If you want to treat climate change as an existential threat, then you do whatever it takes to keep all existing nuclear running until fossil fuel plants are gone from the entire continent. And you put a little money to subsidize/stimulate new nuclear on the off chance some of the advanced nuclear concepts work out (or as a backup in case renewables improve slower than we think).
You don’t have to stop or even slow renewables deployment to do this. They are fairly different industries with different workforce’s, so there are resources to do both simultaneously without significant interference. And you’re not going to get “too much” electricity as cheap abundant electricity will help accelerate decarbonization of other things like building heat and transport and industrial processes.
Existing nuclear ESPECIALLY must be protected. And existing hydro. Number 1 and number 2 (tied with wind) clean energy sources.
Nuclear power produces as much energy in our country as coal. We can phase out coal twice as fast if we at very least keep nuclear around a few years longer.
It is so upsetting to see CA close down precious nuclear power plants, not because they have built a better alternative to using natural gas or other dirty fuels to cover this load, they haven't, but because it is unprofitable to do the required maintenance and necessary improvements.
The need for profit is killing our planet. When it comes to basic essential things like shelter, energy, food, water, profit is pure parasitic loss and should be eliminated. These things really should run at a loss, considering these things generate all other economic activity there is, but we insist that they must be run privately and for profit.
>If you want to treat climate change as an existential threat
Chasing that rabbit down the hole, what happens if the US does wean off fossil fuel entirely, but countries like Russia and China continue (and say it is projected to increase 400X like China in the last 30 years). Then its an existential threat, does that mean use of force, or limit ourselves to diplomatic means that will ultimately fail and just accept the resulting existential outcome? Does the analysis change when it is a less diplomatically controversial Country such as India?
Alternatively what if those Countries beat the US to weaning off fossil fuel and determine overnight any continued US use of fossil fuel is an existential threat and act of war?
It sounds like hyperbole but I remember when the US began regulating incandescent light bulbs and it was floated by certain media outlets as an attack on freedom and liberties. We have literally seen murders of people telling others to wear a mask during the pandemic, and I watched a news segment claiming a normal year sees 150-300 FAA incidents on planes and we have seen 1,300 already this year mostly related to passengers refusing to wear masks and many times escalating to attacks on the airline workers for attempting to enforce the CDC mask guidelines. We live in violent and chaotic times, where millions and millions of people allow themselves to be worked up into mobs by a media that does it willfully and deliberately. I don't see it as an easy transition domestically much less globally, and those in power don't care about the science but seem to froth at the mouth for this kind of discontent.
Suppose that a genie gives every human on earth access to infinite power, with no externalities like CO2 or radioactive waste. Would it make the world a better place or would it turn into a dystopian nightmare?
I think it would be like pouring sugar over a bacteria colony. The earth's crust could be economically strip mined. Ore could be smelted into metal at negligible cost, which could in turn be used to make more machines to strip mine the crust at a faster rate. Oceans could be boiled to access rare metals, or maybe just for fun by a bored teenager.
This isn't to detract from OPs practical comment, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
Funding for each may actually benefit the others. For example, FLiBe salt is being considered as a coolant in some Gen IV fission, as well as compact fusion and concentrated solar. Production will increase if there is a definite market for it, making it easier to obtain.
Except budgets by definition are limited. We cannot do all the things all the time. Sorry to be a buzzkill but we need adult minds on this problem, not simpletons who can’t understand how limited our options are at this point.
This is a good provision, but they are going to have to aggressively promote new sources of nuclear power, if they are going to feed all the new Electric Vehicles coming online AND replace coal. Not just keeping old aging plants operating.
A broad carbon price that starts small but rises gradually over time would be better than passing a hodge podge of half measures. Virtually all economists say this would be more economically efficient (cheaper) and it doesn't create distortions by favoring politically popular projects over less sexy but more effective solutions.
Nuclear power capital requirements (up front) are one of the biggest roadblocks to building new plants, followed by regulatory complexity and cruft that hasn’t been streamlined to allow new reactor designs to be implemented.
Doing both, removing subsidies from dirty energy and moving them to nuclear, would be the best case.
Ideas about how to run governments need to be thought of in context of how the government operates. If was emporer of the USA, I would do what you suggest. But if I was president, I probably could not.
I think a better approach is to change some of the regulation. Most of it is good, but some of it is kinda insane. My father worked on nuclear plants in the 70-80's. According to him, from the 80's on it effectively was so much regulation that it was not at all worth building a plant.
With technological advancement, a little change in regulations could go a long way.
Couldn't say it better. Subsidies don't work out the way you want. Look at ethanol: it's an incredibly dirty fuel source (using tons of diesel to make "fuel", smart!) but the ethanol lobby and unions have entrenched themselves permanently so its not worth the fight.
