California is shutting down its last nuclear plant(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
California is shutting down its last nuclear plant
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/02/why-is-california-closing-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant.html
145 comments
Such a frustrating decision. Whether you like nuclear or not and no matter how bullish you are on renewables, I don't understand why they wouldn't wait until they'd shut down every other carbon emitting form of power generation. This plant is so reliable as a baseline power generator.
There's some decent reasons provided in the article, but you have to be willing to at least be empathetic to them.
It's owned by PG&E, and the public trust in that company is extremely low. They do not maintain things, that lack of maintanence has caused fires and deaths. I would think that would translate into what could be happening at the nuclear plant as well.
They are in California which, from time to time, has earthquakes. After the Fukishima incident, people have seen what kind of things can happen. Knowing who owns the plant should give pause when considering what could happen when those factors are added together.
It's owned by PG&E, and the public trust in that company is extremely low. They do not maintain things, that lack of maintanence has caused fires and deaths. I would think that would translate into what could be happening at the nuclear plant as well.
They are in California which, from time to time, has earthquakes. After the Fukishima incident, people have seen what kind of things can happen. Knowing who owns the plant should give pause when considering what could happen when those factors are added together.
I get those points, but Fukushima was 10 years ago so clearly it couldn't have been that urgent. Really this has been about reducing carbon emissions. It is clear now that the full impact of natural gas is much larger than originally understood.
How long do you think it takes to put enough pressure to get a change like this going? It's not overnight. To me, 10 years seems pretty fast for something like this.
The cynic in me knowing that it is owned by PG&E thinks there are a few very expensive maintanence items coming up that the owner has decided it would be more feasible to just shut it down rather than doing the repairs to keep it going. The expense is what led to the decision and not public pressure, but since they won't admit to any of that, the pressure groups claim the victory.
The cynic in me knowing that it is owned by PG&E thinks there are a few very expensive maintanence items coming up that the owner has decided it would be more feasible to just shut it down rather than doing the repairs to keep it going. The expense is what led to the decision and not public pressure, but since they won't admit to any of that, the pressure groups claim the victory.
Growing up in San Luis Obispo, I can say firsthand that pressure has been on PG&E to close the plant since ~1969. Mothers for Peace, the Abalone Alliance, and a bunch of other groups have been at war with DCPP for decades.
The funny thing is when they finally "won", members of these same groups immediately started bleating about the massive amounts of lost tax revenue that are now looming large over local budgets.
The closure has nothing to do with maintenance. The steam generators still have tons of life in them, the reactors are fine, etc. The main driver is California's renewable policies that would mean the plant likely wouldn't be at 100% every day, which is where it needs to be to stay economically viable.
Fun fact: Diablo's "battery" is the Helms Pumped Storage Facility. It is extremely cool — a perfect Bond supervillain lair.
The funny thing is when they finally "won", members of these same groups immediately started bleating about the massive amounts of lost tax revenue that are now looming large over local budgets.
The closure has nothing to do with maintenance. The steam generators still have tons of life in them, the reactors are fine, etc. The main driver is California's renewable policies that would mean the plant likely wouldn't be at 100% every day, which is where it needs to be to stay economically viable.
Fun fact: Diablo's "battery" is the Helms Pumped Storage Facility. It is extremely cool — a perfect Bond supervillain lair.
California is also home to the Aliso Creek gas leak which was the largest in US history. Larger than the Deep Water Horizon event in the Gulf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak
[edit: typo]
[edit: typo]
This video referenced in this wiki article (footnote [25]) shows a methane cloud in the area more than a month after the incident. I know nothing of how gases move around in the atmosphere, but I would not have expected it to behave like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Fyevj25-o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Fyevj25-o
That video was taken during the leak. It lasted for months, finally being capped in February of 2016
I totally misread the dates. Makes more sense now.
Plant might be owned by PG&E, but it's regulated by the US NRC. PG&E might be able to hoodwink California, but it's a good stretch harder to hoodwink the federals.
[deleted]
Who said anything about the hoodwinking? Regulators could have come in with a report saying X amount of changes are required costing Y amount of money. It is not beyond the realm of possibiity the owners realize it would be cheaper to shut it down than to make the repairs. No hoodwinking required.
You did.
>They do not maintain things, that lack of maintanence has caused fires and deaths. I would think that would translate into what could be happening at the nuclear plant as well.
Not doing maintenance on a nuclear plant would amount to hoodwinking the regulator. Regulatory reports are not secrets. If the NRC had findings that the plant was in disrepair and was unsafe, they'd shut it down.
>They do not maintain things, that lack of maintanence has caused fires and deaths. I would think that would translate into what could be happening at the nuclear plant as well.
Not doing maintenance on a nuclear plant would amount to hoodwinking the regulator. Regulatory reports are not secrets. If the NRC had findings that the plant was in disrepair and was unsafe, they'd shut it down.
I think you are trying to twist what I said, but I will grant it could be read that way if you really want it. From one inspection to another, things wear down. It could be a note in one report, a concern in one following, and even a must repair in a future report. Again, no hoodwinking necessary. Corp says that they are not going to do anything at a recommended status, and only consider things indicated as required. For example, the recent Texas debacle where the plants were recommended to weather proof their facilities but elected not to do it for something they felt the costs were not justified.
Public confidence in PG&E is eroded, maybe rightly so, because the California (state) regulator let them get away with deferred safety-critical maintenance. Whether that's on California or the utility or both, I don't know, but PG&E just can't pull those kinds of shenanigans with the NRC. If there's a safety-critical problem with the plant, it gets fixed.
Yeah, but the earth quake itself didn't cause the Fukishima issue, it was the tsunami after.
Well the problem was politics, not technology. The ideal place for the plant was elsewhere, but politics got involved and the site was moved for political reasons.
Then an engineer said, to be safe here we need a berm X meters high, and politics came in and said it's too expensive cut make it 4 times smaller.
Then an engineer said, to be safe here we need a berm X meters high, and politics came in and said it's too expensive cut make it 4 times smaller.
There have been no safety problems at Diablo Canyon.
Putting 600,000 cars worth of carbon on the grid because some Yahoos are afraid of a thing that isn't real is fucking stupid, no matter how you look at it.
.
> They are in California which, from time to time, has earthquakes.
This plant has been through four of them with no damage.
Stop bending over backwards searching for something to be afraid of
Putting 600,000 cars worth of carbon on the grid because some Yahoos are afraid of a thing that isn't real is fucking stupid, no matter how you look at it.
.
> They are in California which, from time to time, has earthquakes.
This plant has been through four of them with no damage.
Stop bending over backwards searching for something to be afraid of
I'm reading this as the royal you and not directed to me directly.
It's not your place to tell anybody how they sould feel. If someone has specific concerns, then that is for them to decide how they feel about them. For me personally, I am way more concerned because of who owns the facility much more than disaster porn scenarios. Due to the overall ineptness of the owner does make the disaster porn scenario much more likely though.
At the same time, it is a privately owned facility. If they want to close it that is up to them.
It's not your place to tell anybody how they sould feel. If someone has specific concerns, then that is for them to decide how they feel about them. For me personally, I am way more concerned because of who owns the facility much more than disaster porn scenarios. Due to the overall ineptness of the owner does make the disaster porn scenario much more likely though.
At the same time, it is a privately owned facility. If they want to close it that is up to them.
> I'm reading this as the royal you and not directed to me directly.
That's incorrect. My quote telling you to stop bending over backwards searching for things to be afraid of was definitely aimed at you personally.
.
> It's not your place to tell anybody how they sould feel.
Okay. Feel angry about that I said it, then.
You may be surprised to learn that I don't feel you get to tell me what my place is. You're just an anonymous stranger on the internet, trying to make rules for people who don't listen to them
.
> For me personally, I am way more concerned
It's weird how I told you to stop bending over backwards to find things to be afraid of, and you responded with more things that you are afraid of, which are equally bereft of a single piece of supporting evidence.
PG&E has never had any deaths from nuclear. No American operator is. I'm not interested in your attempts to coin your fiction up into reality by calling it pornography.
