11 ms·

BPA is a federal agency. The Trump administration has been very supportive of zero carbon nuclear i believe they have promised $80 billion dollars to build new

by gregbot 10mo ago

BPA is a federal agency. The Trump administration has been very supportive of zero carbon nuclear i believe they have promised $80 billion dollars to build new nuclear plants. Staff cuts dont mean they oppose using those energy sources.

jetpks 10mo ago
on the nuclear front, the administration has cut investment and reduced action in exchange for cheap promises. judge actions, not words.
- tehjoker 10mo ago
  this point is very important. trump will take all sides of an issue rhetorically so you can almost always find some quote of his supporting whatever position you favor but they have a very definite political program that is concentrating control, cutting federal workers, rolling back renewables, doing spectacular stunts to favor racists, and aggression overseas
- gregbot 10mo ago
  > on the nuclear front, the administration has cut investment Fascinating, I haven’t heard this from anywhere else is there something specific you are referring to? Maybe this? https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2026-skinny-budget-proposal-cuts-408m-for-nuclear/ https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2... Its not clear what specific programs this $408 million cut would affect but frankly ARDP and Gen III+ reactor development are not needed. What is needed is large construction investment in existing approved designs like AP-1000 and BWRX-300 which is what the $80 billion pledge is for. “The full details of the $80 billion deal, including the precise allocation of financing and risk-sharing, have not been specified.” With no contract signed your skepticism is warranted. https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2026-skinny-budget-proposal-cuts-408m-for-nuclear/ https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2...
gardncl 10mo ago
US deploys nuclear energy at over $10/watt meanwhile solar and wind are deployed around $2/watt (for levelized cost of electricity) including battery storage which means they are deployed for roughly the same cost as natural gas (so, direct competitors). Don't let comments like this fool you, nuclear is far from being competitive with natural gas. Even in countries like south korea that can deploy nuclear the cheapest it's still $3/watt roughly. Good news? Net new solar and wind plants can come "online" in less than two years. Net new natural gas takes four years. Part of why 95% of new energy deployed last year were renewables in the US, not just the subsidies.
- vablings 10mo ago
  Nuclear is insane levels of expensive likely due to overregulation. It is important for base load power and overnight power and should always be the backing of the grid frequency. Total loss of grid frequency is much more difficult to recover from with synthetic inertia. A healthy grid should have all of the following - Nuclear base load that keeps the grid stable and pick up from low solar - Gas plants for surge power and base load when nuclear/solar/wind cannot take up the slack - Battery storage for surge/storage during off peak - Solar for very low-cost cheap energy during peak usage hours - Wind for other power source ie when the sun isnt shining as much source: https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/
  - bayindirh 10mo ago
    > overregulation. Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper (and to enable capitalistic monopolies, but that's a different matter), then cry when people die (or worse). Some things needs to be regulated, esp. if mistakes are costly to the planet and/or people on the said planet. So yes, nuclear should be regulated, and even overregulated to keep it safe. We have seen what Boeing has become when it's effectively unregulated.
    - ToucanLoucan 10mo ago
      > Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper Americans have no broad idea how anything works. Decades of attacks on our education system have left us civically illiterate (and for a lot of people, actually illiterate too.).
vablings 10mo ago
So why make the cuts in the first place? There are so many things that could have been changed like getting rid of ALARPA for actual scientifically backed methods other than pointless gratitude's of X dollars for X industry. If the Trump admin truly believed in move fast and break things why is nothing moving More power is always good (see china being 1# in solar, nuclear and wind lol), and it's known that the cost of energy directly correlates with growth right now there is no excuse for cutting any federal workers in the energy industry.
rtkwe 10mo ago
Promises are cheap with this admin, don't count any money until it's actually being paid out. Used to be I'd say until it's in a bill but this administration claims the unilateral right to cut any funded program.

by gregbot 10mo ago

jetpks 10mo ago

on the nuclear front, the administration has cut investment and reduced action in exchange for cheap promises. judge actions, not words.

tehjoker 10mo ago
this point is very important. trump will take all sides of an issue rhetorically so you can almost always find some quote of his supporting whatever position you favor but they have a very definite political program that is concentrating control, cutting federal workers, rolling back renewables, doing spectacular stunts to favor racists, and aggression overseas
gregbot 10mo ago
> on the nuclear front, the administration has cut investment Fascinating, I haven’t heard this from anywhere else is there something specific you are referring to? Maybe this? https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2026-skinny-budget-proposal-cuts-408m-for-nuclear/ https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2... Its not clear what specific programs this $408 million cut would affect but frankly ARDP and Gen III+ reactor development are not needed. What is needed is large construction investment in existing approved designs like AP-1000 and BWRX-300 which is what the $80 billion pledge is for. “The full details of the $80 billion deal, including the precise allocation of financing and risk-sharing, have not been specified.” With no contract signed your skepticism is warranted. https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2026-skinny-budget-proposal-cuts-408m-for-nuclear/ https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2...

gardncl 10mo ago

US deploys nuclear energy at over $10/watt meanwhile solar and wind are deployed around $2/watt (for levelized cost of electricity) including battery storage which means they are deployed for roughly the same cost as natural gas (so, direct competitors). Don't let comments like this fool you, nuclear is far from being competitive with natural gas. Even in countries like south korea that can deploy nuclear the cheapest it's still $3/watt roughly. Good news? Net new solar and wind plants can come "online" in less than two years. Net new natural gas takes four years. Part of why 95% of new energy deployed last year were renewables in the US, not just the subsidies.

vablings 10mo ago
Nuclear is insane levels of expensive likely due to overregulation. It is important for base load power and overnight power and should always be the backing of the grid frequency. Total loss of grid frequency is much more difficult to recover from with synthetic inertia. A healthy grid should have all of the following - Nuclear base load that keeps the grid stable and pick up from low solar - Gas plants for surge power and base load when nuclear/solar/wind cannot take up the slack - Battery storage for surge/storage during off peak - Solar for very low-cost cheap energy during peak usage hours - Wind for other power source ie when the sun isnt shining as much source: https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/
- bayindirh 10mo ago
  > overregulation. Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper (and to enable capitalistic monopolies, but that's a different matter), then cry when people die (or worse). Some things needs to be regulated, esp. if mistakes are costly to the planet and/or people on the said planet. So yes, nuclear should be regulated, and even overregulated to keep it safe. We have seen what Boeing has become when it's effectively unregulated.
  - ToucanLoucan 10mo ago
    > Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper Americans have no broad idea how anything works. Decades of attacks on our education system have left us civically illiterate (and for a lot of people, actually illiterate too.).

vablings 10mo ago

So why make the cuts in the first place? There are so many things that could have been changed like getting rid of ALARPA for actual scientifically backed methods other than pointless gratitude's of X dollars for X industry. If the Trump admin truly believed in move fast and break things why is nothing moving More power is always good (see china being 1# in solar, nuclear and wind lol), and it's known that the cost of energy directly correlates with growth right now there is no excuse for cutting any federal workers in the energy industry.

rtkwe 10mo ago

Promises are cheap with this admin, don't count any money until it's actually being paid out. Used to be I'd say until it's in a bill but this administration claims the unilateral right to cut any funded program.