According to 2014 Elon Musk, if you cover the same square footage as taken up by a nuclear power plant and its exclusion zone with solar cells, you’ll get more electricity than the nuclear power plant would have supplied.
2014 was a long time ago. It’s possible both technologies have improved since then. I wonder why we don’t hear about this comparison more.
The problem is capital doesn't care about the big picture. Nuclear power is an upfront costly measure, you don't see a return for perhaps decades. That's fine if you are a public agency since in time, this will pay for itself, and the concern is about bettering the public in the best way possible, not making a quick return on investment.
It's not fine if you are a private energy company with shareholders who are looking to take on a gain and who are only looking at life one quarter at a time. Executives would rather invest in something cheaper where their investors will see a quicker return, because that's how executives keep their jobs. Executives and shareholders care about themselves and their profit, while the government is designed to care about the collective, although its great power is frequently commandeered by individuals seeking personal profit.
I support serious measures to address climate change and oppose anything that gets in the way of such measures. If the government wants to give a free pony to people who installs solar panels, that's fine by me. More optimal policies are preferably, of course, but that's a secondary concern.
Right now, it seems the most likely outcome is that we keep using fossil fuels, so I'm desperate for anything!
(The exception are measures such as banning plastic straws, which I oppose because it's actually a significant inconvenience—which means spent political capital—but will do exceedingly little for the planet.)
If we're treating this as a world-critical issue, we shouldn't wait for market forces to fix it. Like evolution, market forces may converge on good solutions, but not quickly enough to save a species from near extinction.
So, yeah, stop subsidizing dirty companies, but also subsidize those solutions that get us out of this mess faster.
The capital requirements for starting a nuclear company is likely much large than starting, say, an EV company. Subsidies for EV companies greatly helped in getting the technology off the ground. Subsidies might be a necessary evil in this case.
In general I oppose subsidies, but I think it's a good idea here. Nuclear solves some major problems with other types of clean energy - it's just prohibitively expensive. I'm all for exploring all alternatives to fossil fuels in parallel - I think the seriousness of the climate situation warrants it.
But that cost is largely a function of strong regulations and lack of innovation. If the government gets the ball rolling with subsidies it might get to the point where it doesn't need them anymore. Reducing regulation where appropriate could help too - but in general there are risks and regulation is warranted.
And because it makes so much sense - implement a carbon tax that ramps up slowly to the full cost of the externalities of fossil fuels. It's the most effective thing to fight climate change, but instead of doing that we actually subsidize fossil fuels?!? I don't get it.
I support not destroying the planet. Whatever gets the job done at this point. Removing subsidies is a political shitshow, and you're effectively saying "I support a decades-long political sparring contest while the planet burns."
I think it's safe to say we're not operating under a democracy/republic anymore, so whatever will appease the coroporate/banking overlords the quickest is the best path forward.
The french didn't need anything fancy. They stadardized and then scaled production of reactors. They now have the cheapest energy on the planet, sell excess to others, and have no carbon output from electricity generation.
As someone opposed to nuclear power, I agree with both points. Nuclear power cannot exist without subsidies for development, construction and all the externalities.
It can't exist in a free market or a leveled playing field.
Nuclear makes little sense for climate targets. The construction is too expensive and too slow - allocating capital to nuclear ends up slower than allocating the same capital to renewables for hitting climate targets. If you look at reports of lifetime costs for utility scale energy, Nuclear is the most expensive and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Solar and wind is already 3-4x cheaper than nuclear, and by the time the decade is out it will likely be 10x cheaper even with attendant storage.
A better idea - have the navy build them and then sell the completed, operational plant (say, after a year of successful operation) to the highest bidder in an auction. Put whatever constraints are needed on the sale, and guarantee the construction for a decade.
LoL, 40 years too late. The irony is that if the anti-nuclear environmentalist movement hadn't had as much strength in the 80's, we would be electric carbon neutral and just have transportation to go.
I’d prefer to see continuing or additional tax credits for solar and battery storage directly to the consumer. This would dovetail nicely with an infrastructure plan by making the incentives higher for panels made in the U.S.A. Keeping the incentives directly to the consumer would take a good deal of the chances of corruption and back room deals out of the equation I.E. the Solyndra scandal.
Yeah While on one hand I am supportive of more money going to clean energy tech / infra build out, I can’t help but be disappointed that this legislation ISN’T technology agnostic.
We are at the point now where there are enough “options on the table” (solar, onshore offshore wind, hydro, nuclear, various storage applications ) that incentives should go towards the cheapest “clean electrons”, regardless of technology. This way the money contributed as subsidy can go the furthest distance.
Nuclear power’s Achilles heel on the economics side are particularly problematic for new builds. With increasing construction costs (compared to declining solar and wind), an almost 10 year timeframe to build out, and potentially half a century operating lifespan, it can be hard to ultimately pencil out. That said, nuclear refurbs and upgrades of existing setups is probably a better direction, even if life extension is likely to be more limited.
