We tried ideology driven energy policy in Europe and it hasn't gone well. We phased out nuclear power plants (because nuclear = bad) while doubling down on Russian gas dependency (because trade = peace). Clearly this has gone poorly and it will take Europe a decade to strengthen its energy sovereignty again.
There are good reasons to question renewable energy: the cost picture doesn't make sense right now, it has intermittency problems, etc. But killing renewable projects because, uh, farming or whatever?, particularly at a time when the demand for energy is growing faster than ever, seems short sighted at best.
> There are good reasons to question renewable energy: the cost picture doesn't make sense right now, it has intermittency problems, etc.
You seem to rely on quite outdated information. Renewables are the cheapest source of energy in human history. The recent explosive growth is fueled by pure economics rather than feelgood.
The same thing is happening with storage with the prices plummeting. With the recent auctions landing at $50-60/MWh.
In many regions unsubsidized renewables + storage are now the cheapest source of energy, undercutting coal and gas. Nuclear power does not even enter the picture due to the absolutely insane costs involved.
I would nothing more than to enjoy those cheap prices. Here in Sweden (and EU in general), while energy prices has drop in response to renewables, grid fees and energy taxes has increased more than to cover any savings. Grid fees are now the wast majority off the bill, which pays for grid stability and transmissions that is required to operate a much more variable energy production. grid stability and transmissions are primarily a government responsibility, and when cost goes up they forward that costs as grid fees and taxes.
To put some numbers down, a quertly bill recent had $1400 usd as grid fees, while the energy consumption came down to $300. Those numbers could be specific to that house, that energy company, but it is a story echoed by more and more people in this region. The consumption cost could be $0/MWh, and the grid fees alone would still be way more expensive compared to the full bill just a couple of years ago.
Renewables really aren't that cheap unless you view them entirely in isolation. Sun doesn't shine all night and wind doesn't blow continuously, it needs to be viewed with storage to represent a complete picture. Rooftop solar is more expensive than nuclear due to the zero economies of scale, residential storage is staggeringly expensive, and utility scale solar + storage only became less expensive than nuclear power a couple of years ago.
Solar and wind both have significant sovereignty issues. The entire solar supply chain is in China where they're heavily subsidized so the PRC can corner the market -- and substantially all the rare earths in wind turbines come from China. Generally recycling costs aren't considered and at least in the west there's no plan to recycle at least the fiberglass in turbine blades, leaving them to be buried.
I'm all for renewables but the way they're positioned is unrealistic.
Nuclear is only expensive because of the way it's built in the US, relying on the few locations made available (if any) to build basically fully customized installations. If we copy-pasted reactors onto sites that suit them it would be very competitive, don't take my word for it. Jigar Shah who headed the DOE loans program said the exact same thing during his term.
If we're being pedantic, nuclear is renewable too thanks to seawater extraction. There's a practically unlimited amount of uranium in the ocean and the rock underneath it.
Basically coal is less profitable and more expensive in places that have always been coal counties. The only thing to do in these areas is mine coal, so the concern is that entire regions will be rendered worthless if coal collapses.
Which means local residents cannot sell their homes without taking significant losses, and they probably lose their jobs in coal, which manifests into a poverty trap for the entire town.
And there are hundreds of these towns all through Appalachia.
So renewable energy will always be a political issue over the next 50 years, because entire towns and regions depend on its political outcome.
Anybody who didn’t see this coming hasn’t been paying attention. There’s been plenty of time to move, retrain, whatever. The government has probably failed these people in one way or another, but these tend to be areas the say they value self-sufficiency and minimal government interference , so…
Coal counties are insignificant. Nobody is winning national elections by appealing to them.
The actual motive is to appeal to people who have made coal part of their identity. These are people who have never been anywhere near a coal mine, but have internalized coal as Important and American, and as a way to stick it to those stupid environmentalists.
The thing is, if you’re burning fossil fuels to generate power there’s not much reason to prefer coal over natural gas. The latter is cheaper and cleaner and once pipelines are in place, you don’t need to truck it around.
Coal is dead and it’s not coming back. Areas in which it served as the pillar of the economy need to figure something else out. I say this as someone hailing from one such area.
Speaking frankly, the way politicians keep selling the fantasy of it making a comeback is cruel.
