U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change

Privately owned nuclear power is borderline insanity to me.<p>What if it is not profitable any more? Who would deal with the mess? Of course, public! Bit if it public who owns the risk, why is the &quot;good part&quot; owned by some private interest?

&gt; &quot;Nuclear power is weird—it exists to produce electricity, and at the same time it can’t exist without electricity... Plants need constant power to pump cool water into a reactor’s core&quot;<p>Well... <i>50-60 year old designs</i> can&#x27;t exist without electricity to the pumps.

Is there a good comparative analysis somewhere of nuclear vs renewables that looks at how we should best be focusing on each to beat climate change?<p>I&#x27;d be super interested to read it.

More reason to push for SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) until Thorium and other technologies become available. Eventually these utility scale reactors would need to be decomissioned and building new ones isn&#x27;t quite so attractive today. OTOH deploying a fleet of 10 to 12 SMRs would cover for an utility scale reactor.

If we build enough Nuclear power plants climate change wouldn&#x27;t be an issue

We need 70 times more nuclear power than we have now to replace 50% of fossil fuel usage. Other 50% can be renewable

Why are they even trying to make this a law&#x2F;politics based tug-of-war, it&#x27;s literally pure science. The only non-science parts you&#x27;d expect some old men to have a fit about would be profit, how many people are allowed to die (in the event of a disaster&#x2F;during construction&#x2F;during maintenance) and for how long the rules can be left as-is. This whole deal seems like the opposite.