Brief and speculative but very timely[1]. Displacement of carbon is critical, as well as permanent carbon economies that tax at 50-100 $/tCO2. Systemic and sub-systemic shock is one core.[2]
What happened to nuclear being so much cheaper than coal? Is it really just subsidies for coal that tip the balance? Then the logical consequence would be to remove subsidies from that. But I suspect the "nuclear=cheap" mantra is not the end of the story.
Make individual consumer grid energy taxpayer provided and pay the cost to optimize cost down and make long term investments to provide renewable energy. Do the same with internet and water and target wasteful bitcoin miners with asset liquidation.
The current strategy in many countries is to first generate as cheap energy as possible, and then subside alternative sources to be ready when the cheaper energy can't fulfill demand. The cheapest energy source get determined by market forces, while the alternative is about the government buying stability.
I would suspect that the nuclear subsidies is taken from the later strategy and not the former. Companies can still compete on the market to produce the cheapest possible energy, while the government are moved away from fossil fuels and into alternatives that are clean and provide the desired stability for which existing subsidies are paying for.
I think we should switch to some of the newer nuclear reactor implementation. There is one that Bill Gates was funding which is supposed to substantially safer according but other similar ones should be evaluated.
It's time we understand that renewables have a poor benefit/cost ratio when you compare it to nuclear.
Renewables + batteries will NEVER supply enough energy in a world that will require more electricity if it uses electric vehicles and move away from fossil fuels. The coal and gaz industry love renewables because you NEED gaz and coal if there's no wind or sun.
Nuclear power in the united states can never be economical because the laws are designed to make it so. I am not being hyperbolic. Literally, the standards call for all emissions to be ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable.
> This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job.
The WH needs to push congress for a carbon tax (which, unfortunately, they are too cowardly to even try). We don't even need to be subsidizing nuclear, it will miraculously become profitable when fossil fuels' externalities are properly priced in.
[+] [-] Robotbeat|4 years ago|reply
You don’t have to stop or even slow renewables deployment to do this. They are fairly different industries with different workforce’s, so there are resources to do both simultaneously without significant interference. And you’re not going to get “too much” electricity as cheap abundant electricity will help accelerate decarbonization of other things like building heat and transport and industrial processes.
Existing nuclear ESPECIALLY must be protected. And existing hydro. Number 1 and number 2 (tied with wind) clean energy sources.
Nuclear power produces as much energy in our country as coal. We can phase out coal twice as fast if we at very least keep nuclear around a few years longer.
[+] [-] asdff|4 years ago|reply
The need for profit is killing our planet. When it comes to basic essential things like shelter, energy, food, water, profit is pure parasitic loss and should be eliminated. These things really should run at a loss, considering these things generate all other economic activity there is, but we insist that they must be run privately and for profit.
[+] [-] throwaway_isms|4 years ago|reply
Chasing that rabbit down the hole, what happens if the US does wean off fossil fuel entirely, but countries like Russia and China continue (and say it is projected to increase 400X like China in the last 30 years). Then its an existential threat, does that mean use of force, or limit ourselves to diplomatic means that will ultimately fail and just accept the resulting existential outcome? Does the analysis change when it is a less diplomatically controversial Country such as India?
Alternatively what if those Countries beat the US to weaning off fossil fuel and determine overnight any continued US use of fossil fuel is an existential threat and act of war?
It sounds like hyperbole but I remember when the US began regulating incandescent light bulbs and it was floated by certain media outlets as an attack on freedom and liberties. We have literally seen murders of people telling others to wear a mask during the pandemic, and I watched a news segment claiming a normal year sees 150-300 FAA incidents on planes and we have seen 1,300 already this year mostly related to passengers refusing to wear masks and many times escalating to attacks on the airline workers for attempting to enforce the CDC mask guidelines. We live in violent and chaotic times, where millions and millions of people allow themselves to be worked up into mobs by a media that does it willfully and deliberately. I don't see it as an easy transition domestically much less globally, and those in power don't care about the science but seem to froth at the mouth for this kind of discontent.
[+] [-] sandfly|4 years ago|reply
I think it would be like pouring sugar over a bacteria colony. The earth's crust could be economically strip mined. Ore could be smelted into metal at negligible cost, which could in turn be used to make more machines to strip mine the crust at a faster rate. Oceans could be boiled to access rare metals, or maybe just for fun by a bored teenager.
This isn't to detract from OPs practical comment, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
[+] [-] LaMarseillaise|4 years ago|reply
Funding for each may actually benefit the others. For example, FLiBe salt is being considered as a coolant in some Gen IV fission, as well as compact fusion and concentrated solar. Production will increase if there is a definite market for it, making it easier to obtain.
