Now this is the only way to get my stubborn libertarian ass on board with a more "green" agenda.
I remain suspicious that it is bullshit, though, since the nuclear industry doesn't employ a lot of voters.
replies(1):
I remain suspicious that it is bullshit, though, since the nuclear industry doesn't employ a lot of voters.
New nuclear is a complete financial boondoggle. I'm always surprised to find any libertarian support for it however, as nuclear is the project of big government. It requires massive financial insurance that only governments are willing to provide. And in the US, it has been such a financial disaster that utilities run far away from nuclear for fear of bankruptcy. The only way that we started two new nuclear construction projects in the mid 2000s was because the state legislature was bought off, and allowed utility monopolies to charge customers for the construction of the project whether or not it finished, completly socializing the financial risks of construction through government force. And in South Carolina, the after spending $9B of utility rate payer money, the project was abandoned as in feasible to complete.
So the libertarian support for nuclear always has me completely puzzled. Without government coercion, it would never get built again. But then, I'm the complete opposite of a libertarian, so I'm probably misunderstanding something of the motivation. I would be interested to hear how a libertarian could support a new nuclear project.
But if you would rather fall back on hydrocarbon energy for baseline power, and pray to Elon for magic batteries someday, feel free to vote the other way.
Any self-respecting libertarian would call that a market opportunity. If you're right, there's a lot of money to be made insuring nuclear plants.