Mark J. Perry opines an answer to the following question: ... Should the U.S. rely more heavily on nuclear power in seeking to address climate change? Response .. Despite competition from cheap natural gas and taxpayer-subsidized wind and solar energy, nuclear power has no equal. Among sources of electric-power generation, it dominates the production of carbon-free power and is likely to do so well into the future. With nuclear power accounting for more than 60% of the U.S. zero-carbon electricity and a new generation of technologically advanced reactors on the horizon, the power source is playing a crucial role in the battle to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Even environmentalists should welcome benefits of nuclear power.
The bottom line is that nuclear is the only 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week source of power that does not result in the emission of greenhouse gases. It is hard to believe we can limit temperature increases, and their associated impacts, without a vastly expanded use of nuclear energy. Contrary to assertions of those who disparage it, nuclear power has an excellent safety record. In more than 50 years since the first commercial nuclear reactor began producing electricity under the leadership of Adm. Hyman Rickover, there has not been a single fatality or injury from a radiation-related nuclear power plant accident in the U.S. No other major industry has a comparable safety record. Now, in the aftermath of the Paris climate agreement, nuclear power is expected to take on increasing importance. The climate accord calls for net carbon emissions to be effectively brought down to zero in the second half of this century. This would seem, at first glance, an impossible task. Until, that is, you consider the speed with which France and Sweden ramped up their use of nuclear power.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
