Tweet
Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
One source of numbers and graphs on the subject (wiki). But it's nothing you can't google.
Nuclear power is a non-greenhouse gas emitting method for electricity generation that is often not classed as 'renewable' but sometimes is, or varies depending on the precise nuclear power generation method, and which constitutes ~20% of current US electricity generation. The DOE's "renewables" definition isn't including nuclear, and my figure for non-greenhouse emitting methods did include it, hence different numbers.
Nuclear power has long been a divisive topic, as it offers powerful pros along with powerful cons, and how one thinks they balance out is rather subjective. Some people view the expansion of nuclear power usage as an easy solution to the problem of climate change, others think that nuclear power in general should be phased out. Personally, I think nuclear power is a decent choice and nuclear capacity should probably be expanded (although Republican states in the US seem to typically use new nuclear power plant projects as a way to funnel taxpayer money to private companies who don't actually end up building the power plant, thus costing $9 billion in South Carolina and $28 billion in Georgia but not producing actual power plants... ).
Nuclear power has long been a divisive topic, as it offers powerful pros along with powerful cons, and how one thinks they balance out is rather subjective. Some people view the expansion of nuclear power usage as an easy solution to the problem of climate change, others think that nuclear power in general should be phased out. Personally, I think nuclear power is a decent choice and nuclear capacity should probably be expanded (although Republican states in the US seem to typically use new nuclear power plant projects as a way to funnel taxpayer money to private companies who don't actually end up building the power plant, thus costing $9 billion in South Carolina and $28 billion in Georgia but not producing actual power plants... ).
Something that may be controversial about the final Green New Deal may be whether it explicitly embraces or explicitly rejects nuclear power. I suspect the negotiation process will split the difference and stay relatively silent on the subject. The current Resolution text before congress does not mention the word nuclear, and its commitment to zero-emission sources is worded:
It is not clear whether nuclear power meets that criteria or not, and I suspect the ambiguity was quite intentional. I suspect the final approach by the Democrats post-special-committee analysis, will be to neither say anything against nuclear power nor anything for it, and that it will be allowed to be counted toward the 100% zero-emitting sources goal but that it won't be encouraged or subsidized. But that's just me guessing. It could well be affected by what, if anything, 2020 presidential candidates say about nuclear power.
meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources
It is not clear whether nuclear power meets that criteria or not, and I suspect the ambiguity was quite intentional. I suspect the final approach by the Democrats post-special-committee analysis, will be to neither say anything against nuclear power nor anything for it, and that it will be allowed to be counted toward the 100% zero-emitting sources goal but that it won't be encouraged or subsidized. But that's just me guessing. It could well be affected by what, if anything, 2020 presidential candidates say about nuclear power.
More dams is impractical in the US because most rivers that could reasonably be dammed already have been. However many existing dams are not currently being used for power generation and could be altered to be power stations. You would indeed need/want quite a lot of wind turbines and solar cells, and it would require covering land area equivalent to ~1%-3% of the state of Arizona with them to supply the entire country's electricity needs off them alone. So I suggest retaining the country's existing hydro and nuclear production and supplementing it with solar and wind power would be a better way to go.
That doesn't mean he's automatically more correct on issues.
Comment