The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday awarded $20 billion to help finance clean-energy projects across the country, marking one of the Biden administration’s biggest investments in combating climate change and curbing pollution in disadvantaged communities.

  • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nah. A nuclear power plant in the US costs ~30 billion plus.

    We’re seeing a large-scale solar build-out in the US too, though not at the same pace as in China, where key components are made.

    I’ll also note that every time you electrify transportation, the higher efficiency of EVs means that emissions go down.

    • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022_0.pdf

      Companies that are planning new nuclear units are currently indicating that the total costs (including escalation and financing costs) will be in the range of $5,500/kW to $8,100/kW or between $6 billion and $9 billion for each 1,100 MW plant.

      These estimated costs translated into a projected total cost of $12.1 billion to $17.8 billion, for just two 1100 MW plants.

        • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What’s your point exactly? That we shouldn’t do it because they cost money?

          Doesn’t change that this is a stupid loan and not real infrastructure investment, and that it is unlikely to have a significant impact on climate change. Performative.

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Mostly that renewables and electrification are a better use of money right now. Nuclear’s high price means that it competes with things like seasonal storage. We may well build some in the 2030s, but that requires it being able to keep prices down so that the high volumes of seasonal storage we would otherwise need aren’t cheaper.

            • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That’s fine, but we need the capacity for it, we need investment in production and transport and those are the investment that local level governance can’t make, unlike EV charging stations. And without those, these EV charging stations will only go so far.

              • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, we need a lot of things, not just EV charging stations. The Biden administration has been announcing one thing after another at a rate of 1-2 per week. If you’re watching c/climate you’d see that.

                • CommunityLinkFixerBotB
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !climate@slrpnk.net

                • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  On the other hand he’s approved more new oil drilling than Trump.

                  https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2024/01/30/biden-administration-oil-drilling-permits-outpace-trump-ee-00138376

                  President Joe Biden has approved nearly 50 percent more oil and gas drilling permits for wells on federal land since taking office than former President Donald Trump did in his first three years, according to newly released data from the Interior Department.

                  Funny how c/climate isn’t posting that part.

                  • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    We know exactly what he’s done. Oil drilling permits are considered a property right by the courts once a lease is issued; the President can’t as a rule say ‘no’ — all he can do is set the terms.

                    What Biden did was to sharply curtail leasing:

                    We will eventually need to change the law so that existing leases aren’t treated as a property right like that, but we haven’t had the votes in Congress to do that.

          • ABCDE@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point seemed pretty clear. The cost is not what is quoted initially.

              • ABCDE@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Being factually correct is important. Don’t get snarky with me because someone dared to contradict you.