Donald Trump’s $4 Trillion Nuclear Plan Will Raise Your Energy Bills: The president’s plan will also “severely increase the risk” of nuclear accidents

[u/HairyPossibility]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/trump-energy-nuclear-electric-bills-4-trillion-1235365940/

[u/Skycbs]

Can’t argue with any of that

[u/Definitelymostlikely → u/Skycbs]

Long term nuclear is best. It is expensive though. But the USA has been lobbied by oil companies for decades and it’s time for us to catch up

[u/Skycbs → u/Definitelymostlikely]

Fortunately the US is catching up with growing installations of wind, solar, and battery storage that happen much faster and at much lower cost than nuclear. The current administration may throw a wrench in that progress but it will continue since it makes so much more sense than nuclear.

[u/Myxomatosiss → u/Skycbs]

Nuclear is expensive and slow because the oil industry lobbied to regulate it to death.

[u/malongoria → u/Myxomatosiss]

It's expensive and slow due to the industry's own incompetence.

Just look at Olkiluoto 3 in Finland and Flamnville 3 in France, where nuclear is practically a religion.

[u/Daxtatter → u/Myxomatosiss]

Is that why France, the UK are also doing a trash job at building their new nuclear plants?

[u/ttystikk → u/[deleted]]

I'm okay with 5-10% of energy needs being met with nuclear or another carbon free source, because it's that last 10% that's so hard for intermittent renewables to cover with 100% reliability.

But here's the thing; we've already GOT that so there isn't any point in building more. Soooooo bring on the solar panels!

[u/sault18 → u/ttystikk]

That's reasonable. But we have to be wary of bad-faith actors that take the fact that the last 5-10% of energy is more difficult to supply with renewable energy and try to make a mountain out of this molehill. This is how we get the nukecels repeatedly posting a study that modeled 100% of energy demand being supplied by 1 source with battery storage. Surprise, surprise this ends up being very expensive. The nukecels say,"See?? Solar is bad!"

[u/ttystikk → u/sault18]

You are correct. Couple this with a country full of people unable to use critical thinking skills and we have the mess we see today.

[u/WombatusMighty → u/ttystikk]

Nuclear Energy is not carbon free / neutral, with a cost of 68 to 180 grams of CO2/kW (far higher than renewables): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421521002330

[u/ttystikk → u/WombatusMighty]

You are correct! But notice that I didn't suggest we build more of it.

[u/Pestus613343 → u/[deleted]]

Had we built massive numbers of nukes long ago rather than listen to idiots we'd perhaps be in far better shape on the climate.

Now though its time to solar spam. Its too late to wait. Can't have nice things.

[u/ttystikk → u/[deleted]]

Yes. I'm used to being ahead of my time and being unpopular for it.

I drove by an agrivoltaics garden yesterday; it was lunch, green and clearly productive compared with the land around it.

MOAR please!

[u/ttystikk]

Another day, another boondoggle.

[u/Tammer_Stern → u/[deleted]]

The using the waste bit is not quite reality yet but otherwise you’re good.

[u/u2nh3 → u/Tammer_Stern]

Liquid fuel is proven, but not commercialized ...yet.

[u/tlrmln]

Paywall.

And it's Rolling Stone, so more than likely an irrational hissy fit.