> the real motive for cancelling renewables is to appeal to coal counties in the USA
Wyoming here. Coal country. Everyone thinks this is dumb. Including the folks in Campbell county, our top-producing coal region that has been trying to build a wind farm [1].
Trump’s social media fans in Florida and Texas like this because it feels like owning the libs. (To the extent there may be pecuniary interest, it would be in power producers. Like housing, stopping new power raises prices and profits incumbents.)
Also, that Reddit thread is about coking coal. Not the thermal coal power plants burn. It’s about American steel production shutting down in the face of our trade war. Not this new economic miracle these idiots have spun up.
>So renewable energy will always be a political issue over the next 50 years, because entire towns and regions depend on its political outcome.
I heard that before the first Trump administration, there was bipartisan support in Congress for phasing out the use coal in the US, so it seems quite possible that that bipartisan support will reassemble itself after Trump is gone (because the next President is unlikely to be as populist and as uncaring about climate change as Trump).
This would make sense if it were a single issue. (And then, limited sense - even quite red places like Texas invest in solar because they need it. Coal is a regional issue, not a national one)
If you see it in light of all the other actions taken across the spectrum, you land at best at "desperate dice roll to re-tool the US into a manufacturing power from the 80s", and at worst at "deliberate dismantling of a first-rate world power into a second tier paradise for oligarchs".
This message seems to come from a timeline where the people cutting the renewable projects care about electoral outcomes.
But in this timeline, they tried to violently overturn the 2020 election, and they are currently trying to rig the 2026 election by gerrymandering states they control as much as possible.
This isn't about earning the political support of people in coal country who vote GOP. If they ever face negative electoral outcomes in the future, their plan is to overturn the election using either force or legal chicanery.
What you claim didn't happen, and can easily disproven with data. Your interpretation of a reasoning of a policy (that didn't happen) is bad faith.
You are wrong about both electricity [1], gas[2] and total energy [3].
Europe was very dependent on energy imports in the past and current policy is the by far most successful attempt in a long at changing it. It will help us for decades to come.
I don't understand your post. Europe absolutely spent many years phasing out nuclear energy while rationalizing that increased gas imports from Russia was good because trade will make us friends [0]. The data supports this (though obviously does not capture the political discourse around Russian gas reliance). I am in agreement that the current, post-Ukraine invasion policy is good.
I think I agree with you broadly, but to make the counter argument:
A big part of the reason why nuclear power isn’t cost-effective nowadays is because those costs have been at least partially internalized. The US federal government has stopped producing cheap nuclear fuel by disassembling nuclear weapons. Nuclear plants need to pay for the cost of storing their spent fuel on site indefinitely. Plant operators need to pay into a federal disaster insurance pool.
The costs for solar and batteries have come down a whole lot since ~10 years ago during the energiewende. IMO solar is the cost leader in areas where there is decent sun. The U.S. has a lot better sun than Germany.
Solar is the cost leader in most areas with poor sun too. You have to have truly abysmal sun for it to not be the cost leader. Finland has such abysmal sun, Germany doesn't.
I would argue that buying Russian gas was primarily market driven and politics didn't stop it from happening. It was cheaper than American or Qatari gas why should European nations not have bought it?
It the same way that the US got hooked on cheap Chinese imports.
Also renewables make too much sense right now. That's why a lot of dollars are allocated towards them even though subsidies are mostly gone.
Well, for one thing, massive methane leaks in Russian gas infrastructure means that Russian gas ii much worse for the environment than any other source of gas.
> We tried ideology driven energy policy in Europe and it hasn't gone well. We phased out nuclear power plants (because nuclear = bad)
Maybe that was the discussion where you're from, what do i know. Where I'm from we had a honest political debate about nuclear, and the public decided on no. It wasn't because of "ideology". We discussed the safety, the waste challenge, and everything else.
The artificial energy supply shortage caused by this prohibition will be a great excuse to invade another oil-rich country. The current administration has already demonstrated Venezuela is next in line.
Mostly Germany, Belgium as well, possibly a few others.
France did shut down superphenix for completely ideological reasons tho.
Also stopped investing in nuclear but that was not really ideological (the nuclear buildup originated in something of a misprediction, and sadly the country didn’t really capitalise on it).