The difference between pornography and cartoons is that pornography is a real thing that happened, whereas you're sitting here telling Aesop's Fables.
If America had ever had a single death from nuclear power, I'm sure you'd be trying to make it sound important right now.
Six hundred thousand deaths per year from air quality, climate change, and you're still struggling to make a half a bus accident look relevant.
Stop it, dude. You can't convince me. All you can convince is people to be anti-nuclear.
This display of trivia you're trying to do is really counterproductive.
Every time I tell you that, you seem to double down with more trivia and more unjustified fear, like maybe the problem is you weren't convincing enough, rather than that you're just doing the wrong thing
.
> At the same time, it is a privately owned facility.
These decisions are made by a state board, not PG&E
.
> It's not your place to tell anybody how they sould feel.
Okay. Feel angry about that I said it, then.
You may be surprised to learn that I don't feel you get to tell me what my place is. You're just an anonymous stranger on the internet, trying to make rules for people who don't listen to them
.
> For me personally, I am way more concerned
It's weird how I told you to stop bending over backwards to find things to be afraid of, and you responded with more things that you are afraid of, which are equally bereft of a single piece of supporting evidence.
PG&E has never had any deaths from nuclear. No American operator is. I'm not interested in your attempts to coin your fiction up into reality by calling it pornography.
The difference between pornography and cartoons is that pornography is a real thing that happened, whereas you're sitting here telling Aesop's Fables.
If America had ever had a single death from nuclear power, I'm sure you'd be trying to make it sound important right now.
Six hundred thousand deaths per year from air quality, climate change, and you're still struggling to make a half a bus accident look relevant.
Stop it, dude. You can't convince me. All you can convince is people to be anti-nuclear.
This display of trivia you're trying to do is really counterproductive.
Every time I tell you that, you seem to double down with more trivia and more unjustified fear, like maybe the problem is you weren't convincing enough, rather than that you're just doing the wrong thing
.
> At the same time, it is a privately owned facility.
These decisions are made by a state board, not PG&E
[deleted]
Maintaining existing plants can make a lot of sense in many cases, but the problem with nuclear energy has always been cost.
Compared to alternatives, the cost per kWh is high once you take into account the initial capital investment, operation, retrofits, waste storage and decommissioning costs.
For places like California, wind/solar is not only cheaper, but easier to deal with from a planning and regulatory standpoint. When you have limited time and resources to add more generation capacity, there is usually a better option.
There is always the promise of a new generation of nuclear though. It will most certainly have to get used in places that have no alternatives.
Compared to alternatives, the cost per kWh is high once you take into account the initial capital investment, operation, retrofits, waste storage and decommissioning costs.
For places like California, wind/solar is not only cheaper, but easier to deal with from a planning and regulatory standpoint. When you have limited time and resources to add more generation capacity, there is usually a better option.
There is always the promise of a new generation of nuclear though. It will most certainly have to get used in places that have no alternatives.
The thing I've always liked about nuclear was its reliability of not fluctuating based on the weather outside. Wind/Sun power is fine, but we need storage of that power for use later when wind/sun is not available. I always liked the idea of water resovoir batteries using wind/solar to pump the water so that it could be used for hydro generating. However, California seems to be a bad location for hydro like that as there's no water.
The output of nuclear plants is also affected by the weather, few years ago the Finnish nuclear plants had to reduce output in the summer due to the Baltic Sea warming up too much. Heating it even more from cooling water would damage the ecosystem.
> the problem with nuclear energy has always been cost.
A lot of people forget this. No matter what philosophical argument you make, economics always rules in the end.
Strangely PV is viable in california because of the PG&E regulatory capture setting a high price for electricity.
Folks routinely pay .21 to .40c/kwh for electricity in california, so PV economics works.
A lot of people forget this. No matter what philosophical argument you make, economics always rules in the end.
Strangely PV is viable in california because of the PG&E regulatory capture setting a high price for electricity.
Folks routinely pay .21 to .40c/kwh for electricity in california, so PV economics works.
Realistically, decommissioning a 4 decade old plant that has been neglected and is built in a earthquake prone location is probably the right choice. The real mistake is that over those 4 decades California didn't continue to build more Nuclear plants. They started decommissioning the plant a decade ago, long after climate change was known to the public, and at the very least at that point it should have been obvious that they should start to build more.
I can't believe ruby red Tennessee is the only state to have finished a new Nuclear plant in almost three decades.
I can't believe ruby red Tennessee is the only state to have finished a new Nuclear plant in almost three decades.
Diablo Canyon Power Plant may be a lot of things, but neglected is not one of them. I've been onsite for pentests and not only did I feel safe then, I'm typing this from home, just a few miles from the plant's exclusion zone.
Re: decommissioning, I believe you are conflating DCPP with San Onofre.
I completely agree we should have started building more years ago. One interesting idea was (strong emphasis on was) adding units to DCPP. The site can take up to four more units (I've seen the drawings). The major problem with that was the fact that California would require the plant to switch from seawater cooling to cooling towers, which was financially difficult.
Re: decommissioning, I believe you are conflating DCPP with San Onofre.
I completely agree we should have started building more years ago. One interesting idea was (strong emphasis on was) adding units to DCPP. The site can take up to four more units (I've seen the drawings). The major problem with that was the fact that California would require the plant to switch from seawater cooling to cooling towers, which was financially difficult.
Well, hot testing has started on reactor 3 at Vogtle in Georgia. I wasn't sure if the plant would ever be finished, but it seems like it is actually on track to start operating next year.
https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/overcoming-delays-hot-func...
https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/overcoming-delays-hot-func...
The pro-blackout crowd lol.
Valid climate stance, greenest energy often is not used energy and not having it available is easiest way.
I see these comments here and there and am always stunned. There's a strong nihilistic streak in the modern environmental movement.
Is that surprising? The movement has largely failed and gets to watch all their predictions come true
There have been no shortage of failed predictions. In the scientific valence this is totally fine because the wildest predictions are usually stated with low confidence, but the ‘environmental movement’ knows no such moderation.
The problem for anti-environmentalists is that the broad predictions about the environment (climate change, warming) have been accurate. Everything else is noise.
And noise is the problem, on both sides of environment issues.
When you say "no shortage of failed predictions", you are able to cherrypick whatever you like, define failure however you like, and produce whatever resulting number you want. That is noise.
For environmentalists, straw bans? Stupid, spending valuable social "energy" on something irrelevant -- intentionally triggering the environmental equivalent of road rage in people whose cooperation you need. It's noise.
And noise is the problem, on both sides of environment issues.
When you say "no shortage of failed predictions", you are able to cherrypick whatever you like, define failure however you like, and produce whatever resulting number you want. That is noise.
For environmentalists, straw bans? Stupid, spending valuable social "energy" on something irrelevant -- intentionally triggering the environmental equivalent of road rage in people whose cooperation you need. It's noise.
I was responding to a comment that said, "The movement has largely failed and gets to watch all their predictions come true." (emphasis added). Neither of those statements is true, and is also some of the worst noise produced by the movement because it simultaneously reduces trust and drives apathy, pretending that no successes have happened and that science is unrealistically certain. There are no shortage of failed predictions not because of cherry-picking or moving goal posts, but because this is a normal part of the truth seeking process, but the extreme manifestation of it is an unfortunate feature of our media and political cultures.
People with a bias towards alarmism on this topic imagine that alarmist messages and absolute statements will help to achieve the outcomes they seek, but the last 30 years make it clear that this doesn't work. A more realistic message, focusing on the most likely scenario from the IPCC rather than the worst-case scenario which the IPCC clearly states is to provide an upper bound and is highly unlikely. A straightforward presentation would be more nuanced and encourage the highest impact changes (a small tax that funded the replacement of coal plants with nuclear for instance) rather than proposing net-zero by 2050 which is almost certainly not going to happen based on the tradeoffs of doing so.
