I've always been a big supporter of nuclear energy. Yes, it has drawbacks, but once you remove the emotion out of it, it is a viable alternative to oil and gas. With fusion coming in the not too distant future this only encourages me more. Granted we need a balance of energy sources, yes even oil, but as we looked to the future we need to break our love affair with oil and gas and move toward solar, wind, wave, and nuclear.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), electricity use in the United States was about **4 trillion kilowatthours (kWh)** in 2022¹. It is projected that U.S. electricity use will continue to rise over the coming decades to reach **5,178 terawatt hours** by 2050³ - an increase of roughly **27 percent**, relative to 2022. The average U.S. household consumes about **11,000 kWh** per year⁴. However, electricity use in homes varies across regions of the United States and across housing types⁴. Electricity is an essential part of modern life and important to the U.S. economy. People use electricity for lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration and for operating appliances, computers, electronics, machinery, and public transportation systems¹.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 9/19/2023
(1) Use of electricity - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php.
(2) Forecast electricity use in the U.S. 2050 | Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/192872/total-electricity-use-in-the-us-since-2009/.
(3) Electricity use in homes - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/electricity-use-in-homes.php.
(4) Electric Power Annual - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/.
If Strengthening America's Nuclear Industry means solving issues regarding the potential for severe accidents and their consequences I support it.
Query: How safe are the Nuclear Power Plants in America?
Response: According to the web search results, the nuclear power plants in America are among the **safest and most secure** industrial facilities in the world¹.
They have multiple safety systems, comprehensive safety procedures, robust training programs and stringent federal regulation to keep the plants and neighboring communities safe¹,².
The nuclear energy industry also has a high priority on safety and constantly strives to improve its performance³.
However, the history of nuclear power regulation in the US also reveals that there have been uncertainties and challenges in estimating the risks of catastrophic accidents².
The probability of such accidents has been based on expert guesswork or calculations that often produced absurd results².
The government and the industry have not always been transparent or candid about the limitations of their risk assessments².
Therefore, while nuclear power plants in America have a very good safety record and a low carbon footprint, they also face some unresolved issues regarding the potential for severe accidents and their consequences. Nuclear power is safer than fossil fuels in terms of human health and environmental impact, but it is not risk-free.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 9/18/2023
(1) Safety - Nuclear Energy Institute. https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/safety
(2) Safety: The Nuclear Energy Industry's Highest Priority. https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/safety-nuclear-energy-industry-highest-priority
(3) How Safe Are Nuclear Power Plants? | The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/how-safe-are-nuclear-power-plants
(4) Nuclear power in the United States - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Fact Sheets & Brochures | NRC.gov
Facility Locator | NRC.gov
When I was in grammar school we had Nuclear Bomb Drills. We were told to get under our desks! LOL! We had reached the smartass phase, and kids in my class asked the obvious, hard questions. WTH!
These questions must have struck a chord. Sometime later we were shown a movie about the destructive force of a nuclear blast. I still remember seeing some poor guy have his skin and organs melt and fly away in the blast force. No snowflakes in our school!
Then two things happened: the smartasses stopped asking questions, and the drills changed to moving to ☢️designated ☢️areas without windows and between heavy metal swinging doors.
After that, I and some friends went searching for other ☢️“Safe” ☢️ areas. We found a labyrinth of interconnected basements. The designated safe area signs were still up when we moved to a new building.
Didn’t give any thought to any of this until 9/11.
Using blind fear as a motivator works until it doesn’t.
People with Authoritarian Complexes become control freaks.
I had two friends in World Trade Center, building two. One was a compliant gentleman. He listened to the control freaks. He perished.
The other was a very snarky women. She and some coworkers pushed past the self-appointed building monitors and got to the ground floor before the building collapsed. She is still alive, healthy, and is with her family and still snarky.
There are other sources of energy that do not create radioactive waste that needs to be transported through cities, or stored for hundreds of years (near a major city & built on fault lines, like Yucca Mountain). Reactors also have accidents and are targets during wartime. Nuclear power is not "green" energy. It's deadly. Look at Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Invest in solar, hydrogen & wind instead!
Caches of nuclear material scattered all over the world would be too dangerous. Too many opportunities for terrorists and insur
Then, there's their nasty habit of melting down and spewing the their radiative materials into the air and water.
Remember Cernobyl and Fukushima to name just two.
