9 ms·

Result first (kill anything not carbon-based), find rationale later. Same applies to how this admin forced layoffs at the green energy (hydro + nuclear) behemo

Result first (kill anything not carbon-based), find rationale later. Same applies to how this admin forced layoffs at the green energy (hydro + nuclear) behemoth BPA [1] (which was funded entirely by ratepayers, not the federal government) then claimed an energy emergency to keep open coal plants serving the same geographies, coal plants that were already uneconomical and planned for shut down (or re-tooling to gas in the case of TransAlta's plant in WA). [2] Oh and they already re-hired some of the laid off staff at BPA because they overcut. There is no point in taking these arguments at face value. It's an excuse generated after-the-fact, and in service of one outcome - kill renewable energy. [1] https://www.columbian.com/news/2025/mar/12/letter-cuts-at-bpa-generate-questions/ https://www.columbian.com/news/2025/mar/12/letter-cuts-at-bp... [2] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/doe-orders-wa-coal-plant-to-continue-operating-despite-state-ban/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/doe-or...

gregbot 9mo ago
BPA is a federal agency. The Trump administration has been very supportive of zero carbon nuclear i believe they have promised $80 billion dollars to build new nuclear plants. Staff cuts dont mean they oppose using those energy sources.
- jetpks 9mo ago
  on the nuclear front, the administration has cut investment and reduced action in exchange for cheap promises. judge actions, not words.
  - tehjoker 9mo ago
    this point is very important. trump will take all sides of an issue rhetorically so you can almost always find some quote of his supporting whatever position you favor but they have a very definite political program that is concentrating control, cutting federal workers, rolling back renewables, doing spectacular stunts to favor racists, and aggression overseas
  - gregbot 9mo ago
    > on the nuclear front, the administration has cut investment Fascinating, I haven’t heard this from anywhere else is there something specific you are referring to? Maybe this? https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2026-skinny-budget-proposal-cuts-408m-for-nuclear/ https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2... Its not clear what specific programs this $408 million cut would affect but frankly ARDP and Gen III+ reactor development are not needed. What is needed is large construction investment in existing approved designs like AP-1000 and BWRX-300 which is what the $80 billion pledge is for. “The full details of the $80 billion deal, including the precise allocation of financing and risk-sharing, have not been specified.” With no contract signed your skepticism is warranted. https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2026-skinny-budget-proposal-cuts-408m-for-nuclear/ https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2...
- gardncl 9mo ago
  US deploys nuclear energy at over $10/watt meanwhile solar and wind are deployed around $2/watt (for levelized cost of electricity) including battery storage which means they are deployed for roughly the same cost as natural gas (so, direct competitors). Don't let comments like this fool you, nuclear is far from being competitive with natural gas. Even in countries like south korea that can deploy nuclear the cheapest it's still $3/watt roughly. Good news? Net new solar and wind plants can come "online" in less than two years. Net new natural gas takes four years. Part of why 95% of new energy deployed last year were renewables in the US, not just the subsidies.
  - vablings 9mo ago
    Nuclear is insane levels of expensive likely due to overregulation. It is important for base load power and overnight power and should always be the backing of the grid frequency. Total loss of grid frequency is much more difficult to recover from with synthetic inertia. A healthy grid should have all of the following - Nuclear base load that keeps the grid stable and pick up from low solar - Gas plants for surge power and base load when nuclear/solar/wind cannot take up the slack - Battery storage for surge/storage during off peak - Solar for very low-cost cheap energy during peak usage hours - Wind for other power source ie when the sun isnt shining as much source: https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/
    - bayindirh 9mo ago
      > overregulation. Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper (and to enable capitalistic monopolies, but that's a different matter), then cry when people die (or worse). Some things needs to be regulated, esp. if mistakes are costly to the planet and/or people on the said planet. So yes, nuclear should be regulated, and even overregulated to keep it safe. We have seen what Boeing has become when it's effectively unregulated.
      - ToucanLoucan 9mo ago
        > Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper Americans have no broad idea how anything works. Decades of attacks on our education system have left us civically illiterate (and for a lot of people, actually illiterate too.).
- vablings 9mo ago
  So why make the cuts in the first place? There are so many things that could have been changed like getting rid of ALARPA for actual scientifically backed methods other than pointless gratitude's of X dollars for X industry. If the Trump admin truly believed in move fast and break things why is nothing moving More power is always good (see china being 1# in solar, nuclear and wind lol), and it's known that the cost of energy directly correlates with growth right now there is no excuse for cutting any federal workers in the energy industry.
- rtkwe 9mo ago
  Promises are cheap with this admin, don't count any money until it's actually being paid out. Used to be I'd say until it's in a bill but this administration claims the unilateral right to cut any funded program.
sieabahlpark 9mo ago
[dead]
brandensilva 9mo ago
Boggles my mind a bit given much of the oil companies own the new renewable tech too. Why not keep investing in the future.
- benregenspan 9mo ago
  They might be the "wrong" oil companies. (In the case of Empire Wind, the administration is probably at best indifferent about screwing over the Norwegian state oil company.)
pbhjpbhj 9mo ago
>in service of one outcome - kill renewable energy. Also killing all humans, what idiots.
- lucyjojo 9mo ago
  they're not idiots. they're sociopaths.
- andreyf 9mo ago
  Not all humans, just the ones that can't afford buy property in low risk areas, start companies to help people move, etc. and for those who can, appreciating investments galore!
- array_key_first 9mo ago
  Well not them, they're too old to die to that. The goal is to have a cushy life for the ~5-10 years they have left. After that, it's somebody else's problem.
balex 9mo ago
Atlas shrugged
- defrost 9mo ago
  Should we understand this to mean that you are suggesting productive citizens should go on strike against a current dystopian United States administration?