People with a bias towards alarmism on this topic imagine that alarmist messages and absolute statements will help to achieve the outcomes they seek, but the last 30 years make it clear that this doesn't work. A more realistic message, focusing on the most likely scenario from the IPCC rather than the worst-case scenario which the IPCC clearly states is to provide an upper bound and is highly unlikely. A straightforward presentation would be more nuanced and encourage the highest impact changes (a small tax that funded the replacement of coal plants with nuclear for instance) rather than proposing net-zero by 2050 which is almost certainly not going to happen based on the tradeoffs of doing so.
In the modern one? It's always been like that, environmentalists tend to be misanthropic, and their primary goal is making people miserable, not the environment.
And yes that's a strong claim, but I see so many environmentalists promote things that make zero difference to the environment (straw ban for example), but annoy people.
Or things like Italy banning plastic packaging from produce, which makes the environmental worse (much more food waste), but they don't care because it annoys people.
Or even the truly dreadful: Being against nuclear power, and being against burning plastic for energy. These two positions actively harm the environment.
And yes that's a strong claim, but I see so many environmentalists promote things that make zero difference to the environment (straw ban for example), but annoy people.
Or things like Italy banning plastic packaging from produce, which makes the environmental worse (much more food waste), but they don't care because it annoys people.
Or even the truly dreadful: Being against nuclear power, and being against burning plastic for energy. These two positions actively harm the environment.
I get most of your point, except the one about "being against burning plastic for energy" - looks to me that simply burying it somewhere would be best for the environment.
No - burn it for energy, and then you don't need to pump (and burn) additional oil. It's a one-for-one tradeoff, with the benefit of less trash. It's a 100% win with zero drawbacks (so of course environmentalists are against it).
Sure at some point we won't burn oil, and then we can do something different (recycle the plastic), but we are decades away from that, so doing that now is harmful.
Sure at some point we won't burn oil, and then we can do something different (recycle the plastic), but we are decades away from that, so doing that now is harmful.
Ok, if you look at individual actions, burning the plastic makes complete sense. But if you look at the economy as an evolving system, you'll discover that if you do nothing together with burning the plastic, society will just adapt to consume the extra oil, while if you bury it, people will probably not make an effort to recover that plastic any soon.
Of course, you can burn the plastic and make some change that makes people burn less oil. But if we are talking about government intervention, you will get much more return if you focus on reducing the fossil fuels usage alone and bury the plastic.
Of course, you can burn the plastic and make some change that makes people burn less oil. But if we are talking about government intervention, you will get much more return if you focus on reducing the fossil fuels usage alone and bury the plastic.
Spoken like a true environmentalist: Make things worse for people and for the environment, in the hope we can "someday" make things different.
It's exactly this attitude that is causing the trouble.
It's exactly this attitude that is causing the trouble.
Hum... What?
Are you sure you are on the correct thread?
Are you sure you are on the correct thread?
He is maybe a bit mean, but his point is at least consistent. His whole thesis is that we don't have to reduce energy consumption but just find solutions so that we consume without ruining the enviromnet, or at least find the most impact we can have for reducing the damage right now - at least that is how I read it. And I think that is possibly the only sustainable approach, since it is going to be _very_ hard to convince 7 billion people to give up convenience. It just won't happen.
Hum, ok, increasing the price of energy (because you are not burning the cheapest sources) does indeed push people a little bit into using less energy. I understand his point now.
Now I have to hardly disagree, because we won't solve that problem without some amount of discomfort. And increasing the price of energy so the non-fossil sources can compete better is how can give up the least of it.
Now I have to hardly disagree, because we won't solve that problem without some amount of discomfort. And increasing the price of energy so the non-fossil sources can compete better is how can give up the least of it.
Do you expect significant drop in oil price if plastic was getting burned? I'd think it would displace things like coal first...
Plastic comes mostly from natural gas, doesn't it? The "oil" there is just a generalization, as I understand it is on the GGP.
Anyway, the production of any of those is almost completely inelastic.
Anyway, the production of any of those is almost completely inelastic.
Pumping oil, turning it into plastic, and then burning it, is really not significantly different from just pumping and burning oil from an atmospheric pollution standpoint. The benefit here is less trash. In terms of emissions, it is at best a slight loss due to reduced effiency and extra processing steps. It is a distraction.
I do not know much about burning plastic, but is it really zero drawbacks to do so? Intuition tells me harmful chemicals would be released. Is it that the burning would be contained and the air filtered?
I think his point hinges on the assumption that the harmful chemicals are no worse than just burning oil/gas. Somehow I doubt this, but I do not know enough to confirm. I mean, is plastic the same as oil? Does it not have _worse_ additives in it?
> I mean, is plastic the same as oil? Does it not have _worse_ additives in it?
Correct. The atoms are the same, just in a different order. Although you may occasionally get chlorine which is not in oil, but it's not common in plastic (other than PVC).
>> Intuition tells me harmful chemicals would be released. Is it that the burning would be contained and the air filtered?
No need for much filtering, you just need proper incinerator that provides enough air. You will need to filter out chlorine, but that's so reactive it's very easy to filter.
The harmful chemicals from burning plastic are caused by incomplete combustion.
The vast vast majority of plastic is just carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. Burn them fully and there's nothing harmful emitted.
Correct. The atoms are the same, just in a different order. Although you may occasionally get chlorine which is not in oil, but it's not common in plastic (other than PVC).
>> Intuition tells me harmful chemicals would be released. Is it that the burning would be contained and the air filtered?
No need for much filtering, you just need proper incinerator that provides enough air. You will need to filter out chlorine, but that's so reactive it's very easy to filter.
The harmful chemicals from burning plastic are caused by incomplete combustion.
The vast vast majority of plastic is just carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. Burn them fully and there's nothing harmful emitted.
I wouldn't use the word nihilism. I'm quite the deep-eco hardliner and in the brightest future I can realisticially dream of, power isn't reliably available to anyone anywhere they wish. Reducing energy consumption is key, not just how it's produced.
The least discussed, biggest elephant in the room, holiest of all cows in the environmental discourse are the lifestyle changes required. Everyone's all green, unless it personally impacts my daily life in any perceivable way whatsoever.
The least discussed, biggest elephant in the room, holiest of all cows in the environmental discourse are the lifestyle changes required. Everyone's all green, unless it personally impacts my daily life in any perceivable way whatsoever.
I prefer maximizing human prosperity. That is not necessarily contingent on energy consumption, but at least throughout recorded human history there is a very strong correlation. So long as it does not compromise human prosperity, including in terms of our relationship to the natural environment, I have no objection whatsoever to massive quantities of clean energy.
[deleted]
You could just go around committing genocide, that would be similarly green...
I fully support nuclear power, but even I have to admit that the fault line concerns are valid.
I do think we should be building a lot more nuclear power plants (safely away from fault lines).
I do think we should be building a lot more nuclear power plants (safely away from fault lines).
It is being shut down due to economics because it is expensive and it can't be run 100% duty cycle any more which makes it unprofitable to run.
The rest is all a smokescreen of one sort or another.
Nuclear is dead on arrival because of cost.
The rest is all a smokescreen of one sort or another.
Nuclear is dead on arrival because of cost.
After "All carbon emitting forms" is too extreme, but they should shut it down after reducing large scale use of coal.
But given there's a ten year lead time, and they havent even switched it off yet and won't for another 5 years, they seem pretty much bang on schedule.
But given there's a ten year lead time, and they havent even switched it off yet and won't for another 5 years, they seem pretty much bang on schedule.
Diablo Canyon essentially sits atop multiple faults. PG&E think it's safe, but after Fukushima, why risk it?
I get your argument, and broadly think we need nuclear especially as we drive away from fossil fuels for travel and heating, but there's a time and a place.
I get your argument, and broadly think we need nuclear especially as we drive away from fossil fuels for travel and heating, but there's a time and a place.
Fukushima wasn't done in by the earthquake, but by the tsunami that followed. I believe they're different reactor types, Fukushima having been a BWR reactor and this one being a PWR reactor. They have different failure modes. Not sure how much that matters.
DCPP also sits on a tall bluff, and without getting into site details the generators are positioned in a way such that I really don't think anything like a Fukushima event is credible — except perhaps with a tsunami so big that we'd have bodies washing out to sea from California's major coastal cities, the delta levees would have broken and seawater flooded the Central Valley, etc. End Times stuff.
