Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: USA needs nuclear to achieve net zero, says US Energy Secretary Granholm [View all]NNadir
(38,488 posts)36. The capital cost of nuclear plants represent a gift to future generations.
It is now possible to design nuclear plants to run between 6 to 8 decades. The benefits would accrue to future generations but since we hold future generations in barely disguised contempt, we are unwilling to pay because we think only of ourselves.
If we were serious about addressing climate change - and there's no evidence we are - standardization would fall out of the massive scale at which nuclear plants would need to be built. But they are not, and should not, be "one size fits all."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
73 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
USA needs nuclear to achieve net zero, says US Energy Secretary Granholm [View all]
NNadir
Jun 2021
OP
Never mind the 70 million people who died from air pollution since Fukushima while...
NNadir
Jun 2021
#13
If I was big oil nuke energy would be the enemy. I would put good money on it they're behind ...
uponit7771
Jun 2021
#16
The short life span, the destruction of pristine wilderness, the entrenchment of dangerous...
NNadir
Jun 2021
#56
K&R, its 2021 forget curing cancer if we can't make nuclear safe. 40 years ago maybe things were
uponit7771
Jun 2021
#10
Safer doesn't have to be less volatile. They can be standardized, modular, smaller while giving out
uponit7771
Jun 2021
#12
Standardization to bring down price per GWH which is reason we don't have a higher portion of ...
uponit7771
Jun 2021
#34
The waste is now recyclable and nuke power is RELATIVELY carbon free. 40 years ago safety was
uponit7771
Jun 2021
#15
Neither of those are fact based, I think its "hype" to have mRNA vaccines but they work and cancer
uponit7771
Jun 2021
#25
Actually, the most expensive form of energy is dangerous fossil fuels, by orders of magnitude.
NNadir
Jun 2021
#20
Gen IV molten salt reactors should at the very least be a part of the discussion.
retread
Jun 2021
#24