Latest anti-nuclear activist: former chair of Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

An interesting op-ed in the Washington Post:

Nuclear power was supposed to save the planet. The plants that used this technology could produce enormous amounts of electricity without the pollution caused by burning coal, oil or natural gas, which would help slow the catastrophic changes humans have forced on the Earth’s climate. As a physicist who studied esoteric properties of subatomic particles, I admired the science and the technological innovation behind the industry. And by the time I started working on nuclear issues on Capitol Hill in 1999 as an aide to Democratic lawmakers, the risks from human-caused global warming seemed to outweigh the dangers of nuclear power, which hadn’t had an accident since Chernobyl, 13 years earlier.

By 2005, my views had begun to shift.
…
Yet after the disaster [at Fukushima], my fellow commissioners, as well as many in Congress and the nuclear industry, fretted that the proposed new U.S. reactors might never be built, because Fukushima would focus too much attention on the potential downsides. Westinghouse and the new plant owners worried that acknowledging the need for reforms would raise even more concern about the safety of reactors. The industry wanted the NRC to say that everything was fine and nothing needed to change. So my colleagues on the commission and supporters of the industry pushed to license the first of these projects without delay and stonewalled implementation of the safety reforms. My colleagues objected to making the staff report public. I ultimately prevailed, but then the lobbying intensified: The industry almost immediately started pushing back on the staff report. They lobbied the commission and enlisted allies in Congress to disapprove, water-down or defer many of the recommendations.

Within a year of the accident at Fukushima — and over my objections — the NRC implemented just a few of the modest safety reforms that the agency’s employees had proposed, and then approved the first four new reactor licenses in decades, in Georgia and in South Carolina.

I don’t think I can quote more, but it’s worth reading the full op-ed.

I tend to be reluctantly and tentatively pro-nuclear. Reluctantly because I acknowledge the risks; tentatively because I’m not especially knowledgeable about atomic physics or power plant engineering; pro-nuclear because it seems like a powerful tool to fight climate change.

But this article is making me question my position. On the one hand, yeah, this guy has a vested interest in reducing nuclear plants, since he now runs a wind-power business. On the other hand, when the former chair of the NRC suggests that politicking and economic forces are powerful enough to undermine key safety proposals, that gives me pause.

What are y’all thinking about this?

[Shodan]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

What are y’all thinking about this?

i’m thinking that we aren’t going to do anything effective about global warming.

The author of your op-ed wants to sell wind power because Fukushima showed that nuclear power is too dangerous.

As of September 2012, there were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures. Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures cannot be ruled out, and according to one expert, might be in the order of 100 cases.[11] A May 2012 United Nations committee report stated that none of the six Fukushima workers who had died since the tsunami had died from radiation exposure.

Cite. And it would be too expensive to reduce that number.

In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).

These are pretty low numbers. By contrast, in 2011 coal produced about 180 billion kWhrs in England with about 3,000 related deaths. Nuclear energy produced over 90 billion kWhrs in England with no deaths. In that same year, America produced about 800 billion kWhrs from nuclear with no deaths.

So the author thinks that, maybe, eventually, nuclear power might kill anywhere from zero to 100 people. And that is worse than 14 already.

Good thing this person is no longer head of the NRC. His cost-benefit analysis skills are not all they could be.

So, I guess, full speed ahead with wind and solar, which will kill more people than nuclear and won’t work and so lots more people will die from climate change.

Regards,
Shodan

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

I am going to need a cite for all of that, Shodan. Of all the things to minimize and whitewash, Fukushima? Really? What could possibly motivate that?

US Sailors Face Grim Diagnoses After Fukushima Mission

To serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, you must meet certain health and fitness requirements: you must be fit to serve. But a healthy group of young service men and women – many in their 20s – have come down with serious health problems since serving on a humanitarian mission to Fukushima, Japan, following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami that led to a nuclear meltdown of the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TepCo) nuclear power plant.

Service members have faced cancer, brain tumors, birth defects, and other rare health problems since being exposed to radiation from the Fukushima plant. Some have even died.

How can you say wind and solar don’t work? Trillions of kWh aren’t proof enough?

[Shodan]

I’ve already provided cites.