The problem is that the operating costs are very high for nuclear (insurance alone is huge). Financially you're better off shutting down nuclear and putting the money into renewables.
Blame the free market. In 2020 5% of solar power produced in California was curtailed as in not supplied to the grid because it was unneeded.
Baseline power is no longer desirable because California regularly has a large surplus of renewable energy which drops the spot price of electricity to ~zero. Reducing nuclear capacity factor almost 1:1 increases prices which means solar adoption kicks out nuclear very early without massive subsides.
Even that’s a simplification they actually price things based on nodes due to limited transmission infrastructure. http://www.caiso.com/pricemap/Pages/default.aspx
Baseline power is no longer desirable because California regularly has a large surplus of renewable energy which drops the spot price of electricity to ~zero. Reducing nuclear capacity factor almost 1:1 increases prices which means solar adoption kicks out nuclear very early without massive subsides.
Even that’s a simplification they actually price things based on nodes due to limited transmission infrastructure. http://www.caiso.com/pricemap/Pages/default.aspx
> California has a large surplus of renewable energy
No they don't. You can see California's energy supply here: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html. Pick a nice sunny day, and you'll see that they're still often using 10+GW of natural gas when renewables peak, and ~5GW of imports from much dirtier neighboring grids.
When the sun is down, renewables (including batteries) are often around 10-20% of demand.
No they don't. You can see California's energy supply here: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html. Pick a nice sunny day, and you'll see that they're still often using 10+GW of natural gas when renewables peak, and ~5GW of imports from much dirtier neighboring grids.
When the sun is down, renewables (including batteries) are often around 10-20% of demand.
It’s not about every day it’s about cool days which lower demand for AC. Look at a long term graph for the spot price of electricity.
Also, the grid not designed to move arbitrary power from any producer to any consumer. At times your throttling power from a wind farm while also importing electricity in other areas. The ISO wholesale power market prices electricity based on the cost of generating and delivering it from particular grid locations called nodes. http://www.caiso.com/pricemap/Pages/default.aspx
Also, the grid not designed to move arbitrary power from any producer to any consumer. At times your throttling power from a wind farm while also importing electricity in other areas. The ISO wholesale power market prices electricity based on the cost of generating and delivering it from particular grid locations called nodes. http://www.caiso.com/pricemap/Pages/default.aspx
I understand how the grid works, but I'm not following your argument.
> It’s not about every day it’s about cool days which lower demand for AC.
There is not a single moment in the history of CAISO when renewables+nuclear was higher than demand.
> At times your throttling power from a wind farm while also importing electricity in other areas.
Right, so that makes even less likely that abundant wind or solar could make nuclear unprofitable.
> It’s not about every day it’s about cool days which lower demand for AC.
There is not a single moment in the history of CAISO when renewables+nuclear was higher than demand.
> At times your throttling power from a wind farm while also importing electricity in other areas.
Right, so that makes even less likely that abundant wind or solar could make nuclear unprofitable.
> There is not a single moment in the history of
Your still thinking of the grid as a uniform entity. There are regular local surpluses with insufficient capacity to move that power to customers.
> Right, so that makes even less likely that abundant wind or solar could make nuclear unprofitable.
Again depends on location.
Your still thinking of the grid as a uniform entity. There are regular local surpluses with insufficient capacity to move that power to customers.
> Right, so that makes even less likely that abundant wind or solar could make nuclear unprofitable.
Again depends on location.
Do you have some evidence that these local surpluses are making nuclear non-viable? Why wouldn't PG&E say that if it were the case? Given the characteristics of the whole grid, they would have to get very unlucky to have so much wind and solar close to the nuclear plant that it was rendered unnecessary.
Edit: Also, renewables in California are dominated by solar. Even if there were a local solar surplus during the day, which again I find pretty unlikely, they'd still need nuclear at night. Are you saying the nuclear plant is right next to an incredibly productive wind farm or something?
Edit: Also, renewables in California are dominated by solar. Even if there were a local solar surplus during the day, which again I find pretty unlikely, they'd still need nuclear at night. Are you saying the nuclear plant is right next to an incredibly productive wind farm or something?
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), curtailments of solar generation have increased in the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) region. In 2020, CAISO curtailed 1.5 million MWh of utility-scale solar, or 5% of its utility-scale solar production.
In other words the grid was unable to accept 5% of all solar power produced in 2020. https://solarenergytea.com/2021/09/08/solar-power-curtailmen...
In other words the grid was unable to accept 5% of all solar power produced in 2020. https://solarenergytea.com/2021/09/08/solar-power-curtailmen...
Again, is there any reason to believe this is making nuclear nonviable? Everything you're saying is true, I just don't understand why you think it's connected to the nuclear shutdown. Have you found any articles about nuclear curtailment? Do you think "there is no solar for half the day" is a reasonable point in this discussion? Why wouldn't PG&E brag about the fact that surplus renewables are making nuclear unnecessary if that were true?
> making nuclear nonviable?
Not nonviable just less viable. This power plant was already scheduled for decommissioning in 2024 so the specifics are only really relevant to it. It’s really constructing a replacement that’s non viable due to the very long time horizons involved. Back in 2018 only 2% of California’s solar was curtailed, by 2040 it might hit 30+%.
> about nuclear curtailment?
Keeping Nuclear at steady state it useful so it’s the last to be shut off. Frances nuclear was down at 70% capacity factor where US has generally stayed above 90%, but that doesn’t mean US nuclear is profitable every minute it’s operating. Solar curtailment is a sign of very low local spot electricity prices, thus even if your generating electricity during curtailment it’s likely below the average cost of production.
> no solar for half the day
Environmentally nuclear is a great nighttime source of electricity, but PG&E only care as about the economic question. As to solar, it’s displacing natural gas which can be used at night or on cloudy days. The economic break even point for solar vs natural gas is roughly 50% curtailment so these trends are going to continue.
> making nuclear unnecessary
It’s not about nuclear being needed or not as current infrastructure is needed as redundancy if nothing else. More generally PG&E is a legal monopoly with a poor reputation not some hip startup that needs publicity. Their simply not going to talk about complex topics most people on HN have trouble understanding let alone the general public.
Not nonviable just less viable. This power plant was already scheduled for decommissioning in 2024 so the specifics are only really relevant to it. It’s really constructing a replacement that’s non viable due to the very long time horizons involved. Back in 2018 only 2% of California’s solar was curtailed, by 2040 it might hit 30+%.
> about nuclear curtailment?
Keeping Nuclear at steady state it useful so it’s the last to be shut off. Frances nuclear was down at 70% capacity factor where US has generally stayed above 90%, but that doesn’t mean US nuclear is profitable every minute it’s operating. Solar curtailment is a sign of very low local spot electricity prices, thus even if your generating electricity during curtailment it’s likely below the average cost of production.
> no solar for half the day
Environmentally nuclear is a great nighttime source of electricity, but PG&E only care as about the economic question. As to solar, it’s displacing natural gas which can be used at night or on cloudy days. The economic break even point for solar vs natural gas is roughly 50% curtailment so these trends are going to continue.
> making nuclear unnecessary
It’s not about nuclear being needed or not as current infrastructure is needed as redundancy if nothing else. More generally PG&E is a legal monopoly with a poor reputation not some hip startup that needs publicity. Their simply not going to talk about complex topics most people on HN have trouble understanding let alone the general public.
The first line of the article:
"California is not keeping up with the energy demands of its residents.
In August 2020, hundreds of thousands of California residents experienced rolling electricity blackouts during a heat wave that maxed out the state’s energy grid."
How can you say baseline power is not desirable?
"California is not keeping up with the energy demands of its residents.
In August 2020, hundreds of thousands of California residents experienced rolling electricity blackouts during a heat wave that maxed out the state’s energy grid."
How can you say baseline power is not desirable?
You want peaking power for heat waves. Baseline is in theory cheaper because it’s running 24/7/365 however you don’t want to produce maximum heat wave energy 24/7/365 or your going to damage equipment when demand lowers.
