footprint on the earth, stripped of trees 1000 X that of a nuclear plant.) AND its carbon free emission status.

    Pick only one: Continue to allow unchecked global warming, or embrace nuclear energy as a part of the required energy mix. You only get one choice: the technology does not currently exist to meet anywhere near the United States electric energy demands along with it's goals for carbon emission without nuclear. Period.

    I'm a nuclear physicist that has worked in electric energy business for over three decades. I've ran the numbers a dozen different ways. The electric generation transmission and distribution system in the United States does not have the infrastructure to support any enormous transition to Renewables in a short amount of time. Then there's the other problem with them of low energy density and a current lack of the technology to store a sufficient amount of electricity when the sun's not shining in the wind's not blowing. Period.

Want more conversations like this?

Join the Quartz community for all the intelligence, without the noise.

App Store BadgeGoogle Play Badge
Leaderboard Screenshot

A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.

Editors' Picks Screenshot

No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.

Share Screenshot

Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.