5 ms·

Judging by this[1] graph, the federal government spends like 10x on renewable energy subsidies vs nuclear. Imagine how much more developed the nuclear power cap

Judging by this[1] graph, the federal government spends like 10x on renewable energy subsidies vs nuclear. Imagine how much more developed the nuclear power capabilities of the US would be if it received similar attention. [1] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-renewables-fossil-fuels/ https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-re...

tstrimple 7y ago
Spending more on nuclear subsidies in order to promote adoption is probably the only way that we'll see any significant growth of nuclear power. I'm all for it. But that still indicates that it's too expensive to compete in a private market. I'm not convinced by a graph like you presented though. That's a measurement of subsidies which were spent, not subsidies which were available. In other words, if more nuclear power plants were built we'd be seeing a much higher amount being spent on subsidizing nuclear power. Since no one is building nuclear (thus taking advantage of available subsidies) and we are dropping wind turbines all over the place, it's only natural that renewable subsidies would far exceed nuclear.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  We could just stop subsidizing fossil fuels and implement a carbon tax. That would make fossil fuels uncompetitive against everything and then people would turn to whichever alternatives are most suitable. Then you'd get more nuclear for baseload and in areas with less sunlight or cold winters, more solar for loads that align with its generation curve (like air conditioning) or are easy to time shift into sunlight hours (like charging electric cars) etc.
  - tstrimple 7y ago
    If we're going to imagine things we could "just" do, my vote is for nationalizing energy production so decisions like this aren't based on shareholder profits and trying to incentivize private companies into doing the right thing.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Then electricity would cost four times as much as it would with a carbon tax because power generation wouldn't be incentivized to do the right thing in an efficient way. It would end up as a jobs program and in general have all the same inefficiency issues as the Department of Defense, only funded by the ratepayers instead of the taxpayers, which would be a regressive tax on the poor. And the fossil fuel energy companies would lobby the national power utility to carry on burning fossil fuels, which they could do more easily than lobbying against a carbon tax because then there would be fewer private companies wanting to sell fossil fuel alternatives lobbying on the other side of the issue.
      - tstrimple 7y ago
        Why is it when people pick examples of government they always use the most egregious examples and completely ignore all of the other government services which are run as well or better than private enterprises? It's like saying democratic socialism is bad because Venezuela. It's not a compelling argument for anyone with more than a passing understanding of the situation.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Because it's the largest example of a national program similar to the one you're proposing. The government services that work are local things like firefighters and most municipal water utilities (which, if you want to see what happens there when you try to do it in a less local way, see Flint). It can work at the local level because the local government is much more accountable to the local people, because the people getting screwed over by specific bad decisions are a larger percentage of the voters there. A national power utility could do things like declare that all new power will be generated from solar because it's popular in and works for enough swing states and big states like Florida and California that people getting screwed in Minnesota or Alaska can't do anything about it. And then a different flavor of nonsense when the other party gets in and it's Pennsylvania and Texas wanting them to stop phasing out coal or stop building electric car charging infrastructure. This is also one of the reasons why the healthcare systems in Europe are more efficient than the US -- their programs are not operated at the level of the EU and none of their member states are anywhere near as large as the entire US. And even their efficiency can be best classified as only tolerable rather than the hot garbage created by federal rules in the US. But a power grid doesn't really work at a local level because it's an interstate grid, so it inherently implies a scale of bureaucracy that has historically led to high levels of government inefficiency.

tstrimple 7y ago

Spending more on nuclear subsidies in order to promote adoption is probably the only way that we'll see any significant growth of nuclear power. I'm all for it. But that still indicates that it's too expensive to compete in a private market. I'm not convinced by a graph like you presented though. That's a measurement of subsidies which were spent, not subsidies which were available. In other words, if more nuclear power plants were built we'd be seeing a much higher amount being spent on subsidizing nuclear power. Since no one is building nuclear (thus taking advantage of available subsidies) and we are dropping wind turbines all over the place, it's only natural that renewable subsidies would far exceed nuclear.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
We could just stop subsidizing fossil fuels and implement a carbon tax. That would make fossil fuels uncompetitive against everything and then people would turn to whichever alternatives are most suitable. Then you'd get more nuclear for baseload and in areas with less sunlight or cold winters, more solar for loads that align with its generation curve (like air conditioning) or are easy to time shift into sunlight hours (like charging electric cars) etc.
- tstrimple 7y ago
  If we're going to imagine things we could "just" do, my vote is for nationalizing energy production so decisions like this aren't based on shareholder profits and trying to incentivize private companies into doing the right thing.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Then electricity would cost four times as much as it would with a carbon tax because power generation wouldn't be incentivized to do the right thing in an efficient way. It would end up as a jobs program and in general have all the same inefficiency issues as the Department of Defense, only funded by the ratepayers instead of the taxpayers, which would be a regressive tax on the poor. And the fossil fuel energy companies would lobby the national power utility to carry on burning fossil fuels, which they could do more easily than lobbying against a carbon tax because then there would be fewer private companies wanting to sell fossil fuel alternatives lobbying on the other side of the issue.
    - tstrimple 7y ago
      Why is it when people pick examples of government they always use the most egregious examples and completely ignore all of the other government services which are run as well or better than private enterprises? It's like saying democratic socialism is bad because Venezuela. It's not a compelling argument for anyone with more than a passing understanding of the situation.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Because it's the largest example of a national program similar to the one you're proposing. The government services that work are local things like firefighters and most municipal water utilities (which, if you want to see what happens there when you try to do it in a less local way, see Flint). It can work at the local level because the local government is much more accountable to the local people, because the people getting screwed over by specific bad decisions are a larger percentage of the voters there. A national power utility could do things like declare that all new power will be generated from solar because it's popular in and works for enough swing states and big states like Florida and California that people getting screwed in Minnesota or Alaska can't do anything about it. And then a different flavor of nonsense when the other party gets in and it's Pennsylvania and Texas wanting them to stop phasing out coal or stop building electric car charging infrastructure. This is also one of the reasons why the healthcare systems in Europe are more efficient than the US -- their programs are not operated at the level of the EU and none of their member states are anywhere near as large as the entire US. And even their efficiency can be best classified as only tolerable rather than the hot garbage created by federal rules in the US. But a power grid doesn't really work at a local level because it's an interstate grid, so it inherently implies a scale of bureaucracy that has historically led to high levels of government inefficiency.