36
Economically failing nuclear plant to receive 1.1B bailout (apnews.com)
submitted 9 months ago by lettruthout@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday finalized approval of $1.1 billion to help keep California’s last operating nuclear power plant running. "

Because renewable energy sources are too expensive?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] nuclear@feddit.nl 7 points 9 months ago

If you want to talk about subsidies, let's talk about how fossil fuels and renewables get MORE subsidies than nuclear energy. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

[-] oyo@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Now do cumulative subsidies over the last 80 years. Nuclear had its shot and failed.

[-] nuclear@feddit.nl 1 points 9 months ago

Please read my other comment here https://feddit.nl/comment/6219531 But the TLDR of where I'm going is: This subsidy is barely leveling up the playing field between fossil fuels and nuclear. Even if we do a cumulative comparison between the two, fossil fuels had got much more, order of magnitude even. Not a single nuclear plant that was shut down in the US was replaced by renewables. They were all replaced by new fossil gas or energy imports generated by coal.

[-] lettruthout@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

This subsidy is barely leveling up the playing field between fossil fuels and nuclear... Not a single nuclear plant that was shut down in the US was replaced by renewables.

Nobody cares about these points. Instead we care about getting away from power sources that threaten our future.

[-] Emil@feddit.nl 1 points 9 months ago

So, you're then saying that nuclear is somehow more threatening to our future than fossil energy is? Wow. Thanks for being clear where you stand I guess.

Just for the record: fossil fuels not only change our planet's climate, it also kills millions of people each year due to air pollution.

[-] nuclear@feddit.nl 1 points 9 months ago

getting away from power sources that threaten our future.

Which are fossil fuels and fossil fuels alone:

this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
36 points (75.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5223 readers
564 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net