Of all the things to minimize and whitewash, Fukushima? Really? What could possibly motivate that?

Followed by a cite of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit. What could possibly be their motives?

How can you say wind and solar don’t work? Trillions of kWh aren’t proof enough?

Wind and solar cannot be scaled up to replace fossil fuels, because of things like night, clouds, snow, and the wind not blowing consistently. That’s why for wind, the cite mentioned a capacity factor of 25%, meaning wind turbines are realistically expected (where they are built) to produce energy about a quarter of the time. Contrast that to nuclear power plants, which produce power much more of the time.

Regards,
Shodan

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

I’ve already provided cites.

Last time we found that the cites were old or actually furnished evidence that right wing sourses were lying to you about the numbers and then about the real reasons why nuclear plants in the USA are shutting down.

@Shodan

Followed by a cite of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit. What could possibly be their motives?
Wind and solar cannot be scaled up to replace fossil fuels, because of things like night, clouds, snow, and the wind not blowing consistently. That’s why for wind, the cite mentioned a capacity factor of 25%, meaning wind turbines are realistically expected (where they are built) to produce energy about a quarter of the time. Contrast that to nuclear power plants, which produce power much more of the time.

Regards,
Shodan

Well, as it was done more than 2 times in a previous thread, we will have to disregard your point because it once again ignores that your own cites reported on the advances made in wind power, and they pointed 7 years ago that battery advances that were needed to change the equation and that is getting there nowadays. It has gotten to the level where the point of the article stands: economically speaking, nuclear has a lot to do now before it becomes attractive to investors.

Notice though, that then another item that should be considered here is not: that is of government intervention to standardize new nuclear and applied to, lets say military bases in locations in the west, should be employed, but as usual, that smells of socialism so it is not likely to fly with the current weakest link that we have in power, the denier of climate change president and the senate that does the same.

[Shodan]

@GIGObuster

Last time we found that the cites were old or actually furnished evidence that right wing sourses were lying to you about the numbers and then about the real reasons why nuclear plants in the USA are shutting down.

If you think the UN report of the number of deaths from radiation in Fukushima is a right-wing source, or is lying, there is no hope.

Well, as it was done more than 2 times in a previous thread, we will have to disregard your point because it once again ignores that your own cites reported on the advances made in wind power, and they pointed 7 years ago that battery advances that were needed to change the equation and that is getting there nowadays.

Shodan’s Law is: If they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second time.

Shodan’s Corollary is: Cites, either.

Like I said, we aren’t going to do anything effective about global warming. My cite? See above.

Regards,
Shodan

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Your own cite lists 1368 Fukushima related deaths besides the ones you note. It seems likely that radiation-related deaths on the USS Ronald Reagan alone will be more than you project for the entire nuclear industry.

You mock the cost-benefit analysis of others while your own is dreadfully poor. Death toll and then… end of discussion?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN13Y047
Costs of Fukushima cleanup double to $188 billion.

Fukushima's Final Costs Will Approach A Trillion Dollars Just For Nuclear...

Total cleanup costs could exceed $1T and take 30-40 years.

Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into...

Seven years after the disaster, the plant is releasing 2 billion becquerels per day.

But hey, no choice because renewables “don’t work” and “can’t replace fossil fuels.” Those are great as bare assertions, but let me ask you: the trillions of kWh of renewables already generated, are they replacing fossil fuels? Do they not count if it is not a 100% replacement? Have you not heard of batteries? Examples from Germany of hitting 100% renewable generation? Instead of spending $1 trillion on cleanup, what if that were spent on renewables and storage solutions instead? Just can’t because there are voices who repeat the bare assertion, “you can’t”?

Look, it still could be judged that the risks of nuclear are worth the benefits. I just want to make that judgement based on a sober, factual, >>>complete<<< review of all the relevant information, instead of whatever it is you are doing.

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

If you think the UN report of the number of deaths from radiation in Fukushima is a right-wing source, or is lying, there is no hope.

Well, there should be hope that someday you will realize that I was talking about previous posts from you. Not that one.

@Shodan

Shodan’s Law is: If they didn’t read it the first time, they won’t read it the second time.

