nuclear-news

President Biden’s $6 billion effort to save distressed” nuclear power plants is misguided

 We must think holistically about what constitutes “clean energy” when
we consider climate change investments and our energy future.

President Biden’s recent announcement of his $6 billion effort to save
“distressed” nuclear (fission) power plants is misguided and
short-sighted. Although reducing carbon emissions is critical to slowing
the pace of climate change, it must not be our only litmus test for moving
toward a “clean” energy future, similarly to how our overall health
cannot be measured solely by our blood pressure or weight.

In the case of nuclear power, we must consider its high cost compared to renewable energy
sources, such as wind and solar. According to Climate Nexus, the minimum
cost per megawatt hour to build a new nuclear plant is almost 3 times
higher than utility-scale solar ($112 vs. $46, respectively) and almost 4
times higher than wind power ($122 vs. $30, respectively).

That’s like paying $70,000 for a car when you could purchase an equivalent car, in
terms of its overall value, for one-third or one-quarter of the cost.

Contrary to public perception, nuclear power is a significant source of
greenhouse gas emissions when considering the amount of fossil fuels
required for mining, uranium enrichment, building and decommissioning of
power plants, and processing and storing radioactive waste. In fact,
nuclear power emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaics and six
times as much as onshore wind power, according to the nonprofit
organization Beyond Nuclear.

 Counter Punch 18th July 2022
 https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/07/18/nuclear-power-is-not-the-solution-to-climate-change/

July 18, 2022 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, USA