Nuclear power has become irrelevant -- like it or not

Nuclear still has the capability to surge power into the grid (when there is an energy shortage or peak demand) and does not need storage capability to do so, while renewables need storage capacity on the scale of gigawatts (and such storage simply does not exist.) I would prefer the nuclear plants be phased out due to the occasional accidents but renewables' main problem is the lack of surge capability, and of the power generation types which can be surged, nuclear is still cleaner than fossil fuels of coal and gas.

That’s another illusion. You can only have your eco-friendly, CO2 avoiding and climate saving strategy by accepting a massive building of new nuclear plants. One risk down, another ones up, that’s the deal also here and nothing else.

Good riddance to hazardous nuclear power!!!

The recent crash in Texas, where renewable sources stopped producing and there was no capacity to meet demand, strongly suggests that nuclear hasn’t met its demise. If we don’t want fossil fuels, nuclear remains the only viable option.

Add the rise of electric cars to the demand, and baseline electricity needs are going to skyrocket. Renewables simply cannot keep pace.

And for all that people behave fearfully toward nuclear power, how many people actually die from nuclear power? Even with the Fukushima accident, while cleanup costs are huge, people aren’t falling down dead left and right. Compare that to fossil fuels, where thousands die every year from pollution-related lung diseases.

You care about climate change? Serious about it? Nuclear is they key.

You care about Japan having 0 resources, an Island Nation? Nuclear is the key.

You care about energy prices going up in Japan? Nuclear is the key.

Nuclear power has only been discovered in the past 80 yrs. MOST POWERFUL SOURCE OF ENERGY HUMANS INVENTED! !

Yet some people talk about it like it's old technology! not good enough, not worth it. lol.

You still use electricity? How old is that? Do you still use fire? The wheel? How old is it?

Nuclear apparently, it's the No Go. We Barely started to understand how it works, how to keep it under control, safer, and some people want Japan to give up on it?? Please don't listen! ! They don't have Japan's best interest at heart.

The American CIA in the 1950's forced Japan to accept nuclear energy for the purpose of producing additional atomic fuel to be used by America for building atomic bombs. It's well documented.

Document that using reliable sources. If this is so well documented that should be easy enough. And by documented I don't mean a thread on some internet discussion board but peer reviewed research and/or some well documented journalism by well regarded journalists.

While Japan received uranium ore and nuclear power plant equipment from the US, until 1988 all of Japan's spent fuel was shipped to two facilities, one each in UK and France, and not the US for reprocessing. After reprocessing, under the terms of the agreement the reprocessed fuel was returned to Japan. That was part of the US-Japan nuclear power agreement circa 1956. It was amended in 1988 to allow Japan to reprocess its spent fuel domestically. Japan has no domestic uranium supplies and has to import all of its uranium, which comes primarily from former republics of the old USSR and Australia. Reprocessing reduces the amount of uranium ore Japan must procure and process for fuel. About the same time the Canadian firm Uranium One was selling its interest in its two US uranium mines it sold a controlling interest in its Australian mines to three Japanese companies. The fact is the US has sufficient domestic supplies and operated until recently its own reprocessing facility that it has no need for spent Japanese fuels. Today there is surplus of weapons grade fissle from decommissioned warheads due to arms control agreements. The US doesn't need to produce new material.

In the fullness of time I am of the firm opinion much of the developed world will be forced to use nuclear power to produce a large proportion of their electrical power supply. None of the current renewable energy sources are sufficiently reliable to provide a baseload to a grid. Every other power source creates CO and CO2 pollution to one degree or another. None are 100% CO and CO2 free, except nuclear power. Advanced reactor designs are out there which greatly alleviate. There is also an older design that has sort of been forgotten, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, one of which was operated at Oak Ridge TN without problems from 1965-1969. They consumer 99% of their fuel and of what is left 83% is stable within ten years and the remaining 17% needs about 300 years of storage to be stable. They basically solve the waste and safety risks associated with pressurized water cooled reactors. Facts, not emotions will ultimately guide decisions.

The recent crash in Texas, where renewable sources stopped producing and there was no capacity to meet demand, strongly suggests that nuclear hasn’t met its demise. If we don’t want fossil fuels, nuclear remains the only viable option.

I think you have it backwards. In Texas renewable energy is a very small proportion of their total energy portfolio. What caused the problem in Texas was oil and gas companies shutting down wells in the face of extreme cold temps the equipment was not designed to deal with. That deprived gas fired power plants of their fuel supply, forcing both higher energy prices and output reductions. Power plant equipment also failed under the cold conditions. Texas experienced the identical problem during a 2011 cold snap, but the energy and power generation companies made a choice not to spend money upgrading their equipment to withstand the colder temperatures (the same sorts of equipment operates fine in places like Siberia and Canada so cold temps can be dealt with effectively). That decision has come back to bite them. Blaming it on renewable energy is fabrication not based on facts.

The debate is over. Nuclear power has been eclipsed by the sun and the wind," Dave Freeman wrote in the foreword to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2017.

I agree with Dave