3 ms·

> Nuclear should compete with fossil fuels - not renewables. Nuclear power provides 50% of the US's clean energy. No, it should compete with both on market ter

by SllX 5y ago

> Nuclear should compete with fossil fuels - not renewables. Nuclear power provides 50% of the US's clean energy. No, it should compete with both on market terms. If a nuclear plant is built instead of a hydroelectric plant, a wind farm or a gas-fired plant, I’ll be able to sleep just as easily about it so long as it wasn’t built for political reasons.

ouid 5y ago
The market does not price in externalities. That's why they call them that. Nuclear has significantly cheaper externalities than fossil fuels. You should prefer it, and subsidize it in kind.
- SllX 5y ago
  Subsidizing nuclear is entirely theoretical for me, unless I’m subsidizing it in other States which I wouldn’t be happy to do if it won’t benefit me directly (not indirectly: directly). California presently has a flat prohibition on new nuclear construction. I would rather keep my dollars for my own utility bill, unless Nevada would like to play host to a nuclear plant built to serve the Bay Area.
  - aiisjustanif 5y ago
    I guess the states aren’t so united. Federal Texas are for federal uses which can include state ones.
    - SllX 5y ago
      You’re not wrong but that’s exactly my problem: this isn’t something for the Feds to subsidize. They need to get out of the business of subsidizing industry.
      - ouid 5y ago
        Anything that is capable of negotiating on behalf of society in the case of a transaction that produces externalities is going to be indistinguishable from a government. If you're arguing that no one should advocate for society's interests in these transactions, then you should make that position explicit.
francisofascii 5y ago
If not for environmental reasons, how about energy security reasons?
- SllX 5y ago
  Living and human civilization are high energy activities, and becoming higher energy over time. Just the number of electronics I employ in my day-to-day life has made electricity alone more central to my life than it maybe was 20 years ago even. So plants and energy transmission lines and such are going to be built, especially as more battery-electric vehicles become available in more model lines and at more varied price points for people to buy. If I had a personal preference, I would prefer that electricity to be coming from nuclear and solar plants, but I’m not willing to condemn the poor to raise prices and make those the only options. What gets built will be what makes sense according to the knowledge and expertise of people who build plants, i.e. what is economical in the context of the market which is just trillions of accumulative transactions happening across society made by people; and we’ll make decisions about where to import/export energy from in geopolitical and military contexts where those decisions rightfully belong which can and does inform markets. The harder we make it to build nuclear though, the less likely nuclear will be chosen. In California for example there is a flat prohibition on new construction, so we’re going to keep building gas-fired plants alongside whatever renewables because that is what we have chosen to do, until we make a different choice.

by SllX 5y ago

ouid 5y ago

The market does not price in externalities. That's why they call them that. Nuclear has significantly cheaper externalities than fossil fuels. You should prefer it, and subsidize it in kind.

SllX 5y ago
Subsidizing nuclear is entirely theoretical for me, unless I’m subsidizing it in other States which I wouldn’t be happy to do if it won’t benefit me directly (not indirectly: directly). California presently has a flat prohibition on new nuclear construction. I would rather keep my dollars for my own utility bill, unless Nevada would like to play host to a nuclear plant built to serve the Bay Area.
- aiisjustanif 5y ago
  I guess the states aren’t so united. Federal Texas are for federal uses which can include state ones.
  - SllX 5y ago
    You’re not wrong but that’s exactly my problem: this isn’t something for the Feds to subsidize. They need to get out of the business of subsidizing industry.
    - ouid 5y ago
      Anything that is capable of negotiating on behalf of society in the case of a transaction that produces externalities is going to be indistinguishable from a government. If you're arguing that no one should advocate for society's interests in these transactions, then you should make that position explicit.

francisofascii 5y ago

If not for environmental reasons, how about energy security reasons?

SllX 5y ago
Living and human civilization are high energy activities, and becoming higher energy over time. Just the number of electronics I employ in my day-to-day life has made electricity alone more central to my life than it maybe was 20 years ago even. So plants and energy transmission lines and such are going to be built, especially as more battery-electric vehicles become available in more model lines and at more varied price points for people to buy. If I had a personal preference, I would prefer that electricity to be coming from nuclear and solar plants, but I’m not willing to condemn the poor to raise prices and make those the only options. What gets built will be what makes sense according to the knowledge and expertise of people who build plants, i.e. what is economical in the context of the market which is just trillions of accumulative transactions happening across society made by people; and we’ll make decisions about where to import/export energy from in geopolitical and military contexts where those decisions rightfully belong which can and does inform markets. The harder we make it to build nuclear though, the less likely nuclear will be chosen. In California for example there is a flat prohibition on new construction, so we’re going to keep building gas-fired plants alongside whatever renewables because that is what we have chosen to do, until we make a different choice.