gregbot 9mo ago

BPA is a federal agency. The Trump administration has been very supportive of zero carbon nuclear i believe they have promised $80 billion dollars to build new nuclear plants. Staff cuts dont mean they oppose using those energy sources.

jetpks 9mo ago
on the nuclear front, the administration has cut investment and reduced action in exchange for cheap promises. judge actions, not words.
- tehjoker 9mo ago
  this point is very important. trump will take all sides of an issue rhetorically so you can almost always find some quote of his supporting whatever position you favor but they have a very definite political program that is concentrating control, cutting federal workers, rolling back renewables, doing spectacular stunts to favor racists, and aggression overseas
- gregbot 9mo ago
  > on the nuclear front, the administration has cut investment Fascinating, I haven’t heard this from anywhere else is there something specific you are referring to? Maybe this? https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2026-skinny-budget-proposal-cuts-408m-for-nuclear/ https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2... Its not clear what specific programs this $408 million cut would affect but frankly ARDP and Gen III+ reactor development are not needed. What is needed is large construction investment in existing approved designs like AP-1000 and BWRX-300 which is what the $80 billion pledge is for. “The full details of the $80 billion deal, including the precise allocation of financing and risk-sharing, have not been specified.” With no contract signed your skepticism is warranted. https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2026-skinny-budget-proposal-cuts-408m-for-nuclear/ https://www.ans.org/news/2025-05-05/article-7001/trumps-fy-2...
gardncl 9mo ago
US deploys nuclear energy at over $10/watt meanwhile solar and wind are deployed around $2/watt (for levelized cost of electricity) including battery storage which means they are deployed for roughly the same cost as natural gas (so, direct competitors). Don't let comments like this fool you, nuclear is far from being competitive with natural gas. Even in countries like south korea that can deploy nuclear the cheapest it's still $3/watt roughly. Good news? Net new solar and wind plants can come "online" in less than two years. Net new natural gas takes four years. Part of why 95% of new energy deployed last year were renewables in the US, not just the subsidies.
- vablings 9mo ago
  Nuclear is insane levels of expensive likely due to overregulation. It is important for base load power and overnight power and should always be the backing of the grid frequency. Total loss of grid frequency is much more difficult to recover from with synthetic inertia. A healthy grid should have all of the following - Nuclear base load that keeps the grid stable and pick up from low solar - Gas plants for surge power and base load when nuclear/solar/wind cannot take up the slack - Battery storage for surge/storage during off peak - Solar for very low-cost cheap energy during peak usage hours - Wind for other power source ie when the sun isnt shining as much source: https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/
  - bayindirh 9mo ago
    > overregulation. Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper (and to enable capitalistic monopolies, but that's a different matter), then cry when people die (or worse). Some things needs to be regulated, esp. if mistakes are costly to the planet and/or people on the said planet. So yes, nuclear should be regulated, and even overregulated to keep it safe. We have seen what Boeing has become when it's effectively unregulated.
    - ToucanLoucan 9mo ago
      > Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper Americans have no broad idea how anything works. Decades of attacks on our education system have left us civically illiterate (and for a lot of people, actually illiterate too.).
vablings 9mo ago
So why make the cuts in the first place? There are so many things that could have been changed like getting rid of ALARPA for actual scientifically backed methods other than pointless gratitude's of X dollars for X industry. If the Trump admin truly believed in move fast and break things why is nothing moving More power is always good (see china being 1# in solar, nuclear and wind lol), and it's known that the cost of energy directly correlates with growth right now there is no excuse for cutting any federal workers in the energy industry.
rtkwe 9mo ago
Promises are cheap with this admin, don't count any money until it's actually being paid out. Used to be I'd say until it's in a bill but this administration claims the unilateral right to cut any funded program.

sieabahlpark 9mo ago

[dead]

brandensilva 9mo ago

Boggles my mind a bit given much of the oil companies own the new renewable tech too. Why not keep investing in the future.

benregenspan 9mo ago
They might be the "wrong" oil companies. (In the case of Empire Wind, the administration is probably at best indifferent about screwing over the Norwegian state oil company.)

pbhjpbhj 9mo ago

>in service of one outcome - kill renewable energy. Also killing all humans, what idiots.

lucyjojo 9mo ago
they're not idiots. they're sociopaths.
andreyf 9mo ago
Not all humans, just the ones that can't afford buy property in low risk areas, start companies to help people move, etc. and for those who can, appreciating investments galore!
array_key_first 9mo ago
Well not them, they're too old to die to that. The goal is to have a cushy life for the ~5-10 years they have left. After that, it's somebody else's problem.

balex 9mo ago

Atlas shrugged

defrost 9mo ago
Should we understand this to mean that you are suggesting productive citizens should go on strike against a current dystopian United States administration?