You’re not actually producing baseline capacity at all times. That’s why it is called capacity, and not output.
That’s not what base load is referring to.
Nuclear designed for load following vs base load has real physical differences with base load being cheaper to construct as a trade off for being less flexible. At the extreme end it takes several hours if not days for some nuclear power plant designs to safely go from standby to full output.
Peaking power on the other hand is designed to go for long periods without being used. They generally get paid for being standby capacity even when not in use. Similar to a generator at a hospital, they need to sit unused for months only be tuned on in at worst a few minutes.
Peaking power is the economical option for heatwaves or other extreme power demands. At the extreme it might actually be a backup generator pulling double duty. So what if it’s running on diesel if it’s only tuned on for 100 hours a decade fuel costs aren’t that relevant.
Nuclear designed for load following vs base load has real physical differences with base load being cheaper to construct as a trade off for being less flexible. At the extreme end it takes several hours if not days for some nuclear power plant designs to safely go from standby to full output.
Peaking power on the other hand is designed to go for long periods without being used. They generally get paid for being standby capacity even when not in use. Similar to a generator at a hospital, they need to sit unused for months only be tuned on in at worst a few minutes.
Peaking power is the economical option for heatwaves or other extreme power demands. At the extreme it might actually be a backup generator pulling double duty. So what if it’s running on diesel if it’s only tuned on for 100 hours a decade fuel costs aren’t that relevant.
>California has a large surplus of renewable energy
Yes, that's why CA has had rolling blackouts and public requests for citizens to lower their use during peak hours because all of this surplus.
Yes, that's why CA has had rolling blackouts and public requests for citizens to lower their use during peak hours because all of this surplus.
Peak demand doesn’t line up with peak solar + wind production. Look at an annual graph for spot prices for electricity at each of Californias nodes.
In short, AC demand is variable based on local weather conditions infrastructure however needs to be paid for every day.
In short, AC demand is variable based on local weather conditions infrastructure however needs to be paid for every day.
Doesn't California have blackouts on, what would be considered in Europe as, a fequent basis?
And flex periods where it gets extremely expensive if you do use electricity. When my son was born we had no choice but to run the AC in a heat wave, during a flex period with rolling blackouts. That power bill sucked.
Both planned and unplanned. Get a bit of rain or light wind in LA and you'll see brownouts at the very least throughout the city. The past two years hasn't been so bad but previous to that the only place I had been with more frequent outages was Albania and Kosovo in 2005.
That’s a different issue. Base load power plants are supposed to produce maximum power as close to 24/7/365 days as possible. You don’t want a fully base load grid because demand isn’t constant.
Insufficient supply for rare peaks is a sign you lack peaking power plants.
Insufficient supply for rare peaks is a sign you lack peaking power plants.
California had a capacity-related blackout lasting less than an hour affecting fewer than 1% of customers, more than a year ago. So, no?
> California had a capacity-related blackout lasting less than an hour affecting fewer than 1% of customers, more than a year ago. So, no?
I'm not sure where you got your information, but last year more than 800,000 homes and businesses unexpectedly lost power for 2 days according to NBC[0].
This year, in order to prevent the unexpected loss of power, many people were subjected to Rolling Blackouts[1] where their power was scheduled to be turned off for hours at a time and they had no choice in the matter.
[0] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-warned-brace...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_blackout
I'm not sure where you got your information, but last year more than 800,000 homes and businesses unexpectedly lost power for 2 days according to NBC[0].
This year, in order to prevent the unexpected loss of power, many people were subjected to Rolling Blackouts[1] where their power was scheduled to be turned off for hours at a time and they had no choice in the matter.
[0] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-warned-brace...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_blackout
Oddly enough I prefer primary sources over mainstream TV stations.
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Final-Root-Cause-Analysis-Mid...
The characterization that anyone "lost power for 2 days" is totally wrong. The longest period of load shedding in August 2020 was 150 minutes affecting 300k customers. 500MW of load was disconnected, that's ~1% of the CAISO demand.
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Final-Root-Cause-Analysis-Mid...
The characterization that anyone "lost power for 2 days" is totally wrong. The longest period of load shedding in August 2020 was 150 minutes affecting 300k customers. 500MW of load was disconnected, that's ~1% of the CAISO demand.
Load Shedding is the planned rolling blackouts.
People unexpectedly lost power for up to 2 days.
People unexpectedly lost power for up to 2 days.
Power loss for 2 days has nothing to do with insufficient generating capacity. When that happens they do rolling blackouts across large area to avoid people freezers melting etc.
If nothing else demand varies over the course of the day so unless there is very widespread issues with generation like in Texas generation capacity should be sufficient at some point in the day.
If nothing else demand varies over the course of the day so unless there is very widespread issues with generation like in Texas generation capacity should be sufficient at some point in the day.
[deleted]
It's an issue with naive free market electricity setup, which allows intermittent non-schedulable power source drop price of static ones.
Then you find out that you don't have power when the cheap sources don't work...
Then you find out that you don't have power when the cheap sources don't work...
People who decry climate change as a crisis but are not willing to confront the use of nuclear power lose large amounts of credibility in my opinion. Full stop.
I am not bullish on new nuclear. It takes too long to get a plant up and running, and from a cost perspective renewables are cheaper today and will only continue to get cheaper over time. Plus, no risk of irradiating a city.
That being said, decommissioning existing nuclear plants instead of doing whatever investment needed to keep them running is astonishing.
That being said, decommissioning existing nuclear plants instead of doing whatever investment needed to keep them running is astonishing.
It only takes so long and costs so much because of the over regulation and red tape.
Nuclear is a backup power for when renewables fail. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine.
Nuclear is a backup power for when renewables fail. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine.
"Regulation and red tape" is a very hard problem to solve. I don't see a clear path to low-regulation nuclear power due to its political toxicity and the actual need for safety.
Just look at the Seabrook Station power plant in New Hampshire. "Two reactors were planned at Seabrook but the first unit didn't begin full operation until 1990, a full 14 years after the construction permit was granted, and the second unit was never built due to construction delays caused by protests, cost overruns, and troubles obtaining financing. The difficulties led to the bankruptcy of Seabrook's utility owner, PSNH."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabrook_Station_Nuclear_Power...
Just look at the Seabrook Station power plant in New Hampshire. "Two reactors were planned at Seabrook but the first unit didn't begin full operation until 1990, a full 14 years after the construction permit was granted, and the second unit was never built due to construction delays caused by protests, cost overruns, and troubles obtaining financing. The difficulties led to the bankruptcy of Seabrook's utility owner, PSNH."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabrook_Station_Nuclear_Power...
That's definitely an outlier when it comes to build times,
avg. construction time is 7.5 years for the 441 reactors in use today.
http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle...
http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle...
Please see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28774444
Tl;dr nuclear is safe. But if it goes wrong, the cleanup costs can wipe out decades of profits.
That's why it's so expensive, and why private insurers refuse to touch it. Insuring it is the proverbial picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.
Downvoters: feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd love to learn more. I have no axe to grind against nuclear.
Tl;dr nuclear is safe. But if it goes wrong, the cleanup costs can wipe out decades of profits.
That's why it's so expensive, and why private insurers refuse to touch it. Insuring it is the proverbial picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.
Downvoters: feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd love to learn more. I have no axe to grind against nuclear.
If you average those clean-up costs for every nuclear plant in the world and how long they have been running then it isn't expensive at all.
Are you sure? I couldn't find figures on global nuclear industry profits. Best I could do was revenue (about $2tn in 2021)[1].
If we assume nuclear has a gross profit margin of 10% like other utilities[2] then Fukushima's cleanup and compensation costs amounted to 1 year of all nuclear industry gross profits in 2021 (adjusting for the size of the industry in 2011, the various points in time when those costs were incurred, and inflation is too complex to go into here).
That's clearly a fuckton of money. Insuring against it is expensive. Blaming "regulations and tree-hugging environmentalists" for nuclear energy being expensive seems dishonest to me.
1. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210721005453/en/Nuc...
2. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-average...
If we assume nuclear has a gross profit margin of 10% like other utilities[2] then Fukushima's cleanup and compensation costs amounted to 1 year of all nuclear industry gross profits in 2021 (adjusting for the size of the industry in 2011, the various points in time when those costs were incurred, and inflation is too complex to go into here).
That's clearly a fuckton of money. Insuring against it is expensive. Blaming "regulations and tree-hugging environmentalists" for nuclear energy being expensive seems dishonest to me.
1. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210721005453/en/Nuc...
2. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-average...
Yeah, so having such an accident to clean up every 30 years would make nuclear about 1% more expensive than now if you take it into account. So it is hardly a big factor in the cost of nuclear.
That math works out only if all the nuclear power plants in the world pay into a single risk pool. Which they don't.
Do you know how much companies actually pay for private insurance in the US? I haven't been able to find details. But I did learn that private insurance caps out at $450m and the industry as a whole agrees to cover costs above that (out of their own policies) up to $12b or so. Above that, it's up to Congress to come up with the money.[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
Do you know how much companies actually pay for private insurance in the US? I haven't been able to find details. But I did learn that private insurance caps out at $450m and the industry as a whole agrees to cover costs above that (out of their own policies) up to $12b or so. Above that, it's up to Congress to come up with the money.[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
It would be interesting to compare the cost of all nuclear cleanup, vs the cleanup costs of all the oil spills
That's fair. But we're not talking about nuclear vs fossil fuels. Nuclear is obviously better than anything carbon.
The debate is nuclear vs solar, wind, and hydro and how the case for nuclear is framed as "ack-chually, nuclear is better than renewables and would cost less if only those damned tree-hugging libs would get over their irrational fears"
The debate is nuclear vs solar, wind, and hydro and how the case for nuclear is framed as "ack-chually, nuclear is better than renewables and would cost less if only those damned tree-hugging libs would get over their irrational fears"
True. I guess I still see a constant power source as a requirement, so the comparison to green energy doesn't even matter at this point, but it's the goal.
My comment was more curiosity than disagreement
My comment was more curiosity than disagreement
Renewables may be cheaper to build, maintain, and decommission but the problem is sometimes the sun doesn't shine and there is no wind. We would have to build storage which is expensive and hope we get enough sun and wind before we run out of what we stored. Why not also use nuclear which doesn't have any of those problems? Sure it maybe more expensive but it is reliable.
the west has lost nay will to do things more than Q calls away. I really hope coruption and maoism will broke china from the inside or we will be fucked
Yeah, that was my first thought, about the argument against building new nuclear plants.
Opponents: "Yeah, in theory nuclear is better, but it's just too expensive and would take too long to scale up compared to the timetable of global warming, so it's not a viable option."
Also opponents: "Shut down existing plants, where that money/time cost has already been paid."
Opponents: "Yeah, in theory nuclear is better, but it's just too expensive and would take too long to scale up compared to the timetable of global warming, so it's not a viable option."
Also opponents: "Shut down existing plants, where that money/time cost has already been paid."
> It takes too long to get a plant up and running
In 2030, people will still be against building new nuclear plants because it takes 10 years to build.
In 2030, people will still be against building new nuclear plants because it takes 10 years to build.
> I am not bullish on new nuclear. It takes too long to get a plant up and running, and from a cost perspective renewables are cheaper today and will only continue to get cheaper over time. Plus, no risk of irradiating a city.
All valid points, and I'm less anti-nuclear now more than I am anti-20th Century Nuclear these days. Still, I too see the net benefit for renewables to increase it's ~33% Market share over the years in CA. It's incredibly foolish how little CA has spent in water reclamation and aggressively expanding renewable energy given it's ROI to the entire grid.
> That being said, decommissioning existing nuclear plants instead of doing whatever investment needed to keep them running is astonishing.
I's not astonishing, and you should really understand the nature of how corrupt, incompetent, and myopic the NRC are. Look no further than Mitsubishi's and SoCal Edison's handling of San Onofre Nuclear Power plant.
I lived through it and that along with how TEPCO/Nuclear Village/Edo Government poorly handled Fuksuhima in 2011 it became clear that this technology, while holding a great deal of promise is simply not regulated or managed properly and that in it's current state could not continue to be allowed to operate without posing an immense risk given it's location along the San Andrea's fault line. You know, that active seismic area that every Californian has been told will eventually create the next 'big one' that will make Northridge look like a Sunday picnic?
While I do not like the idea of activating more fossil fuel based plants, it's with the understanding that we will never be 100% on renewable as the challenges of storage and 24H capacity will always require to have a source for base load energy during inclement and unfavorable weather.
The goal is to keep the fossil fuel based plant active while renewable continue to grow.
All valid points, and I'm less anti-nuclear now more than I am anti-20th Century Nuclear these days. Still, I too see the net benefit for renewables to increase it's ~33% Market share over the years in CA. It's incredibly foolish how little CA has spent in water reclamation and aggressively expanding renewable energy given it's ROI to the entire grid.
> That being said, decommissioning existing nuclear plants instead of doing whatever investment needed to keep them running is astonishing.
I's not astonishing, and you should really understand the nature of how corrupt, incompetent, and myopic the NRC are. Look no further than Mitsubishi's and SoCal Edison's handling of San Onofre Nuclear Power plant.
I lived through it and that along with how TEPCO/Nuclear Village/Edo Government poorly handled Fuksuhima in 2011 it became clear that this technology, while holding a great deal of promise is simply not regulated or managed properly and that in it's current state could not continue to be allowed to operate without posing an immense risk given it's location along the San Andrea's fault line. You know, that active seismic area that every Californian has been told will eventually create the next 'big one' that will make Northridge look like a Sunday picnic?
While I do not like the idea of activating more fossil fuel based plants, it's with the understanding that we will never be 100% on renewable as the challenges of storage and 24H capacity will always require to have a source for base load energy during inclement and unfavorable weather.
The goal is to keep the fossil fuel based plant active while renewable continue to grow.
Do other renewables have the same capacity as new nuclear? I had thought this was a sticking point.
Nuclear is not considered a renewable energy source, as FYI. Uranium is mined and is not renewable.
Capacity for renewables is as much as we want. We could cover the whole Southwest in solar panels and generate 10x more power than the world would ever need.
Capacity for renewables is as much as we want. We could cover the whole Southwest in solar panels and generate 10x more power than the world would ever need.
I am personally bullish on nuclear power, especially gen 3+ reactors.
I also think that nuclear advocates really shoot themselves in the foot when they say things like "it's just people being worried about scaremongering." It's true that many people over-rate the risk of health impacts and there is a real history of facilities becoming burdens for their sited communities. They become burdens both because of overblown fear and industry incompetence and poor lifecycle planning, but the history is real. You don't have to believe any FUD about nuclear disasters to see the graveyards of plants that were not financially sustainable.
I get that you need to use different tools to solve public perception problems, but they can sink an engineering project just like technical problems and I think we need to grapple with that reality if we want nuclear power to be at the center of our climate solution.
I also think that nuclear advocates really shoot themselves in the foot when they say things like "it's just people being worried about scaremongering." It's true that many people over-rate the risk of health impacts and there is a real history of facilities becoming burdens for their sited communities. They become burdens both because of overblown fear and industry incompetence and poor lifecycle planning, but the history is real. You don't have to believe any FUD about nuclear disasters to see the graveyards of plants that were not financially sustainable.
I get that you need to use different tools to solve public perception problems, but they can sink an engineering project just like technical problems and I think we need to grapple with that reality if we want nuclear power to be at the center of our climate solution.
I've been really disappointed by the politics around nuclear energy and renewables. The two should not be treated as opposing choices. In all likelihood, we need a diversified strategy. There are downsides to renewables as well (https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/finally-they-adm...), like peppering our lands and natural marine environments with solar panels or giant turbines. The fears around nuclear energy are overblown, particularly with the newest generation reactors. We need to move quickly to make them at least just a part of our overall energy strategy. The window is closing quickly, since all signs point to America and European nations losing the ability to construct such complex things entirely from the collapse of the nuclear industry.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/04/03/califor...
