Even if it doesn’t change the price of gas, wouldn’t it mean buying/burning less gas than you would otherwise? That, in itself, would be a huge savings.
Maybe I’m just missing some data, but this seems like a no-brainer to me on several levels. It’s hard for me to understand anyone being against this.
China knows this, which is why they're adding 150 new nuclear power plants in the next 15 years. [1]
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
I agree completely. Along with solar, wind, hydro (+storage appropriate to each) and probably even natural gas peaker plants.
> But building new right now isn't cheap and will just take to long.
Yep, definitely - but it should be done. If you're interested I'd suggest listening to the most recent Odd Lots with Jigar Shah, who's in charge of the DoE loan program (~300B in capital). He talks about how building reactors right now is like building airports - each one a custom specimen for the given landscape and conditions - whereas he believes we should move to a model of building airplanes, mass-producing reactors that fit only where conditions permit out of reusable components.
> I'm looking forward to see how new reactor designs and modular solutions will fare in the next few years.
Me too!
However, I don't thing those costs are comparable. Those nuclear plants won't have a dramatic impact on the price of gas or energy, so the cost of the federal programs will be there nonetheless.