3 ms·

Couldn't we say the same about any public subsidy for climate-friendly technology (or anything at all)? What makes Nuclear special, and worth singling out?

• wolverine876 3y ago
  Two reasons: First, nuclear requires very large corporations. Other energy sources don't require size to the same degree. Solar panels can be purchased by the homeowner and installed by a local Mom-and-Pop shop. Second, it depends on how we define 'public subsidy'. If we accurately price externalities, such as climate impact, then we are effectively reducing subsidies (i.e., letting people use the commons for free is a subsidy).
  • Sanzig 3y ago
    > First, nuclear requires very large corporations. Nuclear power plants can be state-owned, and commonly are outside the US. For example, all Canadian nuclear power reactors are owned by provincial governments (about half of Ontario's reactors are on long term lease to a private operator under a public-private partnership deal, but the reactors are still government owned). In France, the company which owns and operates all the reactors in the country is majority owned by the French state. Requiring generating assets to be owned and operated by private enterprises seems to be a primarily American phenomenon.
    • wolverine876 3y ago
      Yes, good point, and IMHO that solves the problem I raised in the root comment: Instead of public funding going to private corporations' assets, the public keeps the assets.