A moot point since I was not talking about that one. Again, I’m not against nuclear power because I was already aware years ago about that cite because there was once a very anti-nuclear poster in the past that was also a climate change denier. Back then I also pointed at evidence of how in actuality very few people did die in recent nuclear disasters compared to the number of people that die from coal emissions each year.

@Shodan

Shodan’s Corollary is: Cites, either.

Well, the evidence so far is that you left a previous discussion by not even reading the cites and looking at how they misled you.

@Shodan

Like I said, we aren’t going to do anything effective about global warming. My cite? See above.

Regards,
Shodan

And thank you for showing all that you are the one not reading posts. Many times before (like in the post above, I proposed that we do need to stop pussyfooting around and use the skills the military has with nuclear power, so the costs of nuclear should be subsidized and a government effort so as to deploy more nuclear power to be used as a supplement for solar and wind power to deal with global warming.

[Shodan]

Perhaps someday you will respond in a thread by actually discussing what is said in the thread, but I am not sanguine.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

dupe

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

Perhaps someday you will respond in a thread by actually discussing what is said in the thread, but I am not sanguine.

Regards,
Shodan

Again, everyone can see that you did omit what I said about how nuclear power should be deployed as, economically speaking, the invisible hand is busy telling power companies to shut down nuclear plants because of the costs.

[XT]

@Try2B Comprehensive

Your own cite lists 1368 Fukushima related deaths besides the ones you note. It seems likely that radiation-related deaths on the USS Ronald Reagan alone will be more than you project for the entire nuclear industry.

Related to the evacuation, not ‘radiation-related’, which they go into later on. I wonder how many related deaths there were from the other evacuation? What do you think?

So, your argument in this post seems to be that very few people died from radiation (despite what I assume is you either not reading the Wiki closely or trying to spin it that way), but the cleanup costing a lot of money. For a one time event. The event of which cost MANY hundreds of billions more to clean up. Yeah, that’s the thing…the event that actually triggered Fukushima seems to often get overlooked in these discussions.

I wasn’t going to reply to this thread, as it seems like the same old same old to me. In fact, it IS the same old same old. The guy in the OP is basically an anti-nuke, and has been one for a long time. Reading the article, he has all sorts of reasons for this stance, but a lot of them are the same old bullshit. Basically, nuclear is bad. It’s expensive and lots of plants that were started never got finished (which is pretty ironic, considering his own role in some of that) so it wasted all that money of the good people who just wanted power! Fukushima! Chernobyl!!! Clearly, nuclear is bad for the planet because of these two events. Plus, wind and solar will save us!

The thing is, this level of horseshit would normally get batted down on this site as ridiculous, but because it’s nuclear it’s actually taken seriously. If this was about vaccines, say, and we were talking about the cost to benefit of them in terms of the few percentage of folks who will have bad reactions and might even die verse the millions who WILL be saved, people would be ripping into this. Instead, what we have is stuff like pointing out that 1368 died (ignoring the part that says ‘many of these deaths may have been caused by the evacuation period being too long, and that residents could have been allowed to return to their homes earlier in order to reduce the total related death toll’ as well as ignoring the fact that this happened pretty much all along the east coast of Japan because of that whole tsunami thingy that coincidentally also happened around the same time) as if this proves…something? Even if 10 times that number died directly from the nuclear power plant the cost to benefit would still be there…even if it cost 10 times the amount to clean up. Especially since we are talking about something that has happened exactly once in Japan since 1966. Know how many people die each year due to fossil fuel use? And, can you guess what the continued use of the stuff is going to cost us all in terms of environmental damage, storms and the like?

