"President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday finalized approval of $1.1 billion to help keep California’s last operating nuclear power plant running. "

Because renewable energy sources are too expensive?

  • lettruthout@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    Sounds good, just make sure the industry can do this on its own, without government subsidies. When will the industry find some way to insure itself without the US government’s help? Oh, and when will become cheaper than renewables? Oh, and how about the radioactive waste? When will it take responsibility for that without government help? Oh, and when will it find a source for fuel that isn’t from Russia?

      • Nyfure@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Shouldnt matter much either way because they have to have so many regulations anyways…

        • mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          I am of the same mind that they should be government run because electricity is a necessity for modern life. Electricity should not be produced for profit. Yes it would be nice for it to bring in more than it cost in order to fund expansion and upgrades, but shareholders shouldn’t be involved.

          I personally believe it should basically be another USPS, but hopefully consistent and safe.

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      Providing power to the US is the government’s responsibility in the same way that governments funding maintenance of public roads, paying for teachers, and paying for firefighters doesn’t always generate money yet is subsidized or wholly paid for by a government entity. The fact that the government doesn’t have to fully pay for the nuclear plant (because its offset by the money the plant makes) makes it less that the government has to spend. If anything, I’d like the government to completely take over nuclear plants so that there’s less profits for private entities. Yes nuclear is more expensive than renewables, but an already existing nuclear plant is cheaper than a new one, which is way better than fossil fuels, the real enemy. Not to mention, in how long will renewable take to make up the almost 10% of energy that the plant supplies to California? Instantly? no. It takes time, and until that time, we need all the energy generation we can get, ESPECIALLY if its not a fossil fuel based one. Radioactive waste? Definitely a problem, in a couple hundred years. Right now, all the radioactive waste the US has ever made would fill up a football field, 10 yards deep. Not really a high priority problem especially compared to the risk that global warming risks.

      All in all, it feels like we shouldn’t let the search for a perfect solution, impede temporary good enough solutions.

      • lettruthout@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        “Providing power to the US is the government’s responsibility…” Where did that idea come from? That’s nonsense. Yes, some municipalities run their own power companies, but the Diablo Canyon plant is privately owned.

    • nuclear@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      this on its own, without government subsidies. When will the industry find some way to insure itself without the US government’s help? Oh, and when will become cheaper than renewables?

      If you want to talk about subsidies, let’s talk about how renewables (and even fossil fuels) get MORE subsidies than nuclear energy. Tell us, why is it okay for renewables to get so much subsidies but it’s wrong when nuclear gets a fraction of that? Oh and by the way, nuclear doesn’t need subsidies to compete with renewables. Wanna know how I know? Because every nuclear plant that was shutdown in the US was replaced by fossil gas, NOT renewables. Fossil fuels get the biggest subsidy which is not having to pay the health consequences of pollution and the climate consequences. But sure, let’s waste time about renewables this and nuclear that while fossil fuel keep fucking us up the ass instead of just using renewables and nuclear where each make sense to decarbonize. I don’t care how many good intentions you might have, your narrative holds back the energy transition, it doesn’t help it in the least bit, especially when we are talking about nuclear plants that are ALREADY BUILT and operating. What do you want? have diablo canyon replaced with more fossil gas just like indian point and san onofre? Because that’s what happened and that’s what is going to happen again. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

      • lettruthout@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        why is it okay for renewables to get so much subsidies

        Renewables are a nascent technology and promise a future that doesn’t leave a legacy of radioactive waste. Nor are nuclear power plants ripe targets for terrorist attacks. With the help of public investment, the cost of renewables has decreased significantly.

        In contrast, after decades of government support, the cost of nuclear power has not decreased.

        Save your time. Your support for nuclear is unfortunately preceded by decades of lies by other nuclear supporters.