In UK we phased out nuclear by buying power from France who made it in nuclear power stations ... we were World leaders, but now we haven't the expertise to renew our nuclear power so have to rely on foreign companies.
The cost picture already makes sense for onshore wind, which is why if you have a suitable site people do that. If you own a hilltop farm in the UK a bank loan for a wind turbine is a no-brainer for the loan officer - because it's not correlated to farm gate prices unlike other loans you might want e.g. for equipment or buildings so that's a desirable loan to have.
The US (near as I can tell) isn’t even killing them for any concrete reason (any reason given changes), just to be anti-whatever they are.
Which, is similar to the German anti-nuclear approach, to be frank. Burning dirty coal instead of keeping an already existing nuke plant running isn’t a decision based on either environmental or economic reasoning, and that was done a lot.
> We tried ideology driven energy policy in Europe and it hasn't gone well. We phased out nuclear power plants (because nuclear = bad) while doubling down on Russian gas dependency (because trade = peace). Clearly this has gone poorly and it will take Europe a decade to strengthen its energy sovereignty again.
what I don't understand is how this was obvious to me 20 years ago as a teenager, but European leaders just somehow thought it was a good idea. Was it just "a lucky guess" on my part? it was just so obvious that when you tolerate and interact with narcissists as if their behaviour was acceptable, they will simply escalate their behaviour. I was also critical of ties with the Chinese government and I was told I was just paranoid/racist. today we suddenly realise oh that was a bad idea, the leopards are chewing on our faces.
I reckon the rich and powerful saw it coming alright and they just figured they'd make bank before it got to the point they'd have to send the kids of poor people to war.
It was also obvious to all my friends when I was a teenager in 2008 that being friends with America was a bad idea. That also turned out to be right.
All we would have had to do was have no allies for the past ~60 years, and we would have never gotten burned. We also would have been entirely irrelavant to international politics, and likely wouldn't have become one of the richest nations on earth.
World politics is like love. It's better to have had a productive alliance that hits a rough patch, than never to have had one at all.
The US grows more acres of corn just for ethanol than the number of acres needed to go 100% solar. We would have _more_ useful farmland if we switched.
Climate action and renewables has always been very popular with voters. Since political action has consistently lagged popular support I'd suggest that you'd need to look outside elections to see what is holding the west back on this.
if you're going to list the strengths of china, one of the biggest ones is unironically having leadership that doesnt get interrupted in massive ways every 4 years. i'm not going to debate the negative parts of that, clearly it is also problematic, but despite the negative aspects it has factually largely contributed to their strength and prosperity
A lot of people on this thread don’t seem to realize that solar and wind now work fine without government subsidies. The Biden-era subsidies have been about accelerating decarbonization, not about propping up the market.
If you let the market choose, it would choose a lot of wind and solar.
> Despite facing macro challenges and headwinds, utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation on an unsubsidized basis (i.e., without tax subsidies).
So the admin just needs to get out of the alway and let the market solve this problem. Not try to centrally manage the economy like the Soviet Union.
The government is actively threatening to block wind and solar projects through permitting denials. The market can’t permit for itself no matter how good the economics are.
And remember that you all are part of the market. In my area you can choose what power generation your electricity comes from. Most customers do not bother, unfortunately (less than 10% of Marin Clean Energy customers).
I know, not real-time. Renewable energy credit trading, and such. But you become the demand for clean generation if you choose to do so. It is easy. If you are in Marin, Contra Costa, Napa, or Solano go to https://mcecleanenergy.org/opt-up/
Similar CCA's are all over California and probably beyond.
The truly free market response to all of this would be to remove the need for approvals, or just rubber stamp all projects with no real review. I don't think that's a great idea. But this is the complete opposite of that. The market wants to build more renewables, and the administration is blocking it.
It's amazing how much leeway many people give this administration for policies that they have a long history of opposing: government ownership of companies (10% of Intel, US Steel's "golden share"), blocking private development of energy production, sending the National Guard to hostilely takeover cities, etc. It's the sort of stuff that they've accused their opponents of wanting to do in deranged, nightmarish worst-case scenarios.
One of the biggest improvements recently is battery tech. Many countries are 10x'ing the GWh of battery capacity in the next couple of years without any real government drive.