California imports 33% of its electricity from other states, which is mostly generated by coal and gas.
California imports 33% of its electricity from other states, which is mostly generated by coal and gas.
California imported about 30% of its energy in 2020 and only 19% of it was from coal and gas. California imports more wind than coal and gas together. Hydro is the other major import which makes sense because of Oregon.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
> clean, reliable, safe energy that gets us further away from carbon fuel
> shut those all down first anyways
What grand conspiracy am I missing? How does a miss like this happen?
What grand conspiracy am I missing? How does a miss like this happen?
A majority of men support nuclear power, a majority of women opposes it: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3726846/mo...
I have a hard time interpreting this as anything else than being the result of greater female risk aversion and their increased influence in politics.
I have a hard time interpreting this as anything else than being the result of greater female risk aversion and their increased influence in politics.
> What grand conspiracy am I missing? How does a miss like this happen?
The actual factual events and details? There was NOTHING safe about how SONGS and to a lesser extent Diablo Canyon operated.
Violations, falsified safety reports, and continued maintenance costs for upkeep make it untenable to keep them open given the immense risk being taken for less than 9% of total power consumption in CA.
I find Tech's view of Nuclear to be so childlike that I wonder if anyone has actually done more than watched some influencer de jour's hand waving podcast on it being the magic bullet to everything and actually taken the time to visit the areas in which these plants are and just look at the physical infrastructure bottle necks they create in the event of an evacuation since they are built along the coasts and more importantly the San Andrea's fault line.
SONGS was built next to a Military base (which means it cannot be accessed by citizens) and one of the most congested freeways in all of SoCal, that means you seriously have no way of leaving without creating a massive amount of traffic. Which means that evacuation is impossible.
Look at how people fled to higher ground during Fukushima's Tsunami, that would be impossible for most residents in the S. OC and N. San Diego areas in the case of such an event. It was simply bad city planning at a time when it was clear that profits > safety and Edison built these with reckless and headlong abandon.
Personally speaking this is so typical of 20th Century thinking that if we have to start from scratch to get these new 'miracle' power plants up and running, or create an incentive for renewable to increase it's share than so be it.
Personally speaking, I just wonder why rather than discussing an endless need to adding more power to the grid is never challenged and the thought about consuming less isn't discussed more.
Then again, that is just another reason why I don't live in CA anymore, either. Nuance seems to be entirely lost on the most critical topics, be it energy, water, housing, homelessness etc...
The actual factual events and details? There was NOTHING safe about how SONGS and to a lesser extent Diablo Canyon operated.
Violations, falsified safety reports, and continued maintenance costs for upkeep make it untenable to keep them open given the immense risk being taken for less than 9% of total power consumption in CA.
I find Tech's view of Nuclear to be so childlike that I wonder if anyone has actually done more than watched some influencer de jour's hand waving podcast on it being the magic bullet to everything and actually taken the time to visit the areas in which these plants are and just look at the physical infrastructure bottle necks they create in the event of an evacuation since they are built along the coasts and more importantly the San Andrea's fault line.
SONGS was built next to a Military base (which means it cannot be accessed by citizens) and one of the most congested freeways in all of SoCal, that means you seriously have no way of leaving without creating a massive amount of traffic. Which means that evacuation is impossible.
Look at how people fled to higher ground during Fukushima's Tsunami, that would be impossible for most residents in the S. OC and N. San Diego areas in the case of such an event. It was simply bad city planning at a time when it was clear that profits > safety and Edison built these with reckless and headlong abandon.
Personally speaking this is so typical of 20th Century thinking that if we have to start from scratch to get these new 'miracle' power plants up and running, or create an incentive for renewable to increase it's share than so be it.
Personally speaking, I just wonder why rather than discussing an endless need to adding more power to the grid is never challenged and the thought about consuming less isn't discussed more.
Then again, that is just another reason why I don't live in CA anymore, either. Nuance seems to be entirely lost on the most critical topics, be it energy, water, housing, homelessness etc...
Grids should be what, 80% renewables and 20% nuclear base load? It should not matter if renewables are cheaper than nuclear, because 20% base load isn't fungible for renewables to be swapped in. The natural gas / coal base load is not pricing in it's externalities. The only way nuclear should be going away is if the cost of burning fossil fuels as base load AND capturing 100% of it's emissions is less than nuclear... That or massive grid scale batteries, which doesn't seem plausible anytime in the next couple decades.
>On Friday, Sept. 10, the U.S. Department of Energy granted the state an emergency order to allow natural gas power plants to operate without pollution restrictions so that California can meet its energy obligations. The order is in effect until Nov. 9.
This is crazy. Are they just going to buy more power after this or extend this order? Is there a plan to replace this with renewable energy sources?
This is crazy. Are they just going to buy more power after this or extend this order? Is there a plan to replace this with renewable energy sources?
[deleted]
You could easily skip over the bits where people say it's too expensive in amongst the verbiage that's so confused about why the plant is being shut down.
Morons
See this graph:
https://i.redd.it/943wmdyx3zr71.png
If you include fuels in the picture, resources for gas and coal fired plants are of course dwarfed by fuel consumption; but NOT nuclear. In a resource-constrained environment, nuclear is the best energy source by an incredibly large margin.
Renewables IMO simply are unworkable. A pipe dream. They never will represent a large part of our energy. They simply can't.
https://i.redd.it/943wmdyx3zr71.png
If you include fuels in the picture, resources for gas and coal fired plants are of course dwarfed by fuel consumption; but NOT nuclear. In a resource-constrained environment, nuclear is the best energy source by an incredibly large margin.
Renewables IMO simply are unworkable. A pipe dream. They never will represent a large part of our energy. They simply can't.
Will it be possible to reverse this decision later? Or will they brick the plant completely in short order?
The die was cast a few years ago when the decision was made not to pursue relicensing. The dates when the units will be shut down have already been written on the calendar in ink.
Actual decommissioning timelines are more uncertain, largely because PG&E could choose to sell the site to a company that specializes in decommissioning and remediating nuclear power plant sites in a profitable manner.
Actual decommissioning timelines are more uncertain, largely because PG&E could choose to sell the site to a company that specializes in decommissioning and remediating nuclear power plant sites in a profitable manner.
Right, but could we relicense a place whose license lapsed, if they didn't start physically decomissioning it?
I suppose you could, but I'm pretty sure it would be financially ruinous. Relicensing is a multiyear process, and since it hasn't been started you'd have an enforced outage with both units for months to years. That would hemorrhage cash at an eye-watering rate.
Even just having one unit down for an refueling outage is financially a big deal, which is why utilities bring in contract workers in droves to get as much work done as possible during the scheduled outage. If a nuke plant isn't running at 100% you're almost certainly going to lose money, which when combined with California's renewables policy is the biggest region PG&E is closing the plant.
Even just having one unit down for an refueling outage is financially a big deal, which is why utilities bring in contract workers in droves to get as much work done as possible during the scheduled outage. If a nuke plant isn't running at 100% you're almost certainly going to lose money, which when combined with California's renewables policy is the biggest region PG&E is closing the plant.
What a travesty. Sounds from the article that the consumer purchase agreements are largely to blame?
As power becomes increasingly unreliable in California, even more businesses and people will leave in the growing exodus. (I bought a generator last time)
Intellectually being anti-nuclear is the same position as being anti-vaccines (talking not only about COVID here) and anti-GMO.
I group all those people as having blood on their hands. But this is only helping me vent and not really conductive to a better discussion.
Nuclear is the only hope we have to fight climate change
My pet conspiracy theory: all of the anti-nuclear fear and activists are bankrolled by big oil.
How else can you explain humans turning their backs on the safest and cleanest form of energy per megawatt we have ever created?
How else can you explain humans turning their backs on the safest and cleanest form of energy per megawatt we have ever created?
