5 ms·

I appreciate Californians fighting PG&Es haphazard attempts to go nuclear, but on larger scale, how exactly are we supposed to ditch coal, natural gas, and oil

by fny 6y ago

I appreciate Californians fighting PG&Es haphazard attempts to go nuclear, but on larger scale, how exactly are we supposed to ditch coal, natural gas, and oil without nuclear power? No renewable source is reliable enough for sustained, reliable energy over long periods and batteries are no where near ready for the challenge (nor are they environmentally friendly.) While for 40 years California may have opposed nuclear power, it might be time for people to figure out how to make it work.

andbberger 6y ago
You appreciate it? Why? I certainly don't. If there was a problem it was PG&E, not nuclear energy, which there was never a rational argument against it. Big oil has been playing us like fiddles. I'm inheriting a broken world. Didn't have to be that way.
- fny 6y ago
  I'm agreeing with you. If you read the article, most of the opposition arose from PG&E botching nuclear. Especially given their track record over the last few years, I am /immensely/ appreciative that PG&E never had the chance to rollout nuclear in California. There are rational arguments against nuclear when the stewards are incompetent. :) It's high time we get the right engineers and companies in place to make the switch.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    Botching their public relations, sure. Bodega NGS was killed by scaring people about the fault, but they failed to convince people that a generating station being subject to "significant shaking" doesn't automatically equate to a dangerous situation. After all, a reactor can be brought sub-critical within 3 seconds: https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2012/12/28/what-is-a-reactor-trip-and-how-does-it-protect-the-plant/ https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2012/12/28/what-is-a-rea... "A reactor trip causes all the control rods to insert into the reactor core, and shut down the plant in a very short time (about three seconds)."
    - wl 6y ago
      I'm not sure how much this had to do with it, but the proposed site of Bodega NGS (Bodega Head) is one of the most beautiful and unique recreation areas on the California coast. I wasn't alive at the time, but I can't imagine their choice of site was helped by that when there's plenty of less unique coastline they could have built on.
      - Lammy 6y ago
        I’ve been there many times, and I agree the overhead wires would detract from the look especially of the inner coast, and I’m sure boaters would grumble some times when passing it, but the Head itself is a whole lot of scrub plants and nothing. Even the information placards celebrating the defeat of clean energy are unreadably weathered and the entire site obviously not cared for: https://i.imgur.com/TocVZoG.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/TocVZoG.jpeg
  - _huayra_ 6y ago
    I agree as well. Given the San Bruno gas explosion and the myriad fires started by unmaintained equipment, I'm glad PG&E didn't go wild with the "spicy rocks" way of making electricity. That said, I think most of the people who actually do the work (e.g. linemen, reactor operators) are definitely ready to do the work. A lot of my family works for PG&E in various capacities and everyone from the civil engineer to my lineman uncle love their job. What they all complain about is the pressure to run it like the profit-motivated "business" that it is, i.e. screw everyone but the C-suite including the rate payers. As much as people complain about the overreach of California's politics and how bloated it can be, I'd much rather have someone who is publicly accountable and can be removed by the voters as the head of PG&E. It's high time California eminent domain them to not serve up shoddy service to their constituents. I just hope more lives aren't lost due to PG&E inaction in the future, only to have them issue some "we're vewy sowy" half-assed apology while barely admitting any wrongdoing (if at all).
    - sep_field 6y ago
      https://letsownpge.org https://letsownpge.org has some answers to these issues.
  - andbberger 6y ago
    But PG&E successfully operated a handful of nuclear plants in California for decades and still operates Diablo Canyon... The stewards of our current energy sources aren't very responsible, their have been a number of rather catastrophic and avoidable accidents. Seems like a pick your poison kind of situation. I pick nuclear. Radiation is just not that big of a deal
redis_mlc 6y ago
> While for 40 years California may have opposed nuclear power, it might be time for people to figure out how to make it work. Let me know when you figure out how to make the operator pay the insurance, cleanup and decommissioning costs. HN nuclear fanbois keep evading this question. It will take the entire nation of Japan to clean up Fukushima.
- icodestuff 6y ago
  The NRC already requires that.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    No, it doesn't, and I wish the HN gaslighting would stop: - Operaring certificates keep getting extended, which pushes decommissioning into the future - there are US laws that distort the insurance market, passing the risk on to tax payers over $13 billion: https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/ https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-... Fukushima's cleanup estimate is already at $750 billion plus army resources, and estimates keep climbing. - US companies can create shell companies that isolate nuclear "divisions" financially.
- orwin 6y ago
  > It will take the entire nation of Japan to clean up Fukushima. Citation needed. Why don't people understand that the GIEC and UNSCEAR are essentially the same, except that the GIEC have one of their group focused on making politic statements (not the group i like the most, obviously). But if you trust the GIEC documentation and agregation, why not trust UNSCEAR's? I mean, you don't get to cherry pick science. If you're not a climate/radionuclear scientist, you should either distrust both UNSCEAR or GIEC, or trust both. Not GIEC Group3, they mostly heed scientific advice hopefully, but they are different.
jillesvangurp 6y ago
The reality is that lots of places are actively shutting down coal & nuclear already and are replacing them with wind, solar, and batteries without blackouts being a thing. All that takes is money. And even that is changing as wind and solar bids now routinely undercut everything else on the market. That's basically driving the transition in the most unlikely places (like oil and gas producing Texas or coal producing Virginia). Many places elsewhere have all but completed the transition to renewables and are well on their way to 100% renewable grids early next decade. That's not some fantasy, it's basically largely past tense in a lot of places not plagued by blackouts with any kind of frequency.
- Lammy 6y ago
  The electricity I buy from PG&E is generated primarily with natural gas https://news.yahoo.com/news/sierra-club-took-26-million-natural-gas-lobby-054500586.html https://news.yahoo.com/news/sierra-club-took-26-million-natu...
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  > All that takes is money. The biggest case against nuclear actually isn’t environmental, but economic: they still take a lot of money to build and rebuild after their useful life is over. The reason no one is fighting too hard to keep nuclear around as an option is because it simply isn’t feasible without the government subsidies handed out in the 60s and 70s. But nuclear with its really cheap fuel and the new ability to store power in batteries when demand is lower might be feasible if the capital and insurance costs can be tamed more.
  - DrBazza 6y ago
    > The reason no one is fighting too hard to keep nuclear around as an option is because it simply isn’t feasible without the government subsidies handed out in the 60s and 70s. I still find this argument hard to believe. The physics involved is pretty simple, immerse the rods in water, bring them together, water boils, water turns turbine. It's the polar opposite of fusion. What makes fission reactors cost money is the Government being involved from the first pen on paper, to the cutting of the ribbon and all the steps in between. Allowing private companies to design and build them, the Government to regulate, only, should reduce the price dramatically. SMRs are a thing: https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small...
29athrowaway 6y ago
Many nuclear power plants work by generating steam that moves a turbine. You can also achieve something similar using geothermal energy. Like this geothermal plant in California that generates 700 MW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5kYyGmoaFo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5kYyGmoaFo

