Last week, I posted this list of the most energy efficient cities to this forum. All of the cities are in blue states, and many are in California. Most of the states are all in on renewables, which is one of the factors driving their energy efficiency. Intermittent energies don't afford us the privilege of unmoderated electricity consumption.
Nuclear energy, on the other hand, pretty much is available 24/7. If you've ever been to France, one of the most nuclear dependent nations, you might have noticed just how fast your cellphone charged. Nuclear has basically freed France from the responsibility of ever developing any serious energy efficiency regulations.
Now, it seems, many American states are turning to nuclear. This was highlighted in an AP article last week:
“An Associated Press survey of the energy policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia found that a strong majority— about two-thirds— say nuclear, in one fashion or another, will help take the place of fossil fuels. That momentum could lead to the first expansion of nuclear reactor construction in the U.S. in more than three decades.
Roughly one-third of the states and the District of Columbia say they have no plans to incorporate nuclear power in their green energy goals, instead leaning heavily on renewables. They pointed to advances in energy storage using batteries, investments in the grid for high-voltage interstate transmission, energy efficiency efforts to reduce demand and power provided by hydroelectric dams.”
If states with weak efficiency ratings embrace nuclear, will they ever face the consequences of their inefficiencies? Does it matter?