Suddenly, the US is a climate policy trendsetter
Big change in how the incentives are targeted. In the past it was to the consumer, in the IRA, it gets money to the manufacturers which means they are building plants in the US.
It wasn’t long ago that Europeans were lamenting the United States’ lack of progress on climate. Now they’re racing to keep up.
When President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, he wasn’t just altering U.S. domestic energy policy. The law’s tax credits for domestic manufacturing and clean-energy project construction changed the global calculus of where companies should operate. Now even U.S. allies are scrambling to hang on to a piece of the booming clean-energy industry.
In mid-March, the European Union proposed policies to ensure the bloc’s clean-energy manufacturing base grows enough to meet 40 percent of its deployment needs by 2030. On Monday, France’s finance minister unveiled a set of tax incentives and subsidies to encourage clean-energy manufacturing in the nation and “reverse a long-term disindustrialisation trend in the country,” Reuters reported. Lapsed EU member Great Britain weighed in too, but mostly to express distaste for this “distortive global subsidy race” with allies.
Back in North America, Canada proposed a budget last week that explicitly models itself on the Inflation Reduction Act, with 15 percent tax credits for clean power plant construction and 30 percent tax credits for “the cost of investments in machinery and equipment” to produce clean technologies or the critical minerals they depend on.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy-manufacturing/suddenly-the-us-is-a-climate-policy-trendsetter?utm_campaign=canary-social&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=1680870344
= new reply since forum marked as read
Of course, it references the scientific literature and not some dunderhead faith based antinuke fantasy.
Since antinukes are not, in general, scientifically literate, denigrating, indeed, as one of them put here, "scientific screeds," it's unsurprising that they are not aware of something called "facts."
My post here: Material Intensity of Various Forms of Energy, a Nice Graphic.
Here's the reference and a picture from the post, just so any antinuke who is indifferent to education can see what the "nice graphic" shows:
Closing the Infrastructure Gap for Decarbonization: The Case for an Integrated Mineral Supply Agreement Saleem H. Ali, Sophia Kalantzakos, Roderick Eggert, Roland Gauss, Constantine Karayannopoulos, Julie Klinger, Xiaoyu Pu, Kristin Vekasi, and Robert K. Perrons Environmental Science & Technology 2022 56 (22), 15280-15289
Here's figure 3 from the paper:
The caption:
It's, um, from a scientific journal concerned with the environment.
Of course antinukes don't think that uranium grows on trees, with emphasis placed on the important words in the sentence.
Neither do people who know science, although there are certain species of living things, notably corals, about to be rendered extinct because people focusing on their flat screen TVs don't give a rat's ass about climate change, that concentrate uranium from seawater. I did write a post about that species proteome here and elsewhere, but it would be a waste of time to recall it under the current circumstances.
This said, more than 95% of used nuclear fuel is unreacted uranium, and we have million ton quantities of depleted uranium on this planet, all of which is fertile. Of course, antinukes have a huge fetish about used nuclear fuel, which in their idiotic parlance is "nuclear waste," which they advertise as "deadly." But if you ask one of these fools to show that the storage of used nuclear fuel over the 70 year history of its creation has killed as many people as will die in the next six hours from dangerous fossil fuel waste - that would be 4500 people - they change the subject, mutter stupidly, or simply walk away.
I have calculated that unreacted uranium already mined, converted to plutonium - a well understood process - can supply all of the world's energy needs for about 150 years, much longer with process intensification, the recovery of additional exergy from nuclear heat. This does not include all of the radioactive thorium in mine tailings from the isolation of the lanthanides mined so anti-nukes could cheer for the ongoing massive rendering of wilderness into industrial parks for so called "renewable energy" that will be landfill 25 years after they bulldozers and diesel trucks used to build and service them have finished trashing that wilderness.
It's rather amusing how antinukes, benighted nickel and diming consumers that they are, always manage to criticize nuclear energy for things for which everything else is worse.
They. Just. Don't. Give. A. Fuck...what any other form of energy does, so long as they can attack the best form of energy through the prism of their ignorance, indifference and selective attention.
I expressed my view of the inexhaustibility of uranium on another website maintained by an Australian academic: Is Uranium Exhaustible?
If you're celebrating a holiday this week, hopefully it has proved enjoyable.