Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after Fukushima

Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by ttul on Thursday March 11, 2021 @10:54AM (#26425344)

Aren’t the subsidies that nuclear needs essentially a poor form of carbon taxation? Without a real price on carbon (in the US, for instance), nuclear and renewables need subsidies in order to compete with fossil fuel generation. Fossil fuels receive an implicit subsidy, which is the externalities of climate change and air pollution that we must all pay for.

If a proper price on carbon existed, would nuclear and renewables not automatically look a whole lot cheaper without subsidies?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by obelos on Thursday March 11, 2021 @11:57AM (#26426189)

Exactly this. Fossil-based energy is enormously subsidized by a deferred carbon tax. No fossil/nuclear comparison is really meaningful without internalizing that externality.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by stjohnswarts on Thursday March 11, 2021 @12:45PM (#26426794)

I have to argue this to friends all the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by stjohnswarts on Thursday March 11, 2021 @12:45PM (#26426786)

That's why once you have a strong fission program you retire fossil fuel power as new nuclear comes online and then electrical vehicles and other more environmentally friends travel/HVAC etc starts happening. Economies of scale and training lower the price even more. This could happen in big powerhouses like China/India/Europe/USA and reverse some of the damage we've done to the environment and green house gas increases.

[ Parent | on HN ]