By Gregory Jaczko Gregory Jaczko served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2005 to 2009, and as its chairman from 2009 to 2012. The author of"Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator," he is the founder of Wind Future LLC and teaches at Georgetown University and Princeton University. May 17 at 6:00 AM Nuclear power was supposed to save the planet.
Nuclear plants generate power through fission, the separation of one large atom into two or more smaller ones. This atomic engine yields none of the air pollutants produced by the combustion of carbon-based fuels. Over the decades since its inception in the 1950s, nuclear power has prevented hundreds of fossil-fuel plants from being built, meaning fewer people have suffered or died from diseases caused by their emissions.
Most have not returned, because only select areas have been remediated, making the surrounding region seem like a giant chessboard with hazardous areas next to safer ones. The crisis hobbled the Japanese economy for years. The government estimated that the accident would cost at least $180 billion. Independent estimates suggest that the cost could be three times more.
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.But there was a problem. After Fukushima, people all over the world demanded a different approach to nuclear safety. Germany closed several older plants and required the rest to shut down by 2022. Japan closed most of its plants.
After I left the NRC in 2012, I argued that we needed new ways to make accidents impossible. When a reactor incident occurs, the plant should not release any harmful radiation outside the plant itself. I was not yet antinuclear, just pro-public-safety. But nuclear proponents still see this as “antinuclear.” They knew, as I did, that most plants operating today do not meet the “no off-site release” test.
Would shutting down plants all over the world lead to similar results? Eight years after Fukushima, that question has been answered. Fewer than 10 of Japan’s 50 reactors have resumed operations, yet the country’s carbon emissions have dropped below their levels before the accident. How? Japan has made significant gains in energy efficiency and solar power.
bascule “…He is the founder of Wind Future LLC”
'No Nukes 1980' is still the champ.
“No longer”?
FAKE NEWS
Solar power has killed ten times as many people as nuclear.
Here's what I remember about Jaczko: He was so biased that during his (short) tenure as NRC Chief the remaining four commissioners sent a bipartisan letter to the WH regarding his abusive, unprofessional behavior & questioned his motives at the NRC. Looks like nothing's changed.
Wut. Nuclear energy has gotten *significantly* safer and more productive; comparing deaths and power production, nuclear is the safest form of energy we have by an enormous margin. Yes, if it has a problem it's a big problem, but is *extremely* hard for it to have problems.
Well, someone watched the Chernobyl show.
Cleanest, safest, most viable power source we can create? Ok.. great article 🤦♀️
Hit piece! GreenNuclearDeal
Articles like this help expose the climatechange hoax. ClimateAction ClimateEmergency Wind & solar are terrible but give leftists what they want. Nuclear is the BEST solution, but it doesn't give the only thing leftists care about with the climate change hoax:
Exactly 5 days ago I was attacked by the left TheDemocrats for taking this position because according to IPCC reports you can’t not achieve the Paris Goals without Nuclear energy. Save earth by killing life I guess.
You’re not going to get off coal without nuclear. Windmills and unicorns are not going to do it.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the technological differences between old design nuke plants and the new ones, though if you oversaw the nuclear power industry, one would think you'd already know. 🙄
Where is our apology for your fake “fact-checking”, fake “analysis”, and flat out false coverage on the Russia investigation Comment
Who needs the National Enquirer when you have the Washpost?
Sverige Senaste nytt, Sverige Rubriker
Similar News:Du kan också läsa nyheter som liknar den här som vi har samlat in från andra nyhetskällor.
Källa: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Läs mer »
Källa: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Läs mer »
Källa: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Läs mer »