I'll go against the grain and say that I do think that's possible (I'm not sure why people let these companies put it past them), but if that was something big oil wanted then I don't know why they would facilitate the conspiracy themselves. Enough average Americans are already frightened enough by minor things that all you have to do is wait for film and TV to use nuclear disaster as entertainment for people to become adequately scared. No need for so much as a backroom handshake. When the population is adequately infantilized, let civilization take its course and it will scare itself.
The real conspiracy, and it's not so much a conspiracy as confluence, is that the same powers that suggest that we need to take drastic action to curb climate change take little action in implementing real solutions. With all the hand waving around climate change, you'd think by now we would have an "Operation Warp Speed" for implementing more nuclear and developing large scale CO2 scrubbing. As far as I know, there's been little appreciable effort in that direction. But when it comes to actions that line pockets (electric cars serve not only car companies but fossil fuels and lithium mining), are adverse to civilization (intentional blackouts), and so on, America excels. The actual will to address climate change simply isn't there because modern regimes need crises to occur in order to maintain the illusion that they are even needed at the massive scale in which they currently exist. From corporate America to the depths of the federal government, in the back of our minds we know that most of us are excessive and therefore we need to manufacture reasons for our own existence. The concept of "bullshit jobs" has become popularized in recent years, but the same phenomenon happens at a much larger scale. Much of how countries like America operates is exactly like a bullshit corporate job. In fact, federal and state governments are the mass personification of flunkies, goons, box tickers, duct tapers, and taskmasters. Without crises, there's nothing for those bullshit job archetypes to do. Even the mainstream media addicts and zealots of either political party would have nothing to revere or resent.
The real conspiracy, and it's not so much a conspiracy as confluence, is that the same powers that suggest that we need to take drastic action to curb climate change take little action in implementing real solutions. With all the hand waving around climate change, you'd think by now we would have an "Operation Warp Speed" for implementing more nuclear and developing large scale CO2 scrubbing. As far as I know, there's been little appreciable effort in that direction. But when it comes to actions that line pockets (electric cars serve not only car companies but fossil fuels and lithium mining), are adverse to civilization (intentional blackouts), and so on, America excels. The actual will to address climate change simply isn't there because modern regimes need crises to occur in order to maintain the illusion that they are even needed at the massive scale in which they currently exist. From corporate America to the depths of the federal government, in the back of our minds we know that most of us are excessive and therefore we need to manufacture reasons for our own existence. The concept of "bullshit jobs" has become popularized in recent years, but the same phenomenon happens at a much larger scale. Much of how countries like America operates is exactly like a bullshit corporate job. In fact, federal and state governments are the mass personification of flunkies, goons, box tickers, duct tapers, and taskmasters. Without crises, there's nothing for those bullshit job archetypes to do. Even the mainstream media addicts and zealots of either political party would have nothing to revere or resent.
I'm pretty sure big oil supports solar/wind because they take the shine away from nuclear.
Fukushima.
Three Mile Island.
Chernobyl.
Kyshtym.
When a solar plant breaks down or a dam bursts the worst that can happen is a minor inconvenience. When you get a nuclear meltdown you get land uninhabitable for literal millennia and global contamination.
Three Mile Island.
Chernobyl.
Kyshtym.
When a solar plant breaks down or a dam bursts the worst that can happen is a minor inconvenience. When you get a nuclear meltdown you get land uninhabitable for literal millennia and global contamination.
I had to look the last one up:
> The Kyshtym disaster, sometimes referred to as the Mayak disaster or Ozyorsk disaster in newer sources, was a radioactive contamination accident that occurred on 29 September 1957 at Mayak, a plutonium production site for nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel reprocessing plant located in the closed city of Chelyabinsk-40 (now Ozyorsk) in Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union
So it's even less related to this nuclear power plant than Chernobyl. The only incident vaguely relatable is Fukushima, and guess what, they weren't really up to the required security standards and it took an enormous earthquake and tsunami to do actual damage, which is still very limited and resulted in less deaths than what, a month of a coal power plant?
> dam bursts the worst that can happen is a minor inconvenience
Seriously? Dam failures can be catastrophic and very deadly:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
> The Kyshtym disaster, sometimes referred to as the Mayak disaster or Ozyorsk disaster in newer sources, was a radioactive contamination accident that occurred on 29 September 1957 at Mayak, a plutonium production site for nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel reprocessing plant located in the closed city of Chelyabinsk-40 (now Ozyorsk) in Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union
So it's even less related to this nuclear power plant than Chernobyl. The only incident vaguely relatable is Fukushima, and guess what, they weren't really up to the required security standards and it took an enormous earthquake and tsunami to do actual damage, which is still very limited and resulted in less deaths than what, a month of a coal power plant?
> dam bursts the worst that can happen is a minor inconvenience
Seriously? Dam failures can be catastrophic and very deadly:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
A dam bursting can cause mass fatalities, it's definitely a lot more severe than a minor inconvenience.
And the alternative to nuclear at the moment isn't really solar or hydropower (most places aren't suitable for it) but rather coal and gas. And those are continually polluting the environment not just with CO2 but also carcinogens and other pollutants.
Of that list of accidents only Chernobyl is still uninhabitable, so it's hardly "literal millennia"
Three Mile Island didn't even kill anyone and many believe neither did Fukushima.
And the alternative to nuclear at the moment isn't really solar or hydropower (most places aren't suitable for it) but rather coal and gas. And those are continually polluting the environment not just with CO2 but also carcinogens and other pollutants.
Of that list of accidents only Chernobyl is still uninhabitable, so it's hardly "literal millennia"
Three Mile Island didn't even kill anyone and many believe neither did Fukushima.
Please cite your sources. There are people living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/moving_to_Cherno...
All nuclear incidents together caused less than 1% of yearly deaths from coal.
When a dam bursts, it is not “a minor inconvenience”. There tend to be a lot of people living downstream.
Banqiao and Shimantan dams failure: 240,000 deaths, 11 million homes destroyed
> minor inconvenience
Hmmm.
> minor inconvenience
Hmmm.
Not sure why anyone would downvote this. Legitimate or not, a lot of public fear about nuclear energy is due to the first three names on that list.
Because there is no major contamination from Fukushima and Three Mile Island.
I'm convinced most people got confused with the Fukushima and the actual Tsunami damage to Japan at some subconscious level.
I'm convinced most people got confused with the Fukushima and the actual Tsunami damage to Japan at some subconscious level.
I suspect he's saying people are AFRAID of nuclear because of those incidents; not that the fear is rational.
PP said it's about perception, true are false. That I agreed with. But GP had no qualifications.
> When a solar plant breaks down or a dam bursts the worst that can happen is a minor inconvenience. When you get a nuclear meltdown you get land uninhabitable for literal millennia and global contamination.
This is a not a fair comparison if we are talking facts not perceptions. It ignores issues of storage that doesn't make the energy outputs commensurate. It ignores the constant polution and health issue stemming from fossil fuel power plants when nothing goes wrong --- since the ability to use solar and wind wihtout those is as-of-yet undemonstrated at scale.
> When a solar plant breaks down or a dam bursts the worst that can happen is a minor inconvenience. When you get a nuclear meltdown you get land uninhabitable for literal millennia and global contamination.
This is a not a fair comparison if we are talking facts not perceptions. It ignores issues of storage that doesn't make the energy outputs commensurate. It ignores the constant polution and health issue stemming from fossil fuel power plants when nothing goes wrong --- since the ability to use solar and wind wihtout those is as-of-yet undemonstrated at scale.
Because it is not legitimate.
But it is the correct answer to the question of why people have turned their back on nuclear energy.
Extremely weird slant on this article. First, I don't get the negativity around flex alerts. They just ask people to conserve and that actually works. Conservation should be our #1 tool, so what's wrong with this? It's literally a few hours per year.
Second, it's not like Diablo Canyon is out there heroically preventing rolling blackouts. The last time California had capacity-related blackouts it was because Diablo Canyon had both reactors offline. The reliability of these specific reactors has been atrocious.
Second, it's not like Diablo Canyon is out there heroically preventing rolling blackouts. The last time California had capacity-related blackouts it was because Diablo Canyon had both reactors offline. The reliability of these specific reactors has been atrocious.