Representatives from more than 30 countries gathered in Brussels in March at a nuclear summit hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Belgian government. Thirty-four nations, including the United States and China, agreed “to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy,” including extending the lifetime of existing reactors, building new nuclear power plants and deploying advanced reactors.
“Nuclear technology can play an important role in the clean energy transition,” Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, told summit attendees. But she added that “the reality today, in most markets, is a reality of a slow but steady decline in market share” for nuclear power
The numbers underscore that downturn. Solar and wind power together began outperforming nuclear power globally in 2021, and that trend continues as nuclear staggers along. Solar alone added more than 400 gigawatts of capacity worldwide last year, two-thirds more than the previous year. That’s more than the roughly 375 gigawatts of combined capacity of the world’s 415 nuclear reactors, which remained relatively unchanged last year.
Pledging to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 is a little like promising to win the lottery.
For the United States, it would mean adding an additional 200 gigawatts of nuclear operating capacity (almost double what the country has ever built) to the 100 gigawatts or so that now exists, generated by more than 90 commercial reactors that have been running an average of 42 years. Globally it would mean tripling the existing capacity built over the past 70 years in less than half that time in addition to replacing reactors that will shut down before 2050.
The Energy Department estimates the total cost of such an effort in the United States at roughly $700 billion.
For much less money and in less time, the world can reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of renewables like solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal power.
@ActivistJeffForward2wks2W
It's true that Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima all happened. The deaths and damage from them must be weighed against the thousands of people who die, year after year, as a direct result of the pollution generated by coal and even gas-powered plants, to say nothing of climate impacts. In any ledger of harm, nuclear power could look quite good--especially since it's one of very few currently viable sources of carbon-free always-on power. Its importance as baseload will only increase as the power mix shifts more to solar and wind.
Your comment is a typical justification for nuclear power, but really provides no real substance. The argument against regulatory is always in there, but think of Boeing. Having worked in private industry and regulatory this is how it all starts going down hill until it gets so bad, (i.e., Boeing again as the prime example among a long list of similar examples) that society must once again "regulate" the issue again. I've seen this over and over. Get use to it. Note that even if conservatives back a strict reg they will over time whine and complain until its weakened and unenforced.
@ConservaLukeDemocrat2wks2W
My forty year career was spent doing nuclear research as a scientist in universities and at a US National Laboratory. Anyone who is serious about a sustainable, carbon-free, energy future will have to accept that nuclear is an inevitable part of our future energy mix. I am agnostic about the specific technology choices, but I am not agnostic about math. The math says we will need an “all of the above” energy mix with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, hydrogen, and nuclear. There are trade offs with each, but only nuclear meets our demand for safe, carbon-free, 24/7 baseload capacity… Read more
@WholesomeHareDemocrat2wks2W
This is a dishonest argument. Opponents of nuclear power have done everything possible over the last 50+ years to stop or delay construction of new plants, while massively subsidizing solar and wind. Then, they argue that nuclear power is not viable because solar and wind have been more successful.
@BassAmeliaLibertarian2wks2W
Speaking of 50+ years - the US government has subsidized nuclear energy for 50+ years, estimated at close to $300 billion, helping make it appear viable. Tax dollars support construction, research & development, mining & enrichment plus accident liability is artificially limited.
Even with massive nuclear energy subsides, known concerns and unanswered issues make nuclear power a poor choice. Expensive and deadly catastrophic (even partial) failures plus no long-term waste disposal are some of the 800 lb gorillas.
It takes 10+ years before a well-designed plant produces energy and… Read more
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
@KindPoultryVeteran2wks2W
Solar modules today costs 30¢/Wp to produce in the US, 12¢ in China. Four hours of Li-ion storage at $80/kWh, which is 8¢/W·h, costs 32¢/W. Four hours is enough to time-smooth solar output for a day.
So solar plus four hours of storage costs 44-64¢/W for equipment, add another $1/W for installation (in Australia and Germany, the US is 2-2.5 times this for some reason), and you get about $1.50/W.
And solar and storage equipment costs continue to decline, at about 30%/year. New Texas wind goes for 1-2¢/kWh with 40% capacity factor, and offshore wind about… Read more
The problem with nuclear is environmentalists. They have screamed and rended their garments every time the subject comes up, just like with this article. It is they and the hyper-restrictive political environment they have generated that have driven up costs well beyond what they need to be. Nuclear is clean and it is reliable...far more so than solar or wind. We are killing ourselves with our current energy posture.
@Politic4lImpalaPatriot2wks2W
This single biggest advantage Nuclear Power has over other renewable sources is, you can build one on an an existing power plant location such as an aging coal plant, and tie into the existing transmission system.
Nuclear is an excellent source of clean energy and should always be maintained in the mix with other renewables.
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
How do you balance the immediate need for clean energy with the long-term challenges of nuclear waste management?
@9LNLWV72wks2W
I dont really care for it as long as the nuclear energy doesnt get into the bodies of water.
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
Would you support your government spending $700 billion on nuclear energy expansion if that money could also fund renewable energy projects?
@9LNLPVP2wks2W
I would support them trying to make the best out of nuclear energy rather than funding to new energy projects.
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
Considering the rapid advancements in renewable energies, is investing in nuclear energy still a sensible choice for our future?
@9LNLMLV2wks2W
yes because even though it is damaging it is a very powerful source of energy
@ISIDEWITH2wks2W
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