As for wind and solar, yeah, they can’t scale up to meet our needs for constant and steady power. And they won’t be able to for the foreseeable future. I’m unsure why this is still being brought up. Until and unless we have a way to store that energy, this will always be the case and they will remain niche energy sources. That’s important and necessary, but it leaves a large gap. And if we don’t have nuclear, then we will have something fossil fuel related to fill that gap. Sure, we are making great strides putting in wind and solar, and we’ll continue to do so. But that just means that fossil fuels use goes from 70% (the estimated global fossil fuel production currently) to…what, maybe 60%? If we are lucky? Oh, in some small countries with dense populations that might change, but not in countries like the US…or China. China, of course, IS building more nuclear reactors (how stupid they must be…they should read this thread to find out how stupid that is!), but they are still over 50% fossil fuel for production. The US is a lot less of course…35-40% is what I’m getting from mainly coal and natural gas. Without nukes (which will be diminishing from around 20% to 0 in the next few decades) we could drop that to…30%? Maybe 25%? If we are lucky.
That’s good and all, and hopefully that will be enough, but unless there is some major tech breakthrough that’s about as good as it’s going to get.

There is, currently, one technology that could scale up to meet our needs for constant and steady production. Nuclear. It could easily be brought up in the US to take that 35-40% load, making us a hell of a lot greener, and by extension along with the new wave of battery powered cars make us greener across the board. But we won’t do it because it’s too risky and costs too much. But this is the same sort of risk analysis and cost to benefit that anti-vaxxers use, with exactly the same flaws.

[GIGObuster]

@XT

There is, currently, one technology that could scale up to meet our needs for constant and steady production. Nuclear. It could easily be brought up in the US to take that 35-40% load, making us a hell of a lot greener, and by extension along with the new wave of battery powered cars make us greener across the board. But we won’t do it because it’s too risky and costs too much. But this is the same sort of risk analysis and cost to benefit that anti-vaxxers use, with exactly the same flaws.

Actually this shows that you missed what took place recently.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21596455&postcount=82

In essence, what you press on is a view based on what was going on years ago; when in more recent times, with virtually no intervention from environmentalists out there, nuclear plants are being closed not only because natural gas is cheaper, but because advances in battery power are the writing on the wall for private industry regarding nuclear power.

Plunging Prices Mean Building New Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Running...

Coal and nuclear plants struggle to remain economic

While declining wind and solar prices have caused renewable energy capacity to surge, they are also dimming the prospects for struggling coal and nuclear plants. The U.S. is on pace for a record 15.4 GW of coal closures in 2018, could close an additional 24.1 GW of coal capacity by 2024, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects a 65 GW decline through 2030. Carbon Tracker forecasts that by that time, 100% of U.S. coal capacity will have higher long-run operating costs than renewables.

In light of these changing economics, the Trump administration proposed a bailout for certain coal and nuclear plants. The plan was dropped after intense scrutiny from multiple fronts due to billions in estimated new annual costs, but it represents a backward-looking approach to keep dirty and expensive energy sources online instead of embracing clean and cheap energy sources.

Several states are also grappling with uneconomic nuclear plants. Two federal appeals courts have upheld state nuclear subsidies in New York and Illinois, while New Jersey and Connecticut are currently considering how to keep unprofitable nuclear plants open. While the court decisions help prop up uneconomic nuclear, they also set an important precedent for states looking to put a value on carbon emission reductions through subsidies.

Hence the option that it is ignored because it also ruffles a lot of conservative feathers; seeing that nuclear will not be as economical, but still IMHO a good weapon to have against global warming, it is then the turn of the government to organize and fund the development and deployment of new and standardized nuclear power plants.

[XT]

I’ve addressed this in past threads. Again, same old same old. Sure, there is less overt resistance today to nuclear. As the OP clearly shows, however, this isn’t exactly across the board, and basically the guy in the OP had a lot of individual impact on this. He was the one dissenting vote to stop new plants from being built, and has worked to that end…and he’s not just some powerless environmentalist (not that I think those guys, in the aggregate, ever were powerless). He was one of the movers and the shakers.

But the reason why what you are saying is wrong (and it is), is because they don’t NEED to overtly stop nuclear anymore. The war is over in the US. There isn’t any battle. Nuclear always was more expensive and the upfront nature of the costs along with the long ROI using the longevity of the plant to offset that has meant it would always be hard to do. Couple that with the fact that in the past new plants were fought tooth and nail, and many of them were stopped after spending billions (the guy in the OP says this himself…it’s one of the freaking arguments he uses) and all of the issues with just clawing one into being today means, they don’t need to do a damned thing now. It would take extraordinary effort to GET a nuke in. And, in fact, we are seeing now on the back end the degradation happening…nuke plants that could go on for several more decades are being shut down. What that means is that their ROI projection, especially any sort of profit is sunk. In terms of risk of exposure, that means no sane corporation is going to risk building a new plant without a hell of a lot of assurances and funding from the government, which isn’t happening. It’s why when Obama greenlighted new building basically nothing changed. Oh, a few plants were proposed, and I think 1 or 2 were started, but none have actually been built, or almost certainly will ever be completed.

