3 ms·

At that point, they should create a government-owed corporation to hand off operation to. End-of-life for plants is a huge issue. The owners of plants are obl

At that point, they should create a government-owed corporation to hand off operation to. End-of-life for plants is a huge issue. The owners of plants are obligated to collect fees for cleanup, decommissioning, and remediation of power plant sites. But what has happened (unsurprisingly) is that operators will sell these plants to someone else, who signs a contract, accepting all future legal liability for any issues resulting from operations or cleanup, then those cleanup fees (which total in the hundreds of millions) get put into an escrow account. Of course, these new owners are limited liability corporations who find that it's cheaper to provide campaign donations to high-level state officials who then pressure state agencies to allow half-assed measures to be used for containment of toxic chemicals. This is an ongoing issue in right now because so many coal plants have been driven out of business. If these people won't spend an extra million bucks to line coal ash containment ponds appropriately, I have no faith they will do so with significantly more expensive nuclear waste.

danans 6y ago
> At that point, they should create a government-owed corporation to hand off operation to. The difference is that rightly or wrongly, the public doesn't see the military spending as wasteful government spending in the way they see spending on the Postal Service or for some, health programs like Medicaid. There's an argument that a way to sell renewables to the climate change denying sections of the population is to have the military involved in its implementation. If you think about it, the military has functions of 1) protecting the US against existential threats and 2) providing a path toward a dignified livelihood for a lot of the population. Climate change also poses existential threats, and there is an opportunity to create a path to a dignified livelihood for many people by tackling it with renewables.
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  The military isn't going to want anything to do with renewables. They run on oil, almost exclusively. The military's exalted position in society is also largely artificial. Yes it serves to defend the country but it could be far smaller and still achieve that. No this should be a civilian effort, although it could be a state one.

danans 6y ago

> At that point, they should create a government-owed corporation to hand off operation to. The difference is that rightly or wrongly, the public doesn't see the military spending as wasteful government spending in the way they see spending on the Postal Service or for some, health programs like Medicaid. There's an argument that a way to sell renewables to the climate change denying sections of the population is to have the military involved in its implementation. If you think about it, the military has functions of 1) protecting the US against existential threats and 2) providing a path toward a dignified livelihood for a lot of the population. Climate change also poses existential threats, and there is an opportunity to create a path to a dignified livelihood for many people by tackling it with renewables.

Synaesthesia 6y ago
The military isn't going to want anything to do with renewables. They run on oil, almost exclusively. The military's exalted position in society is also largely artificial. Yes it serves to defend the country but it could be far smaller and still achieve that. No this should be a civilian effort, although it could be a state one.