We have NO safe way to handle/store the waste from this process. Nuclear Power is a tragedy just waiting to happen.....again.
At this time I reluctantly support the ADVANCE Act of 2023 - S.1111BILL: To Strengthen Our Nuclear Industry.
We need to have a broad and clear view of the Nation’s Power Requirements.
The intent of the bill appears to develop nuclear power plants that are as safe as possible.
Progressives and mainstream Democrats seeking the support of Sincere and Dedicated Environmentalists and average Americans need to educate All Americans regarding the country's Power Requirements over the next 50 to 100 years.
While it seems not just reasonable but extremely necessary to head towards zero use of fossil fuels, what does that entail? How will Green Energy Sources meet the country's power requirements? Can they?
Since there is a good argument that it may be impractical if not impossible for Green Energy Sources alone to meet the country's needs, we need the next best solution. Currently, the Next Best Solution is Nuclear Power. S. 1111 indicates the intent to develop Safe as Possible Nuclear Power.
After seeing what happened with Chernobyl and Fukishima there is no way I would ever support the expansion of nuclear energy in the US.
Frankly my greatest worry about Nuclear Reactors is aging. They cannot last forever. The system ultimately will break down. What to do with the nuclear waste?
Solution focus greatly on green energy resources.
If the grid does not support the hungry Americans at this time, go ahead build nuclear reactors, but at absolutely minimum until the green energy builds up and replaces nuclear reactors.
I support nuclear energy. Despite a handful of nuclear accidents in the last 50 years (can you name more than 2 or 3?), nuclear energy is cleaner and safer than its fear-based reputation. However, it's expensive and takes a long time to get a new facility online.
We must stop using fossil fuels immediately, as our planet cannot handle the emissions. While we continue finding ways to improve other sustainable sources to power our whole country, we need more nuclear energy to offset the coal and natural gas plants.
I support this bill if it will help us increase the use of nuclear energy, so long as we build safe facilities and have clear and safe ways to get rid of the waste they create (which has been a problem).
We should absolutely increase all methods of domestic power production so we are not reliant on unfriendly countries or vulnerable supply lines.
Wind and solar are frauds, unreliable and a bad value compared to the cost and eyesores they create.
Nuclear, coal, and hydro are proven, reliable, consistent sources of energy. Rather than waste money on solar farm blights or wind turbine failures, we should find more efficient, safe, and low-impact ways to harness and employ these powerful resources.
I think we should definitely strengthen our Nuclear Energy. It has come a long way over the last 50 years. It is a lot safer and is reusable energy that doesn't need fossil fuel to operate. It would be a great asset to our country and keep us more energy ificient . So we wouldn't have to rely on forien oil. I think it's a win win for Democrats and Rebupplicans
Bipartisan legislation with 19 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle that strengthens the existing infrastructure and processes, supported by the nuclear and energy industries, and moves us away from fossil fuels though nuclear fission power comes with its own set of risks. It's an interim step on the way to renewables and fusion with less risks but not yet available on a scale needed to replace fossil fuels yet.
The House has a companion bill that hopefully doesn't get buried in Republucan infighting over impeachment, no confidence votes, budget, etc.
"Congress has seen a surge this year of bipartisan nuclear legislation that, put together, would produce a mammoth build-out of reactors and fuel supplies over the next decade."
"Sponsors and other supporters just need to figure out how to get those bills through the gauntlet of Congress in a tough legislative year."
"The new political reality — a split Congress and a razor-thin House Republican majority — will make it a challenge to sign any legislation into law."
"Republican nuclear boosters are working on a separate track, coalescing around an effort from House Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) to ban Russian uranium from being used in U.S. reactors."
"The bill, H.R. 1042, is the latest and most prominent effort to reduce Russian nuclear dependence by slowly phasing out and eventually banning Russian uranium imports by 2028. The United States imports approximately 20 percent of its enriched uranium from Russia."
"Sponsors of the bill are taking a more conventional approach in getting the bill passed — they hope to get it to the House floor as a stand-alone — while moving on other efforts to propagate small modular reactors (SMRs) and overhaul regulatory processes."
"The nuclear industry is eyeing the action closely. It isn’t content with the tax breaks and funds they’ve received in recent years."
"Industry leaders and their allies say Congress still needs to act on critical areas hampering nuclear buildout, including limiting complex environmental regulations and securing a domestic fuel supply for future reactors."