This is one thing that actually prevents the power price spikes since the batteries can jump in to cover gaps. I can quote many installations that have completely paid themselves off in 2 years (see hornsdale battery as an example - one year of operation alone, 2020, generated profit of half its initial $90million cost) and while this 2 year payoff will come down as more and more are installed part of the reason the payoff is going down is due to power price costs becoming more and more steady as more batteries are installed.
Even the USA is installing massive amounts of capacity right now. Look at Texas - 3x battery capacity available in 2025 compared to 2024 due to massive installations coming online and they are a state that does not do a lot to support renewables at all. There's no stopping it, it doesn't need subsidies and it's one of the most straightforward capital payoffs available right now.
I actually think the predictions in the article won't come to fruition honestly. The battery installation rise is dominating the investment landscape right now and it's completely flown under the radar without any political controversy (no things such as questionable media trying to claim battery banks are somehow bad for our health and should be stopped) nor are there subsidies required.
I'm all for nuclear power, but those project take years. Even the small modular ones, even if fast tracked. I think it is a misstep to simply cancel current projects, and hope (?) that nuclear will pull it all. Even if it does so, you'll have a big gap in where demand could outpace supply.
> Even the small modular ones, even if fast tracked.
Of which none exists in the west. I love how suddenly we will achieve scale without the middle step of... building hundreds of prototypes to scale up the industry.
Exactly - electricity demand is surging NOW due to datacenter/AI use, and all signs are that this increased demand will continue to grow.
Nuclear is a decent option, but it takes years to bring new capacity online.
There's nothing wrong with investing in nuclear that'll come online in 5+ years time, but at the same time the government should also be green lighting all projects capable of adding capacity more quickly.
Yea all the “this bad thing will happen” discussion misses that the intent has been plain for at least a year now. The administration has plainly said what they would do during the election and they have rather faithfully executed on that plan. This isn’t about fixing things or saving people money it’s about doing what they want to do.
Its about inflicting as much pain in the american public as possible because if you cause indiscriminate damage its bound to also damage their enemies. Its a death cult.
Readit News
There are good reasons to question renewable energy: the cost picture doesn't make sense right now, it has intermittency problems, etc. But killing renewable projects because, uh, farming or whatever?, particularly at a time when the demand for energy is growing faster than ever, seems short sighted at best.
You seem to rely on quite outdated information. Renewables are the cheapest source of energy in human history. The recent explosive growth is fueled by pure economics rather than feelgood.
The same thing is happening with storage with the prices plummeting. With the recent auctions landing at $50-60/MWh.
https://www.ess-news.com/2025/06/26/china-energy-engineering...
In many regions unsubsidized renewables + storage are now the cheapest source of energy, undercutting coal and gas. Nuclear power does not even enter the picture due to the absolutely insane costs involved.
To put some numbers down, a quertly bill recent had $1400 usd as grid fees, while the energy consumption came down to $300. Those numbers could be specific to that house, that energy company, but it is a story echoed by more and more people in this region. The consumption cost could be $0/MWh, and the grid fees alone would still be way more expensive compared to the full bill just a couple of years ago.
Solar and wind both have significant sovereignty issues. The entire solar supply chain is in China where they're heavily subsidized so the PRC can corner the market -- and substantially all the rare earths in wind turbines come from China. Generally recycling costs aren't considered and at least in the west there's no plan to recycle at least the fiberglass in turbine blades, leaving them to be buried.
I'm all for renewables but the way they're positioned is unrealistic.
Nuclear is only expensive because of the way it's built in the US, relying on the few locations made available (if any) to build basically fully customized installations. If we copy-pasted reactors onto sites that suit them it would be very competitive, don't take my word for it. Jigar Shah who headed the DOE loans program said the exact same thing during his term.
If we're being pedantic, nuclear is renewable too thanks to seawater extraction. There's a practically unlimited amount of uranium in the ocean and the rock underneath it.
Coal is in a scary place right now in the US, see this as an example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1mmqwd3/i_live_in...
Basically coal is less profitable and more expensive in places that have always been coal counties. The only thing to do in these areas is mine coal, so the concern is that entire regions will be rendered worthless if coal collapses.
