It has a lot to do with outside groups using the bureaucratic process to slow things down. A popular method is using what it's called environmental impact study. If an EIS identifies that some little field mouse might be harmed if the nuclear power plant is built, an outside organization can use that report to sue to stop the entire project. This tactic has been used countless times to stop everything from copper mining, to solar farms. Worse, still, if a group sues, and they win, the government picks up the tab. It's called environmental justice lawsuits, and they have utterly destroyed most Green projects in America.
I think the Office of Nuclear Energy is trying to get in front of Musk shutting all these projects down and moving the green funding to solar and battery.
The vast amounts of waste in building nuclear power is part of why it is so expensive, with projects traditionally ballooning to triple budget estimates. Exactly the stuff he is required to cut hard by mid-2026. With the numbers in plain sight, arguments of corruption will be rejected, despite the fact he stands to gain billions due to owning the biggest slice of proven, lower cost, less wasteful alternative.
"Operational production reactors coming online in 2040."
That's about a decade and a half too late. We need to be reducing our carbon footprint right now, and we have that ability: wind and solar. Low initial impact, fast to net carbon negative.
Nukes take decades to dig themselves out of their carbon positive holes, if they ever do so at all (the nuclear industry does not account for most of the CO2 generated from supply and operations.)
With all due respect, we really ought to wait on things like this until at least February. While nuclear is likely to continue we must be aware that it's not fossil fuel and not guaranteed.
I don't have any faith in these kinds of plans. The US doesn't seem capable of actually finishing nuclear projects. I assume this is just a grift for someone to siphon away a whole lot of money.
It will probably go down over time. These targets are nice but it takes a long time for those plans to become reality. Plenty of time for changing the plans or cancelling them completely.
Regardless of those plans and whether they are cancelled or not, renewables are going full steam ahead in most of the world and will likely add essentially all of the planned nuclear capacity in a matter of years. And then some.
At this point renewables are, by far, the most cost effective way to generate power. Wind, solar, and battery storage are growing at a ridiculous rate. That's actually causing headaches for plans made years ago for e.g. gas plants and indeed nuclear plants. Some gas plants that opened fairly recently are actually facing early closures because they are no longer price competitive.
In Australia they've started planning for the closure of gas grid connections to people's homes.
Since they were built with the idea of supplying gas for a few decades and will be obsolete before that planned date, they're started to raise the rates they charge to ensure it gets paid off in time. This then accelerates the pace of people moving off gas.
Readit News
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-20/china-app...
China Added More Solar Panels in 2023 Than US Did In Its Entire History
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-26/china-add...
It should be clear from these three examples that some regulatory environments are more conducive to rapidly building infrastructure than others.
That's about a decade and a half too late. We need to be reducing our carbon footprint right now, and we have that ability: wind and solar. Low initial impact, fast to net carbon negative.
Nukes take decades to dig themselves out of their carbon positive holes, if they ever do so at all (the nuclear industry does not account for most of the CO2 generated from supply and operations.)
Then nuke is much better for low co2 energy mix, cf France vs Germany
https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/5b-for-ev-infrastru...
If you can declare that a failure before most projects have a spade in the ground then this newly announced nuclear plan has already failed.
Vogtle 3 and 4 were completed in the last couple of years, plus Watts Bar Unit 2 8 years ago.
Also let's not forget the work to maintain and upgrade units so they can run beyond the 40 year initial license.
Regardless of those plans and whether they are cancelled or not, renewables are going full steam ahead in most of the world and will likely add essentially all of the planned nuclear capacity in a matter of years. And then some.
At this point renewables are, by far, the most cost effective way to generate power. Wind, solar, and battery storage are growing at a ridiculous rate. That's actually causing headaches for plans made years ago for e.g. gas plants and indeed nuclear plants. Some gas plants that opened fairly recently are actually facing early closures because they are no longer price competitive.
Since they were built with the idea of supplying gas for a few decades and will be obsolete before that planned date, they're started to raise the rates they charge to ensure it gets paid off in time. This then accelerates the pace of people moving off gas.