In remarks tied to the UN week, Trump repeated the argument that Europe—and specifically Germany—turned back to traditional fuels after pursuing renewables, casting it as proof that rapid green transitions don’t work.
Economics. Fission build out sucks ass. This is the one and only reason there aren’t any new reactors coming online in the US. The NRC is giving out new licenses, but nobody wants to fund that shit because it’s been a black hole of money.
True, but I would argue that this isn’t an issue with fission power so much as an argument that it should be handled, either in part or in whole, by the government rather than the market. All kinds of things exist which are necessary for a populace which are not economically viable for private operators (fire departments, postal services, public transit, etc.), and typically the role of government in that scenario would be to step in and either make it viable through subsidy or just pay the cost outright and personally operate it (indeed, this is part of a larger argument that public utilities like power probably shouldn’t be privately owned in the first place). Nonetheless, if we’re being realistic, that is unlikely to change anytime soon, particularly in the US, so I can see the value in assessing from a perspective of optimizing for raw economic pressure, as that is likely the only way we’ll be able to get the people and organizations with significant capital on hand to align with the goal of renewable energy.
There’s no particular reason to think that government dumping money into fission would produce a better result than dumping it into grid, solar, and wind.
Economics. Fission build out sucks ass. This is the one and only reason there aren’t any new reactors coming online in the US. The NRC is giving out new licenses, but nobody wants to fund that shit because it’s been a black hole of money.
True, but I would argue that this isn’t an issue with fission power so much as an argument that it should be handled, either in part or in whole, by the government rather than the market. All kinds of things exist which are necessary for a populace which are not economically viable for private operators (fire departments, postal services, public transit, etc.), and typically the role of government in that scenario would be to step in and either make it viable through subsidy or just pay the cost outright and personally operate it (indeed, this is part of a larger argument that public utilities like power probably shouldn’t be privately owned in the first place). Nonetheless, if we’re being realistic, that is unlikely to change anytime soon, particularly in the US, so I can see the value in assessing from a perspective of optimizing for raw economic pressure, as that is likely the only way we’ll be able to get the people and organizations with significant capital on hand to align with the goal of renewable energy.
There’s no particular reason to think that government dumping money into fission would produce a better result than dumping it into grid, solar, and wind.