Is Nuclear Power Vital to Hitting CO2 Emissions Targets?
Nuclear Engineer here. I like to point out a few things that this article kind of gleans over about nuclear energy. In particular it bothers me that the Sierra Club made that Bugs Bunny quip. The fact is, nuclear fuel has ~2 million times more energy in it per mass than fossil fuel, and while splitting atoms intrinsically requires no carbon emissions, combusting fossil fuels do Carbon+Oxygen = CO2 + energy. When your fuel is 2 million times denser, you need 2 million times less mining, less transportation, etc. And if you run your enrichment plants off of nuclear reactors (like France does), then that process is low-carbon too. Nuclear is extremely clean and very low carbon.<p>Anyway, the nuclear scorecard is:<p>* Nuclear is currently producing 60% of the USA&#x27;s carbon-free electricity (the article nailed that one)<p>* Nuclear worldwide has saved 1.8 million lives net by displacing air pollution<p>* Nuclear worldwide has prevented the emission of 65 billion tonnes CO2-eq<p>* If you got all your energy for 80 years from nuclear you&#x27;d make 1.3 soda cans of waste<p>* Advanced nuclear makes additional advances in already-fantastic safety and can improve cost<p>* Nuclear scales well (demonstrated in France)<p>* Nuclear is great for regions that get winter storms, lots of darkness, hurricanes, hail, very little wind, etc. while wind and solar are good in places that do not have those. Also recall that wind and solar are collecting a very non-dense (but free) energy so they need lots of material and land footprint.