Dixy Lee Ray, The former governor of Washington and an accredited scientist, stated “A nuclear power plant is infinitely safer than eating because 300 people choke to death on food every year.'' By this point in our lives, it’s become apparent that energy is one of the biggest struggles of our generation. And this crisis has many people up in arms about what we should do about it. The common trend is that we need to cut down on Co2 emissions and it comes down to how we should do that. Nuclear is just one of those options, but not one that has been seen much in the public light. With the last two nuclear power plants being constructed in the 70s and with the government not providing any incentives to research these technologies, this most likely won't change.
Some of these groups who are against nuclear energy, use outdated information that is not applicable in today's nuclear technology, and when people read this, it scares them. They hear names like Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island and Fukushima and can only think about what would happen if those were to occur again, but on an even larger scale. But what you don’t look at is the technological advances we've had since these plants were constructed. These were also very isolated incidents under very extreme conditions where outdated equipment and faulty sensors caused the meltdowns. But even with these problems solved, there are still many people against nuclear power. As stated by Greenpeace, a group devoted to clean and renewable energy “ The catastrophic risks of nuclear energy — like the meltdowns of nuclear reactors in Japan or Ukraine — far outweigh the potential benefits.” But with our current technologies, this is backed up with little evidence.
One such technology that has been leading the way in the new nuclear possibilities and striving for a new standard in safety, is molten salt reactors. These reactors use molten fluoride salt as a primary coolant, at low pressure. These reactors contain a mixture of the molten salt and the fuel, which can either be thorium or uranium. The benefit of this design is that if a meltdown were to begin it would instantly stop. This is because if the pressure was to increase in the reactor, the molten salt and fuel mixture would solidify, causing the reaction to cease. And as all Nuclear reactors do, it produces a lot of energy, at a low operating cost. Another big advancement in nuclear technology is SMR’s or small modular reactors would also be a great option for safe energy. These reactors can produce enough energy for over 30,000 homes and are completely self-contained. These would be a fantastic alternative to coal-based power production especially in small rural communities who depend on coal for their energy
What we have to look at with nuclear power is that the benefits far outweigh the negatives. With nuclear you are getting energy that has zero CO2 emissions, a low operating cost and is one of the cheapest forms of energy once the reactor is constructed. The amount of people that this would benefit is huge, and it offers no real negatives. And with small amounts of nuclear waste being the biggest downside, why not push for a nuclear America. The biggest thing holding nuclear back is funding. And one of the biggest things we can do to combat that is to use our votes smartly. Vote for public-private partnerships to reduce costs to develop and license new technologies and to support funding for government research initiatives for nuclear energy. Additionally, we need to urge the NRC to streamline the licensing of advanced reactors to ensure American leadership in nuclear energy. As stated by Josh Freed, The vice president for the clean energy program, “ If commercialized, advanced nuclear can strengthen our grid, help address climate and maintain a robust domestic nuclear sector.”
Some of these groups who are against nuclear energy, use outdated information that is not applicable in today's nuclear technology, and when people read this, it scares them. They hear names like Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island and Fukushima and can only think about what would happen if those were to occur again, but on an even larger scale. But what you don’t look at is the technological advances we've had since these plants were constructed. These were also very isolated incidents under very extreme conditions where outdated equipment and faulty sensors caused the meltdowns. But even with these problems solved, there are still many people against nuclear power. As stated by Greenpeace, a group devoted to clean and renewable energy “ The catastrophic risks of nuclear energy — like the meltdowns of nuclear reactors in Japan or Ukraine — far outweigh the potential benefits.” But with our current technologies, this is backed up with little evidence.
One such technology that has been leading the way in the new nuclear possibilities and striving for a new standard in safety, is molten salt reactors. These reactors use molten fluoride salt as a primary coolant, at low pressure. These reactors contain a mixture of the molten salt and the fuel, which can either be thorium or uranium. The benefit of this design is that if a meltdown were to begin it would instantly stop. This is because if the pressure was to increase in the reactor, the molten salt and fuel mixture would solidify, causing the reaction to cease. And as all Nuclear reactors do, it produces a lot of energy, at a low operating cost. Another big advancement in nuclear technology is SMR’s or small modular reactors would also be a great option for safe energy. These reactors can produce enough energy for over 30,000 homes and are completely self-contained. These would be a fantastic alternative to coal-based power production especially in small rural communities who depend on coal for their energy
What we have to look at with nuclear power is that the benefits far outweigh the negatives. With nuclear you are getting energy that has zero CO2 emissions, a low operating cost and is one of the cheapest forms of energy once the reactor is constructed. The amount of people that this would benefit is huge, and it offers no real negatives. And with small amounts of nuclear waste being the biggest downside, why not push for a nuclear America. The biggest thing holding nuclear back is funding. And one of the biggest things we can do to combat that is to use our votes smartly. Vote for public-private partnerships to reduce costs to develop and license new technologies and to support funding for government research initiatives for nuclear energy. Additionally, we need to urge the NRC to streamline the licensing of advanced reactors to ensure American leadership in nuclear energy. As stated by Josh Freed, The vice president for the clean energy program, “ If commercialized, advanced nuclear can strengthen our grid, help address climate and maintain a robust domestic nuclear sector.”