and of course you get all of your electricity from solar during winter, oh wait, you don’t.

inb4 someone else suggest solar in Canada is a better idea. https://youtu.be/8rcMwmGuGSo?t=945

Solar, in Canada. You really need to watch the video that you’re supposedly responding to, here’s a Youtube link with the same video in case that’s of your preference https://youtu.be/8rcMwmGuGSo

Burning lead is bad, therefore you can’t use it as a coolant in a closed cycle. Why yes, I have 0.5mg per liter of lead in my blood, how could you tell?

getting away from power sources that threaten our future.

Which are fossil fuels and fossil fuels alone:

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.

this on its own, without government subsidies. When will the industry find some way to insure itself without the US government’s help? Oh, and when will become cheaper than renewables?

If you want to talk about subsidies, let’s talk about how renewables (and even fossil fuels) get MORE subsidies than nuclear energy. Tell us, why is it okay for renewables to get so much subsidies but it’s wrong when nuclear gets a fraction of that? Oh and by the way, nuclear doesn’t need subsidies to compete with renewables. Wanna know how I know? Because every nuclear plant that was shutdown in the US was replaced by fossil gas, NOT renewables. Fossil fuels get the biggest subsidy which is not having to pay the health consequences of pollution and the climate consequences. But sure, let’s waste time about renewables this and nuclear that while fossil fuel keep fucking us up the ass instead of just using renewables and nuclear where each make sense to decarbonize. I don’t care how many good intentions you might have, your narrative holds back the energy transition, it doesn’t help it in the least bit, especially when we are talking about nuclear plants that are ALREADY BUILT and operating. What do you want? have diablo canyon replaced with more fossil gas just like indian point and san onofre? Because that’s what happened and that’s what is going to happen again. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

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

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