YOU seem to think that my stance on this is informed by conservatives or something loopy like that, but this is the reality. The anti-nukes, just like the one in the OP have won. Wars over. So long and thanks for all the fish. The parrot has shuffled off. It’s a dead parrot. So, what’s the reality of that? Well, good news…natural gas seems to be winning the market fight in the US, despite our idiotic president, so I guess we at least have a clean(er) option than coal. That’s about the extent of the good news. Because nuclear is going away, and I think it will go away at least as fast as wind and solar can replace (some) of it. Which means, we are going to have natural gas for decades with nothing viable to replace it wrt our core requirements. Wind and solar can’t. Hydro is off the table in the US. Geothermal is not going to be able to scale up. We aren’t suddenly going to stop using energy, so…natural gas is what we gots.

You can say that it’s a conservative meme that the reason for this has nothing to do with the anti-nuke crowd, or that they aren’t as active today yet no new nukes proves it wasn’t them all along, but it’s not a conservative meme…it’s reality. It’s what we all lived through and we all remember. Personally, I don’t think conservatives have been all that much use pushing for nuclear either, so I don’t give them a pass. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have done shit about this, and this has been allowed to become set in stone. Which means we’ll be doing natural gas and hoping it’s enough.

[GIGObuster]

@XT

You can say that it’s a conservative meme that the reason for this has nothing to do with the anti-nuke crowd, or that they aren’t as active today yet no new nukes proves it wasn’t them all along, but it’s not a conservative meme…it’s reality. It’s what we all lived through and we all remember. Personally, I don’t think conservatives have been all that much use pushing for nuclear either, so I don’t give them a pass. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have done shit about this, and this has been allowed to become set in stone. Which means we’ll be doing natural gas and hoping it’s enough.

Actually the same old is to ignore what I said about what is needed to deploy new nuclear power plants.

And nowhere I did say that I dismiss the reality that you are talking about, it is that there are more economical reasons now why free enterprise is dumping nuclear.

[sleestak]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

An interesting op-ed in the Washington Post:

I don’t think I can quote more, but it’s worth reading the full op-ed.

I tend to be reluctantly and tentatively pro-nuclear. Reluctantly because I acknowledge the risks; tentatively because I’m not especially knowledgeable about atomic physics or power plant engineering; pro-nuclear because it seems like a powerful tool to fight climate change.

But this article is making me question my position. On the one hand, yeah, this guy has a vested interest in reducing nuclear plants, since he now runs a wind-power business. On the other hand, when the former chair of the NRC suggests that politicking and economic forces are powerful enough to undermine key safety proposals, that gives me pause.

What are y’all thinking about this?

Jaczko pretty much pissed off everyone he worked with at the NRC. The other four commissioners hated him. Note, of those four, two are Republicans and 2 are Democrats. The following is congressional testimony:

In his testimony, commissioner William D. Magwood, a Democratic appointee, said Jaczko regularly grew impatient and unhappy at meetings with staffers.

During one encounter, Jaczko “became increasingly irrational, and everyone in the meeting became very uncomfortable,” said Magwood, adding that staffers told him that Jaczko “sort of snapped.”

It was like ‘The Exorcist,’ ” Magwood said staffers told him. He did not elaborate and wasn’t asked during the hearing to be more specific.

Jaczko reportedto Congress that spent fuel pool at Fukushima was dry. It wasn’t and Jaczkos statement fueled panic in Japan and caused all sorts of problem. Charles Castro, who was in charge of the U.S. response to Fukushima said:

I was stunned when I heard his statement," writes Casto. “I hadn’t even had a conversation about the condition of the spent-fuel pool with him.

