4 ms·

I 100% agree. I originally started banging out a comment saying forget the trees, build more nuclear power but didn't want to invite a downvoting brigade, which

I 100% agree. I originally started banging out a comment saying forget the trees, build more nuclear power but didn't want to invite a downvoting brigade, which I effectively walked into anyways :)

philipkglass 7y ago
Introducing nuclear power in climate discussions tends to cause flamewars because it's often introduced by someone making extreme blanket statements, like "humans cannot be trusted with nuclear power" or "nuclear is the only available solution to climate change." Just mention it as one of the low-emissions alternatives to fossil power. Cite climate-focused organizations for support rather than industry-specific organizations. The aim is to reduce emissions, not to promote one specific technology toward that end. I wish that we just had carbon tax-and-dividend instead of a thousand different regulations and tax code incentives mandating or nudging toward specific kinds of efficiency measures and fossil replacements. At the same time I understand that carbon taxes face enormous popular opposition while tax credits and CAFE standards don't, so I'll accept having 3 different kinds of federal tax incentives to separately promote nuclear power, wind power, and solar power (plus a myriad of differently structured state level incentives) as the best the US can currently do.
- Retric 7y ago
  The problem with Nuclear is it needs huge subsides to be cost competitive with battery backed Wind / Solar or Hydro, even more if you want it to load follow. With just a carbon tax and no specific Nuclear subsidies, Nuclear is rarely a good option. In theory it seems like a great idea, in practice with decades of 10’s to 100’s of Billions in R&D it’s unlikely to improve that much within the next 5-10 years. (106 Billion and counting from the US government alone: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-fossil-fuels-have-dominated-federal-energy-rd-spending/#46b33c4b3105 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-...)
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    It's probably needed in northern countries for COMPLETE decarbonization. And basically all large infrastructure has some level of subsidy, definitely including wind, solar, and hydro.
  - philipkglass 7y ago
    I agree that new nuclear power doesn't appear to be competitive with new renewables in the near term. It might be competitive again as renewable penetration gets high and storage costs rise. If there were just one tax incentive scheme, aimed at reducing CO2 emissions, we could be sure that tax incentives were optimizing for low emissions without distorting the market in favor of overly specific technology choices. But as I mentioned before, I'll take the overly specific and distortionary incentives if the alternative is "no incentives at all for reducing emissions."

I 100% agree. I originally started banging out a comment saying forget the trees, build more nuclear power but didn't want to invite a downvoting brigade, which I effectively walked into anyways :)

philipkglass 7y ago

Introducing nuclear power in climate discussions tends to cause flamewars because it's often introduced by someone making extreme blanket statements, like "humans cannot be trusted with nuclear power" or "nuclear is the only available solution to climate change." Just mention it as one of the low-emissions alternatives to fossil power. Cite climate-focused organizations for support rather than industry-specific organizations. The aim is to reduce emissions, not to promote one specific technology toward that end. I wish that we just had carbon tax-and-dividend instead of a thousand different regulations and tax code incentives mandating or nudging toward specific kinds of efficiency measures and fossil replacements. At the same time I understand that carbon taxes face enormous popular opposition while tax credits and CAFE standards don't, so I'll accept having 3 different kinds of federal tax incentives to separately promote nuclear power, wind power, and solar power (plus a myriad of differently structured state level incentives) as the best the US can currently do.

Retric 7y ago
The problem with Nuclear is it needs huge subsides to be cost competitive with battery backed Wind / Solar or Hydro, even more if you want it to load follow. With just a carbon tax and no specific Nuclear subsidies, Nuclear is rarely a good option. In theory it seems like a great idea, in practice with decades of 10’s to 100’s of Billions in R&D it’s unlikely to improve that much within the next 5-10 years. (106 Billion and counting from the US government alone: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-fossil-fuels-have-dominated-federal-energy-rd-spending/#46b33c4b3105 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-...)
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  It's probably needed in northern countries for COMPLETE decarbonization. And basically all large infrastructure has some level of subsidy, definitely including wind, solar, and hydro.
- philipkglass 7y ago
  I agree that new nuclear power doesn't appear to be competitive with new renewables in the near term. It might be competitive again as renewable penetration gets high and storage costs rise. If there were just one tax incentive scheme, aimed at reducing CO2 emissions, we could be sure that tax incentives were optimizing for low emissions without distorting the market in favor of overly specific technology choices. But as I mentioned before, I'll take the overly specific and distortionary incentives if the alternative is "no incentives at all for reducing emissions."