Articles like this carry the implication that current-generation nuclear technology should be subsidized. There are reasons to subsidize new energy technologies, but not ones that have failed to become practical, safe, and economically viable over the long term.
Subsidizing current-generation nuclear power is what we have had all along. The cost of nuclear power was imposed on ratepayers without them having a say. It didn't work. Nuclear plants are still too expensive. Still uninsurable due to unbounded risk. Still ending up with shortfalls in decommissioning funds. Still without waste disposal. Practically nothing you would expect a period of subsidy to get to practical market-supporting economic models.
I could support government funding for demonstrator reactors using genuinely new technology that can make a case for solving the problems of nuclear power.
I will not support extending the life of reactors that do not even meet current site requirements (like Fukushima) or current containment standards. I will not support building new reactors based on old technology that does not transform the safety and economics of nuclear power.
Subsidizing current-generation nuclear power is what we have had all along. The cost of nuclear power was imposed on ratepayers without them having a say. It didn't work. Nuclear plants are still too expensive. Still uninsurable due to unbounded risk. Still ending up with shortfalls in decommissioning funds. Still without waste disposal. Practically nothing you would expect a period of subsidy to get to practical market-supporting economic models.
I could support government funding for demonstrator reactors using genuinely new technology that can make a case for solving the problems of nuclear power.
I will not support extending the life of reactors that do not even meet current site requirements (like Fukushima) or current containment standards. I will not support building new reactors based on old technology that does not transform the safety and economics of nuclear power.