3 ms·
You're not responding to the premise of the article: subsidize existing nuclear, not new nuclear. You're taking on an easier argument, but instead you need to c
by WhompingWindows 5y ago
You're not responding to the premise of the article: subsidize existing nuclear, not new nuclear. You're taking on an easier argument, but instead you need to clarify: how is allowing carbon-free existing nuclear fall due to price a good thing for the climate?
- dv_dt 5y agoI am perhaps missing it, but my takeaway from the article was that doesn't seem to actually specify existing nuclear, preferring to talk about nuclear subsidy. If it were only existing nuclear I would mostly agree on keeping it save for certain certain end of life reactors (e.g diablo canyon built near an earthquake fault).