Sure enough, it takes years and billions of dollars to construct nuclear plants, which makes nuclear energy a challenging proposition. But those same critics also express support for renewables like wind and solar power – energy sources that are no less expensive to scale up than nuclear power. They argue that the need to move beyond traditional coal generation is so urgent that both carbon caps and public subsidies for renewable energy are necessary. It’s a good argument – and it’s one that they should apply to nuclear power as well.
The demands of economic growth, national security and climate science all point in the same direction – toward a reduction of U.S. reliance on fossil fuels and development of clean energy. But it will take decades for renewables to become a reliable source of baseload electricity. Nuclear, on the other hand, has the potential to produce enough power to displace coal at substantial levels. The rest of the world is moving toward clean energy, relying on an energy mix that includes nuclear power. In developing countries like China and India, 400 new nuclear reactors are anticipated to go up by 2040. In Europe, nuclear power has been a standby for decades. Why is it that the U.S. refuses to pursue nuclear power?
The Progressive Policy Institute today published a paper by Andrew C. Klein, a professor of nuclear engineering at Oregon State University, confronting the issue of financing for nuclear energy. Klein argues that while building up an American nuclear sector that has grown dormant is an expensive proposition, it is not an insurmountable problem. Progressives have stared down the cost factor for solar and wind, and have decided it’s worth it to build up those industries. It’s time we apply that same determination to rebuilding our nuclear energy industry.
Click here for the report.

About Social Media Today





