5 ms·

This is a bad idea. Wind and solar are simply not enough to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and fusion.[0] Shutting down the country's safest, cheapest, an

by s_q_b 10y ago

This is a bad idea. Wind and solar are simply not enough to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and fusion.[0] Shutting down the country's safest, cheapest, and most consistent method of power generation would be disastrous. [0]http://phys.org/news/2013-11-experts-nuclear-power.html http://phys.org/news/2013-11-experts-nuclear-power.html Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter... urges a crucial discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change. Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable energy will be able to power the world within the next few decades. That isn't realistic, the letter said. "Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and "with the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology" that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases. The letter signers are James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in Australia.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Math please? There is enough wind and solar potential in the United States to meet our energy needs several times over, even when including moving all light vehicles to electric.
- jankiel 10y ago
  There's a big gap between potential and making it work risht now. How much would that cost?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    A nuclear plant costs ~$9 billion (before cost overruns) per generating unit, and ~10 years to build. Whether that's less or more than solar isn't the point; there isn't time, and no one will finance one. Utility scale solar is ~$1/kw, and can be operational in a fraction of the time. Importantly, costs continue to decline. Planned utility scale generation coming online in the next year: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.... (note its almost exclusively solar and wind) Battery storage costs are falling as fast, if not faster, than renewables did: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_re... http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-about-ready-to-take-off/407096/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-... There is no other option other than wind and solar, full speed ahead.
    - archgoon 10y ago
      > there isn't time There's even less time when you're taking existing power capacity offline.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        And yet, PG&E has said they'll be able to replace the displaced generation with renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage. Build. more. renewables. faster.
        archgoon 10y ago
        Which means they could have put out twice the clean energy in ten years time if they didn't have to shut down the nuclear plant.
        fennecfoxen 10y ago
        > And yet, PG&E has said they'll be able to replace the displaced generation with renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage. And I'm sure that's exactly what the regulators and the politicians controlling the regulators want to hear. Smart business sense, given the political climate in a state that sees its insurance commissioner trying to strongarm insurance companies doing business in the state into not owning anything related to coal.
    - s_q_b 10y ago
      The calculations regarding the relative feasibility of energy sources include the decline in expense. Assuming molten salt energy storage progresses, storage costs decline steeply. Even including these (very optimistic) projected price declines, solar and wind energy are not enough. Hence why the very same leading climate scientists who first alerted the world of global warming wrote a detailed public statement pleading for use of nuclear power, and stating that renewables are insufficient to stop climate change. To believe that all four of them, PhDs hailing from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country with decades of experience, failed to include projected price declines is simply incorrect.
- pstrateman 10y ago
  The storage costs are the issue. The grid cannot realistically be more than about 20-30% solar PV without matching storage. Storage is expensive, like 20-30 cents/kWh expensive. It's just not competitive with natural gas which is available for ~6 cents/kWh.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Storage is not 20-30 cents/kWh. Storage alone, provided by Solar City in Hawaii, is 14.5 cents/kWh as of this year [1]. These costs will only continue to decline [2]. The price of natural gas will increase again [3] (and currently, its closer to 7-10 cents/kWh, not 6); when that does, it only makes renewables more competitive. Renewables will never get more expensive than they are today; coal will be gone in the next 3-5 years, and natural gas not far behind. [1] http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/19/solarcity-deploy-tesla-energy-batteries-52-mwh-evening-electricity-storage-kauai-hawai%CA%BBi/ http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/19/solarcity-deploy-tesla-e... [2] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/26/ev-battery-costs-already-probably-cheaper-than-2020-projections/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/26/ev-battery-costs-already... [3] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm
    - pstrateman 10y ago
      That's certainly an improvement from 20-30 cents/kWh. However for solar PV with storage to replace natural gas their combined cost is going to need to be less than 6 cents/kWh. The combined cost of solar PV and storage is currently 20-50 cents/kWh. Do you really see a 10x performance/cost improvement right around the corner?
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        > Do you really see a 10x performance/cost improvement right around the corner? I see batteries under $100/kWh in <5 years.
kristopolous 10y ago
USGS thinks the Diablo Canyon plant should be shutdown (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-USGS-disagree-on-Diablo-Canyon-fault-danger-2354326.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-USGS-disagree-on-Dia...) Then at the NRC, there's been multiple DPOs (deferring opinions) (e.g. http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1425/ML14252A743.pdf http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1425/ML14252A743.pdf) The UCSUSA has weighed in on its concerns (http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-accidents/diablo-canyon-earthquake-seismic-risk http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-accidents/...) When the USGS, NRC, and UCSUSA think something is a bad idea, it's worth listening to them - these aren't anti-nuke people. There are serious complaints from qualified people about the safety of a specific thing. Please don't inflate this to some generalized "anti-nuclear" movement - it's not about that.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Oh certainly the Diablo Canyon plant needs to go. It's running two Gen. II reactors with no passive safety systems in a seismically active zone along a coastline vulnerable to flooding and tsunamis. It's actually rather startling that they closed that plant last. But I'm not making this about nuclear power in general. The State of California and the media have already done a fine job of that.
  - kristopolous 10y ago
    it's an interesting problem. I understand why these engineers and scientists went through the anti-nuke network to get this thing done, but then the media will frame this as an anti-nuke thing instead of legitimate concern for one specific thing. I came up with an analogy to help me think about this. Say you are a medical researcher and found some serious adverse health effects to an abortion pill and as a medical professional you think it's unsafe to be on the market. Who do you go through to take action and how will this be portrayed in the media? You have a problem on your hands.
  - TheHypnotist 10y ago
    There are certainly plants that need to be shut down. However, the future of Nuclear and what's on the horizon in terms of reactor technology is so promising it can't be ignored.

