Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, citing his 2019 analysis he still stands by, serves as an expert witness for the environmental coalition opposing Palisades’ restart. Jacobson has testified that “a fixed amount of money spent on a new nuclear plant means much less power generation, a much longer wait for power, and a much greater emission rate than the same money spent on WWS [wind, water, and sunlight] technologies.”

Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a Fellow of the American Physical Society, authored “Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy” in 2007. It was the first technical study on the feasibility of generating all U.S. energy from fossil fuel- and nuclear-free sources, including renewables such as wind and solar, combined with efficiency and storage.

Dr. Makhijani concluded then that, by the year 2030 (that is, within a quarter-century), fossil fuels and nuclear power could be phased out of the U.S. economy, and replaced with carbon-free and nuclear-free alternatives, for the same percentage of our gross domestic product currently devoted to those dirty, dangerous, and expensive energy sources. This could be accomplished with no more carbon-free, nucledar-free technological breakthroughs required.

  • 0x0@programming.devEnglish
    2·
    1 day ago

    If we want to talk about the real problem with nuclear energy, the key issue is nuclear weapon proliferation, which is enormously underplayed even in serious scholarship on civilian nuclear programs, but it’s not a pressing concern when it comes to nations who have nuclear weapons or operate under a nuclear umbrella.

    There are quite a few reactor designs that can operate on non-weapons-grade stuff and even can use spent fuel from other reactors.

    Saying “it’s overregulated” in the US is a bit dangerous. Other countries do seem to do better at it though.