I think there's a good argument to be made for keeping existing nuclear power plants in operation as long as economically feasible. I doubt any new plants are liable to be constructed in this country solely because of economic considerations regardless of other causes of opposition.

I'd be even more comfortable with them if a permanent nuclear waste depository were established where high level radioactive materials could be sequestered safely for millenia.

I personally purchase renewables in sufficient amounts to offset my total demand, but that occurs over time, not instantaneously. It costs me a small premium over what my serving utility would charge for the same amount of energy, but it helps ensure the continued growth of cleaner suppliers.

Recent events have demonstrated how diversity in supply can potentially contribute to greater resiliency in operation of the the electrical supply system. I think the heavy carbon contribution of coal-fired plants rule them out of the equation in the near term and, while relatively clean compared to coal, gas in it's present form, is not an utlimate solution unless some cost-effective form of carbon sequestration should appear. This leaves solar, wind, hydro of various forms and nuclear as the available options, probably working in conjunction with substantial energy storage, conservation measures, and a robust grid of large extent to help balance supplies over wide areas will yield a power system we can live with.

Big Al

I heard recently that Gates' TerraPower plans to build mini-reactors based on traveling wave technology.

https://www.inverse.com/innova...energy-is-the-future

Totally out of my element here. Got any thoughts, Big Al?

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
I heard recently that Gates' TerraPower plans to build mini-reactors based on traveling wave technology.

https://www.inverse.com/innova...energy-is-the-future

Exciting stuff!

Cool website, too.