Casto was in charge of the U.S. response. Casto also states that Jaczko refused to provide resources to help deal with the situation. Link. Note, Jaczko praises Casto in his book.

Jaczko also berated female NRC staffers in public until they cried.

Other board members accused Jaczko of purposefully hiding reports/data from them.

You can read more here.

I know a couple folks who knew Jaczko through their work, they are nuclear safety researchers. They all thought he was a nutjob who was in wayyyyy over his head. The consensus opinion was that Reid put Jaczko on the board to kill Yucca Mountain. And that is what Jaczko did.

So, no, I wouldn’t put a lot of faith in Jaczko.

Slee

[XT]

@GIGObuster

Actually the same old is to ignore what I said about what is needed to deploy new nuclear power plants.

And nowhere I did say that I dismiss the reality that you are talking about, it is that there are more economical reasons now why free enterprise is dumping nuclear.

Here, try this. When you think I’m wrong, say that…I’m wrong. Don’t try and associate what I’m saying with ‘conservatives’. When I think YOU are wrong, I say you are wrong…I don’t say that you are wrong blah blah blah liberal (or progressive or whatever you are).

Now, I wasn’t talking about you wrt whether we need or should deploy nuclear power plants. I freely acknowledge that you, Gigo, aren’t opposed to nuclear. I haven’t ignored it. I’ve done so in many other threads, and do so here. But your opinion (or mine) isn’t what’s being debated here and is, really, irrelevant. We are talking about a former NRC chair in this thread, and about his arguments in the piece in the OP. It’s not about you…and it’s not about me.

I think you DO dismiss what I’m talking about, or at least you try to paint me into some ‘conservative’ position, and you generally rebut in these threads with that sort of broad brush. Instead of actually addressing the specifics I’m bringing up. You did so in the thread you linked to in fact…multiple times, IIRC. I basically gave up in that thread, as I’ll almost certainly do so in this one, because this is all so futile and stupid. The reality, as I said, is there isn’t any war, there isn’t any fight…it’s over. The dude in the OP’s side won. That he feels the need to keep hammering away in new OP ED pieces is just gratuitous IMHO at this stage. The US isn’t going to build new nuclear power plants. We will simply be counting down on the ones we have until there aren’t any more left. Perhaps, maybe, if we are lucky, wind and solar will take up the slack from that. I’m not sanguine they will get the whole 20%, but we shall see. But they will, essentially, trading off a new green 20% for an existing green 20% that we have already sunk the carbon into. And, of course, there will still be that 35-40% that is fossil fuel based.

So, YAH! team anti-nuke! Saved us all there! They have done a masterful job. At least we have China building the things as one of the real, actual green things they are really doing (as opposed to all the green things they SAY they are or will do and folks lap up). And I’m sure, based on their engineering mastery, these nuke plants will be safe and well built…

:eek:

[GIGObuster]

@XT

Here, try this. When you think I’m wrong, say that…I’m wrong. Don’t try and associate what I’m saying with ‘conservatives’.

Well, that was a lot to say to also ignore that I did not say that you are with the conservatives on this one.

[GIGObuster]

Forgot to add:

The point I made is that: sure, power companies see nuclear now as a losing proposition, but the dude in the OP is ignoring what governments can do. Dealing with global warming is the kind of thing that the powers of the government can be put to good use by adding a price to carbon emissions and deploying new nuclear energy, because the need is real.

[Chronos]

Nobody has any room to criticize nuclear power while there are still coal plants in operation. Nuclear power is better by every metric than coal power. It’s safer, it’s cleaner, if compared fairly it’s cheaper, they have similar load characteristics, heck, even if you stack the deck by just comparing radiation effects, it’s still better. But Fukushima, you say? Fukushima proved conclusively just how safe nuclear is. It came very near to not failing at all, even in the face of the worst tsunami in recorded history, and even in the failure it did have, it caused less damage than the fossil fuel facilities in the same area.

And let’s also push for more wind and solar. There’s nothing that says that we can’t have both. And maybe, someday, those technologies (as well as energy-storage technology) will be good enough that we won’t need big, heavy, slow-responding baseload generation, but until that day comes, that big, heavy, slow-responding baseload generation should be nuclear, not fossil-fuel.