[+] [-] djdjdjdjdj|4 years ago|reply
Nuclear is 4 times more expensive, it would be interesting to know if we could boost renewable much further much faster.
[+] [-] splithalf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NullPrefix|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] setBoolean|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] starkd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkcontext|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hirundo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] halfmatthalfcat|4 years ago|reply
Doing both, removing subsidies from dirty energy and moving them to nuclear, would be the best case.
[+] [-] gameswithgo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] citilife|4 years ago|reply
With technological advancement, a little change in regulations could go a long way.
[+] [-] king_magic|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exabrial|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natch|4 years ago|reply
2014 was a long time ago. It’s possible both technologies have improved since then. I wonder why we don’t hear about this comparison more.
[+] [-] BitwiseFool|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdff|4 years ago|reply
It's not fine if you are a private energy company with shareholders who are looking to take on a gain and who are only looking at life one quarter at a time. Executives would rather invest in something cheaper where their investors will see a quicker return, because that's how executives keep their jobs. Executives and shareholders care about themselves and their profit, while the government is designed to care about the collective, although its great power is frequently commandeered by individuals seeking personal profit.
[+] [-] Mvandenbergh|4 years ago|reply
Since there is not sufficient political consensus for the former in the US, the latter is a good interim solution.
[+] [-] Wowfunhappy|4 years ago|reply
Right now, it seems the most likely outcome is that we keep using fossil fuels, so I'm desperate for anything!
(The exception are measures such as banning plastic straws, which I oppose because it's actually a significant inconvenience—which means spent political capital—but will do exceedingly little for the planet.)
[+] [-] ineedasername|4 years ago|reply
So, yeah, stop subsidizing dirty companies, but also subsidize those solutions that get us out of this mess faster.
[+] [-] koheripbal|4 years ago|reply
There are currently more subsidies for solar and wind.
[+] [-] spamalot159|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eloff|4 years ago|reply
But that cost is largely a function of strong regulations and lack of innovation. If the government gets the ball rolling with subsidies it might get to the point where it doesn't need them anymore. Reducing regulation where appropriate could help too - but in general there are risks and regulation is warranted.
And because it makes so much sense - implement a carbon tax that ramps up slowly to the full cost of the externalities of fossil fuels. It's the most effective thing to fight climate change, but instead of doing that we actually subsidize fossil fuels?!? I don't get it.
[+] [-] minikites|4 years ago|reply
I see this argued a lot for many industries, has it ever actually happened for any of them? It doesn't seem realistic, but I'd love to be wrong.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] frereubu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orthecreedence|4 years ago|reply
I think it's safe to say we're not operating under a democracy/republic anymore, so whatever will appease the coroporate/banking overlords the quickest is the best path forward.
[+] [-] datavirtue|4 years ago|reply
"Freedom fries?"
[+] [-] macksd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hindsightbias|4 years ago|reply
It can't exist in a free market or a leveled playing field.
[+] [-] dv_dt|4 years ago|reply
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
[+] [-] MR4D|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antattack|4 years ago|reply
White House eyes subsidies for existing nuclear plants to help meet climate targets.
[+] [-] jbunc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roamerz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wffurr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clomond|4 years ago|reply
We are at the point now where there are enough “options on the table” (solar, onshore offshore wind, hydro, nuclear, various storage applications ) that incentives should go towards the cheapest “clean electrons”, regardless of technology. This way the money contributed as subsidy can go the furthest distance.
Nuclear power’s Achilles heel on the economics side are particularly problematic for new builds. With increasing construction costs (compared to declining solar and wind), an almost 10 year timeframe to build out, and potentially half a century operating lifespan, it can be hard to ultimately pencil out. That said, nuclear refurbs and upgrades of existing setups is probably a better direction, even if life extension is likely to be more limited.
[+] [-] omgJustTest|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omgJustTest|4 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/white-... [2] https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/9-9-20%20Re...
[+] [-] molszanski|4 years ago|reply
The doomsday clock is ticking and we don't have time to waste debating. We must buy time now
[+] [-] periheli0n|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coward76|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belorn|4 years ago|reply
I would suspect that the nuclear subsidies is taken from the later strategy and not the former. Companies can still compete on the market to produce the cheapest possible energy, while the government are moved away from fossil fuels and into alternatives that are clean and provide the desired stability for which existing subsidies are paying for.
[+] [-] pkaye|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jokoon|4 years ago|reply
Renewables + batteries will NEVER supply enough energy in a world that will require more electricity if it uses electric vehicles and move away from fossil fuels. The coal and gaz industry love renewables because you NEED gaz and coal if there's no wind or sun.
Please look at the number.
[+] [-] superkuh|4 years ago|reply
https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
> This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26836075
[+] [-] jxidjhdhdhdhfhf|4 years ago|reply