Measures moving through Congress to encourage new reactors are receiving broad bipartisan support, as lawmakers embrace a once-contentious technology.

The House this week overwhelmingly passed legislation meant to speed up the development of a new generation of nuclear power plants, the latest sign that a once-contentious source of energy is now attracting broad political support in Washington.

The 365-to-36 vote on Wednesday reflected the bipartisan nature of the bill, known as the Atomic Energy Advancement Act. It received backing from Democrats who support nuclear power because it does not emit greenhouse gases and can generate electricity 24 hours a day to supplement solar and wind power. It also received support from Republicans who have downplayed the risks of climate change but who say that nuclear power could bolster the nation’s economy and energy security.

“It’s been fascinating to see how bipartisan advanced nuclear power has become,” said Joshua Freed, who leads the climate and energy program at Third Way, a center-left think tank. “This is not an issue where there’s some big partisan or ideological divide.”

Non-paywall link

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    4·
    9 months ago

    I love it. All of civilization has to be redone just to get around using nuclear power and meanwhile people like you are complaining about how much work nuclear takes.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      2·
      9 months ago

      All of civilization has to be redone just to get around using nuclear power

      What are you talking about? Which part of which civilization has to be “redone”? I genuinely have no idea what you could be trying to express here. Nuclear power currently makes up roughly 10% of global power production - it’s not just small, it will keep getting smaller because it’s fundamentally not economic.

      Reaping double benefits from dual land use isn’t “redoing all of civilization”, it’s “not being stupid and taking an opportunity when you see it”.

      and meanwhile people like you are complaining about how much work nuclear takes.

      I’m not “complaining about how much work nuclear takes”. My whole point is very simple, but I’ll gladly repeat it:

      • The sooner we remove existing fossil capacity and replace it with green capacity, the better.
      • We have a limited amount of money. We need to invest this money in power production.
      • Building new solar capacity is much quicker and cheaper than building new nuclear capacity.

      Do you understand now? If you’re willing to look at this objectively, nuclear simply doesn’t make sense.