Greens should embrace nuclear microreactors

American Thinker ^ | 08/16/2022 | Linnea Lueken

[SeekAndFind]

While we at the Heartland Institute do not believe any energy sources should be subsidized, if the federal government is going to support energy, it should support sources that are reliable and dispatchable.

With that in mind, it is absolutely insane that Uncle Sam gives billions in tax credits to wind and solar projects when this sort of funding could go towards more effective, energy dense, dispatchable sources. The so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” continues this madness; one analysis found that under the bill, wind and solar will receive an additional $113 billion in tax credits by 2031. By comparison, the bill provides about $29 billion to oil and gas activities, and $3.4 billion for nuclear power. 

Modern environmentalists are all about paving over rangeland and animal habitats with ugly, polluting solar farms and noisy wind turbines that disrupt wildlife habitat and kill protected and endangered species. Simultaneously, most radical environmentalists seem unalterably opposed to nuclear power despite the fact that modern reactors are safe, the fuel used is energy dense, and the power plants and storage for spent fuel don’t take up as much land, and thus, don’t disrupt wildlife habitats as much as renewable energy.

The low proportion of energy spending devoted to nuclear is especially strange considering the recent Pentagon approval of a plug-and-play microreactor that fits in a semi truck and provides up to 20 megawatts of power and lasts continuously for 10 years without needing to be refueled. Refueling is simple, and then the reactor can go back into use. These are being promoted as great sources of energy for remote locations and emergency power after natural disasters.

[cymbeline]

The idea of many smaller reactors (actually, electricity generators) doesn’t make complete sense.

If “many smaller” is better than “few larger” then why isn’t our current electricity generation done with “many smaller”.

[FLT-bird]

If they were serious, they would have embraced nuclear power from the start. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear is actually practical.

[TexasGator]

“The idea of many smaller reactors (actually, electricity generators) doesn’t make complete sense.”

These reactors are for military use. Remote locations, EV charging, disaster relief.

[SeekAndFind]

I would advocate for a small, gradual deployment ( maybe in smaller towns with smaller populations ) instead of Big Bang deployment.

See how feasible it is and scale or abandon accordingly.

[Cowman]

The answer is simple. Just build a dome over your local government school or college and pipe the hot air into all the houses in town. Bingo bango you have cheap energy free heating

[Dutch Boy]

Greens don’t want green energy. They want communism.

[GingisK]

Are these similar to the reactor that was supposed to provide power to the base in Antarctica? They ended up reverting to diesel generators.

[IYAS9YAS]

The watermelons don’t want clean energy. They want you dead.

[clearcarbon]

"I’m flying off in my private jet now to meet Al Gore at his huge mansion. We’ll be discussing how to best push the world back to the Middle Ages. "

[T. Rustin Noone]

When they make a whole-house residential unit about the size of a hot water heater that can be encased in concrete in my back yard, I am totally down with it.