As far as I know, nobody reasonable prefers a nuclear kwh to a solar kwh. The important question is: should we prefer nuclear kwhs to coal or oil kwhs? The answer to that question is less clear. Coal, in particular, kills thousands of people every year.
People aren't just going to turn the lights and air conditioners off.
Nothing unclear about that. Nuclear may be risky, but coal is downright poison. We need to get rid of all coal power plants as soon as possible, and if that means we need more nuclear plants while we transition to wind and solar, so be it.
I don't like nuclear. In fact, I hate it. Particularly uranium fission. I think it can never be truly safe, and I think it's ultimately unnecessary, as we should be able to get plenty of energy from green sources. But if nuclear will get us off coal and oil sooner, I'm all for it.
> The important question is: should we prefer nuclear kwhs to coal or oil kwhs? The answer to that question is less clear. Coal, in particular, kills thousands of people every year.
I find that answer to be simple. Of course we prefer nuclear over coal, with the caveat that its existing nuclear capacity that will be attritioned out as more renewables come online.
> People aren't just going to turn the lights and air conditioners off.
Agree. Use pricing to incentivize the expedited reduction in fossil fuel generation. Don't allow new coal fired plants to be brought online. Allow natural gas plants, but only for peaking and with strict emissions controls until utility scale battery installations are provisioned.
> a.k.a give everyone in the lower middle-class and below a big middle-finger
Having come from a family of modest means, I can appreciate the cost of power when budgeting on a limited income.
On the other hand, we don't allow "the poor" to drive without emissions controls on their cars because its cheaper and they're poor.
Raising the price of fossil fuel electrical generation and using that to directly subsidize renewable generation gets very close to a net zero increase in power costs, considering that wind and solar are already at grid parity in most states (and those costs will continue to decline).
If you want to be specific, we can significantly curb our fossil fuel subsidies at the federal level, and use those to directly subsidize renewables production (with any deficit made up by the general fund).
I don't think this middle finger is as big as the many others they're already getting. Maybe we can compensate by taking care of one of those other middle fingers?
People aren't just going to turn the lights and air conditioners off.