I support increased deployment of nuclear power, but for North America natural gas makes far more sense. It is far cheaper than nuclear, and it can be deployed much faster. Plus there is no need for fundamental changes to federal regulations or new technological innovations.
Everyone who supports material progress should be pro-natural gas:
I’m all for nuclear power, especially if we can finish developing the more advanced reactor designs that are far superior to the 2nd Generation PWR that still make up most of the capacity we have operating.
If we had spent a fraction of the $ we spent on the bottomless pits that is fusion, we’d already have electricity too cheap to meter.
(If CO2 is a pollutant, than water vapor is as well. In reality, of course, neither is.)
The case for nuclear energy that you list in the post are valid, and have been so for decades. The idea that the Vogtle Plants began construction without a finalized design, most likely driven by the administrative process is, is baffling. The prospect of improved, tested designs being the next wave of construction makes sense and should be supported by everyone. Energy is essential, and cheap(er), reliable energy can lead to a better future.
I support increased deployment of nuclear power, but for North America natural gas makes far more sense. It is far cheaper than nuclear, and it can be deployed much faster. Plus there is no need for fundamental changes to federal regulations or new technological innovations.
Everyone who supports material progress should be pro-natural gas:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/16-reasons-why-greens-should-love
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-wonders-of-ccgt
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-greens-should-love-fracking
I’m all for nuclear power, especially if we can finish developing the more advanced reactor designs that are far superior to the 2nd Generation PWR that still make up most of the capacity we have operating.
If we had spent a fraction of the $ we spent on the bottomless pits that is fusion, we’d already have electricity too cheap to meter.
(If CO2 is a pollutant, than water vapor is as well. In reality, of course, neither is.)
More emphasis on the specific policy changed needed at NRC would have been helpful as would advocacy of taxation of net CO2 emissions.
The case for nuclear energy that you list in the post are valid, and have been so for decades. The idea that the Vogtle Plants began construction without a finalized design, most likely driven by the administrative process is, is baffling. The prospect of improved, tested designs being the next wave of construction makes sense and should be supported by everyone. Energy is essential, and cheap(er), reliable energy can lead to a better future.