Which means local residents cannot sell their homes without taking significant losses, and they probably lose their jobs in coal, which manifests into a poverty trap for the entire town.
And there are hundreds of these towns all through Appalachia.
So renewable energy will always be a political issue over the next 50 years, because entire towns and regions depend on its political outcome.
The actual motive is to appeal to people who have made coal part of their identity. These are people who have never been anywhere near a coal mine, but have internalized coal as Important and American, and as a way to stick it to those stupid environmentalists.
Coal is dead and it’s not coming back. Areas in which it served as the pillar of the economy need to figure something else out. I say this as someone hailing from one such area.
Speaking frankly, the way politicians keep selling the fantasy of it making a comeback is cruel.
Deleted Comment
Wyoming here. Coal country. Everyone thinks this is dumb. Including the folks in Campbell county, our top-producing coal region that has been trying to build a wind farm [1].
Trump’s social media fans in Florida and Texas like this because it feels like owning the libs. (To the extent there may be pecuniary interest, it would be in power producers. Like housing, stopping new power raises prices and profits incumbents.)
Also, that Reddit thread is about coking coal. Not the thermal coal power plants burn. It’s about American steel production shutting down in the face of our trade war. Not this new economic miracle these idiots have spun up.
[1] https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/...
I heard that before the first Trump administration, there was bipartisan support in Congress for phasing out the use coal in the US, so it seems quite possible that that bipartisan support will reassemble itself after Trump is gone (because the next President is unlikely to be as populist and as uncaring about climate change as Trump).
If you see it in light of all the other actions taken across the spectrum, you land at best at "desperate dice roll to re-tool the US into a manufacturing power from the 80s", and at worst at "deliberate dismantling of a first-rate world power into a second tier paradise for oligarchs".
But in this timeline, they tried to violently overturn the 2020 election, and they are currently trying to rig the 2026 election by gerrymandering states they control as much as possible.
This isn't about earning the political support of people in coal country who vote GOP. If they ever face negative electoral outcomes in the future, their plan is to overturn the election using either force or legal chicanery.
What you claim didn't happen, and can easily disproven with data. Your interpretation of a reasoning of a policy (that didn't happen) is bad faith.
You are wrong about both electricity [1], gas[2] and total energy [3].
Europe was very dependent on energy imports in the past and current policy is the by far most successful attempt in a long at changing it. It will help us for decades to come.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...
[2] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-t...
[3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandel_durch_Handel
- Nuclear waste has non-zero cost that aren’t factored in.
- Nuclear risks are externalized, not factored in.
- Nuclear power is heavily subsidized.
- Solar power industry in Germany on particular was destroyed for ideological reasons.
- Solar has much more capacity than nuclear for many years now: https://www.smard.de/page/home/topic-article/211972/212382/e...
A big part of the reason why nuclear power isn’t cost-effective nowadays is because those costs have been at least partially internalized. The US federal government has stopped producing cheap nuclear fuel by disassembling nuclear weapons. Nuclear plants need to pay for the cost of storing their spent fuel on site indefinitely. Plant operators need to pay into a federal disaster insurance pool.
Deleted Comment
It the same way that the US got hooked on cheap Chinese imports.
Also renewables make too much sense right now. That's why a lot of dollars are allocated towards them even though subsidies are mostly gone.
Maybe that was the discussion where you're from, what do i know. Where I'm from we had a honest political debate about nuclear, and the public decided on no. It wasn't because of "ideology". We discussed the safety, the waste challenge, and everything else.
France did shut down superphenix for completely ideological reasons tho.
Also stopped investing in nuclear but that was not really ideological (the nuclear buildup originated in something of a misprediction, and sadly the country didn’t really capitalise on it).
Which, is similar to the German anti-nuclear approach, to be frank. Burning dirty coal instead of keeping an already existing nuke plant running isn’t a decision based on either environmental or economic reasoning, and that was done a lot.
Pendulum swings, etc, etc.
What? Did renewables get more expensive for some reason? Solar and wind have been cheaper than coal for years.
