Yves here. In Friday\u2019s Links, reader Michaelmas made some important observations about the US nuclear fuel model, which does only one cycle and thus produces vastly more waste than necessary. That has been a feature as opposed to a bug. Further, he contends that reprocessing plus current technology like laser isotope separation can eliminate nuclear waste. <\/p>\n
Admittedly, nuclear waste is not the only reason environmentalists oppose nuclear energy. They also point to catastrophe risk and hazards to wildlife from water cooling processes, which are more pronounced for nuclear plants than other water-cooled power facilities<\/a>. <\/p>\n As many of you know, as AI and data center power demands are soaring, tech titans have been talking up nuclear power as a low-emission solution. However, a Goldman Sachs report from January<\/a> argued its role would be limited, in part due to staffing issues:<\/p>\n While renewables have the potential to meet most of the increased power needs from data centers at some times of day, they don\u2019t produce power consistently enough to be the only energy source for data centers\u2026.<\/p>\n Nuclear energy has almost zero carbon dioxide emissions \u2014 although it does create nuclear waste that needs to be managed carefully. But the scarcity of specialized labor, the challenges of obtaining permits, and the difficulty of sourcing sufficient uranium all pose a challenge to the development of new nuclear power plants\u2026<\/p>\n How much will nuclear power increase?<\/p>\n Recent contracts for nuclear energy facilities along with signs of countries\u2019 greater appetite for nuclear power suggest a significant increase of investment in the next five years, and a corresponding rise in power supply in the 2030s.<\/p>\n The proliferation of AI data centers has boosted investor confidence in future growth in electricity demand at the same time as big tech companies are looking for low-carbon reliable energy. This is leading to the de-mothballing of recently retired nuclear generators, as well as consideration for new larger-scale reactors.<\/p>\n In the US alone, big tech companies have signed new contracts for more than 10 GW of possible new nuclear capacity in the last year, and Goldman Sachs Research sees potential for three plants to be brought online by 2030.<\/p>\n What could help dispel US nuclear dependence on Russia for enrichment is a properly capable nuclear power industry that recycles nuclear fuel and is moving towards closing the nuclear fuel cycle.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Mind you, yours truly has repeatedly called for radical conservation, as in greatly trying to reduce resource consumption, before climate-change-induced collapse forces it upon us. But that view has an even smaller audience now than Before AI.<\/p>\n So one reason to discuss the fact that nuclear waste is a choice, not a necessity, is to try to persuade activists to demand nuclear waste-free new builds. If they can\u2019t stop them, and the political winds suggest not, the fallback is to demand a much safer implementation.<\/p>\n\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/print-button-gray.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n