"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?

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Given that the average Californian household uses around 7200kWh a year a single facility providing 9% of the state’s energy needs or 2.89 million homes isn’t that bad…

    For a 1.2 billion dollars investment, that is about 415 dollars per household to keep it running for 5 years more.

    Not saying that new nuclear generators are the best way since we have better alternatives, but you can’t knock the benefits that nuclear energy has given us. If we were to reduce energy use by 10% today wouldn’t we want to burn that much less natural gas and that little share of coal first if we cared about health impact? This buys us more time to have renewables displace the most harmful of generation methods.

    • lettruthout@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      If it’s such a good investment, why aren’t the power companies making it? Why does the US government have to pour money into their profit-making venture?

      • derf82@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because their bottom line is profits only, and they can produce the power cheaper with carbon spewing natural gas turbines.

        The good investment is having a massive generator of carbon-free energy, even if it loses money otherwise.

      • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because public opinion is against nuclear plants because people think that the current generation of plants have the same safety issues as gen 1 and 2 did.

        • Nyfure@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Thats why they dont make enough money? Weird reason when everyone still needs to buy your product either way…
          Everyone hates war, but munition manufacturer are rubbing their hands because they know you need their stuff anyways.

        • lettruthout@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Nuclear supporters always seem to be saying the new systems are different. But the same problems remain. The world needs to realize that nuclear power is a lie made up for short-term profit.

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It’s about the term of investment, since these massive projects take decades and most private investment can’t afford to think that far in the long term.

        If it was all about profit-making, coal, oil and gas get you way better return on investment than renewables (25% compared to 5-6%), even if in the long term it is harmful (increased healthcare spending treating cancer and environmental damage), and an unsustainable model.

        As for why the US government needs to pay the private sector to do a job it could just do itself? Well that’s for Americans to answer, but what I see is a lot of waving hands around nebulous “efficiencies”.