Attacking renewables is the ideological move because anything good is bad. It’s just weaponized ignorance.
what I don't understand is how this was obvious to me 20 years ago as a teenager, but European leaders just somehow thought it was a good idea. Was it just "a lucky guess" on my part? it was just so obvious that when you tolerate and interact with narcissists as if their behaviour was acceptable, they will simply escalate their behaviour. I was also critical of ties with the Chinese government and I was told I was just paranoid/racist. today we suddenly realise oh that was a bad idea, the leopards are chewing on our faces.
I reckon the rich and powerful saw it coming alright and they just figured they'd make bank before it got to the point they'd have to send the kids of poor people to war.
All we would have had to do was have no allies for the past ~60 years, and we would have never gotten burned. We also would have been entirely irrelavant to international politics, and likely wouldn't have become one of the richest nations on earth.
World politics is like love. It's better to have had a productive alliance that hits a rough patch, than never to have had one at all.
Of course making sense does not in any way matter to this administration, and Trump hates wind turbines because of his dumb golf course, but still…
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Then 4% relies on Federal lands [2]
1 -https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/how-long-does-it-ta...
2 - https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/program/2025/vast-federal-l...
https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/10/1119941/china-en...
https://apnews.com/article/china-climate-solar-wind-carbon-e...
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65064
Edit: I’m 100% for renewables. Unfortunately half my country is against them and they won last time.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2025/06/05/americans-vie...
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/07/07/china-moves-to-curb-s...
the same interests that prevent it today would still exist
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...
In other words: China is building enough renewables to both cover the grid expansion and offset existing coal usage.
The US is far, far worse than China.
If you let the market choose, it would choose a lot of wind and solar.
> Despite facing macro challenges and headwinds, utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation on an unsubsidized basis (i.e., without tax subsidies).
So the admin just needs to get out of the alway and let the market solve this problem. Not try to centrally manage the economy like the Soviet Union.
1 - https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-20...
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/08/20/trump-says-us-will-not-a...
But keep in mind most solar is built on private lands only needing local/state approval. With the biggest builders red states like Texas.
I know, not real-time. Renewable energy credit trading, and such. But you become the demand for clean generation if you choose to do so. It is easy. If you are in Marin, Contra Costa, Napa, or Solano go to https://mcecleanenergy.org/opt-up/
Similar CCA's are all over California and probably beyond.
This isn’t about subsidies. Orsted, for example, is being blocked on national security grounds using environmental regulation [1].
Power producers are in on a fix.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-orders-orsted-ha...
Which is horrible for the US economy as it insulates our companies from market pressure, preventing them from adapting.
It's amazing how much leeway many people give this administration for policies that they have a long history of opposing: government ownership of companies (10% of Intel, US Steel's "golden share"), blocking private development of energy production, sending the National Guard to hostilely takeover cities, etc. It's the sort of stuff that they've accused their opponents of wanting to do in deranged, nightmarish worst-case scenarios.
"You betrayed everything you believe in, and for what?"
"To own the libs."
https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/top-20-countries-by-ba...
This is one thing that actually prevents the power price spikes since the batteries can jump in to cover gaps. I can quote many installations that have completely paid themselves off in 2 years (see hornsdale battery as an example - one year of operation alone, 2020, generated profit of half its initial $90million cost) and while this 2 year payoff will come down as more and more are installed part of the reason the payoff is going down is due to power price costs becoming more and more steady as more batteries are installed.
Even the USA is installing massive amounts of capacity right now. Look at Texas - 3x battery capacity available in 2025 compared to 2024 due to massive installations coming online and they are a state that does not do a lot to support renewables at all. There's no stopping it, it doesn't need subsidies and it's one of the most straightforward capital payoffs available right now.
I actually think the predictions in the article won't come to fruition honestly. The battery installation rise is dominating the investment landscape right now and it's completely flown under the radar without any political controversy (no things such as questionable media trying to claim battery banks are somehow bad for our health and should be stopped) nor are there subsidies required.
Of which none exists in the west. I love how suddenly we will achieve scale without the middle step of... building hundreds of prototypes to scale up the industry.
Everyone talks like it is already done.
Nuclear is a decent option, but it takes years to bring new capacity online.
There's nothing wrong with investing in nuclear that'll come online in 5+ years time, but at the same time the government should also be green lighting all projects capable of adding capacity more quickly.
Dead Comment
President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho was smart enough to rely on people smarter than him. But Trump and Co just aren't that smart...