by s_q_b 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago

Math please? There is enough wind and solar potential in the United States to meet our energy needs several times over, even when including moving all light vehicles to electric.

jankiel 10y ago
There's a big gap between potential and making it work risht now. How much would that cost?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  A nuclear plant costs ~$9 billion (before cost overruns) per generating unit, and ~10 years to build. Whether that's less or more than solar isn't the point; there isn't time, and no one will finance one. Utility scale solar is ~$1/kw, and can be operational in a fraction of the time. Importantly, costs continue to decline. Planned utility scale generation coming online in the next year: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.... (note its almost exclusively solar and wind) Battery storage costs are falling as fast, if not faster, than renewables did: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_re... http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-about-ready-to-take-off/407096/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-... There is no other option other than wind and solar, full speed ahead.
  - archgoon 10y ago
    > there isn't time There's even less time when you're taking existing power capacity offline.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      And yet, PG&E has said they'll be able to replace the displaced generation with renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage. Build. more. renewables. faster.
      - archgoon 10y ago
        Which means they could have put out twice the clean energy in ten years time if they didn't have to shut down the nuclear plant.
      - fennecfoxen 10y ago
        > And yet, PG&E has said they'll be able to replace the displaced generation with renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage. And I'm sure that's exactly what the regulators and the politicians controlling the regulators want to hear. Smart business sense, given the political climate in a state that sees its insurance commissioner trying to strongarm insurance companies doing business in the state into not owning anything related to coal.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    The calculations regarding the relative feasibility of energy sources include the decline in expense. Assuming molten salt energy storage progresses, storage costs decline steeply. Even including these (very optimistic) projected price declines, solar and wind energy are not enough. Hence why the very same leading climate scientists who first alerted the world of global warming wrote a detailed public statement pleading for use of nuclear power, and stating that renewables are insufficient to stop climate change. To believe that all four of them, PhDs hailing from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country with decades of experience, failed to include projected price declines is simply incorrect.
pstrateman 10y ago
The storage costs are the issue. The grid cannot realistically be more than about 20-30% solar PV without matching storage. Storage is expensive, like 20-30 cents/kWh expensive. It's just not competitive with natural gas which is available for ~6 cents/kWh.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Storage is not 20-30 cents/kWh. Storage alone, provided by Solar City in Hawaii, is 14.5 cents/kWh as of this year [1]. These costs will only continue to decline [2]. The price of natural gas will increase again [3] (and currently, its closer to 7-10 cents/kWh, not 6); when that does, it only makes renewables more competitive. Renewables will never get more expensive than they are today; coal will be gone in the next 3-5 years, and natural gas not far behind. [1] http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/19/solarcity-deploy-tesla-energy-batteries-52-mwh-evening-electricity-storage-kauai-hawai%CA%BBi/ http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/19/solarcity-deploy-tesla-e... [2] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/26/ev-battery-costs-already-probably-cheaper-than-2020-projections/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/26/ev-battery-costs-already... [3] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm
  - pstrateman 10y ago
    That's certainly an improvement from 20-30 cents/kWh. However for solar PV with storage to replace natural gas their combined cost is going to need to be less than 6 cents/kWh. The combined cost of solar PV and storage is currently 20-50 cents/kWh. Do you really see a 10x performance/cost improvement right around the corner?
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      > Do you really see a 10x performance/cost improvement right around the corner? I see batteries under $100/kWh in <5 years.

kristopolous 10y ago

USGS thinks the Diablo Canyon plant should be shutdown (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-USGS-disagree-on-Diablo-Canyon-fault-danger-2354326.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-USGS-disagree-on-Dia...) Then at the NRC, there's been multiple DPOs (deferring opinions) (e.g. http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1425/ML14252A743.pdf http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1425/ML14252A743.pdf) The UCSUSA has weighed in on its concerns (http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-accidents/diablo-canyon-earthquake-seismic-risk http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-accidents/...) When the USGS, NRC, and UCSUSA think something is a bad idea, it's worth listening to them - these aren't anti-nuke people. There are serious complaints from qualified people about the safety of a specific thing. Please don't inflate this to some generalized "anti-nuclear" movement - it's not about that.

s_q_b 10y ago
Oh certainly the Diablo Canyon plant needs to go. It's running two Gen. II reactors with no passive safety systems in a seismically active zone along a coastline vulnerable to flooding and tsunamis. It's actually rather startling that they closed that plant last. But I'm not making this about nuclear power in general. The State of California and the media have already done a fine job of that.
- kristopolous 10y ago
  it's an interesting problem. I understand why these engineers and scientists went through the anti-nuke network to get this thing done, but then the media will frame this as an anti-nuke thing instead of legitimate concern for one specific thing. I came up with an analogy to help me think about this. Say you are a medical researcher and found some serious adverse health effects to an abortion pill and as a medical professional you think it's unsafe to be on the market. Who do you go through to take action and how will this be portrayed in the media? You have a problem on your hands.
- TheHypnotist 10y ago
  There are certainly plants that need to be shut down. However, the future of Nuclear and what's on the horizon in terms of reactor technology is so promising it can't be ignored.