by fny 6y ago

andbberger 6y ago

You appreciate it? Why? I certainly don't. If there was a problem it was PG&E, not nuclear energy, which there was never a rational argument against it. Big oil has been playing us like fiddles. I'm inheriting a broken world. Didn't have to be that way.

fny 6y ago
I'm agreeing with you. If you read the article, most of the opposition arose from PG&E botching nuclear. Especially given their track record over the last few years, I am /immensely/ appreciative that PG&E never had the chance to rollout nuclear in California. There are rational arguments against nuclear when the stewards are incompetent. :) It's high time we get the right engineers and companies in place to make the switch.
- Lammy 6y ago
  Botching their public relations, sure. Bodega NGS was killed by scaring people about the fault, but they failed to convince people that a generating station being subject to "significant shaking" doesn't automatically equate to a dangerous situation. After all, a reactor can be brought sub-critical within 3 seconds: https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2012/12/28/what-is-a-reactor-trip-and-how-does-it-protect-the-plant/ https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2012/12/28/what-is-a-rea... "A reactor trip causes all the control rods to insert into the reactor core, and shut down the plant in a very short time (about three seconds)."
  - wl 6y ago
    I'm not sure how much this had to do with it, but the proposed site of Bodega NGS (Bodega Head) is one of the most beautiful and unique recreation areas on the California coast. I wasn't alive at the time, but I can't imagine their choice of site was helped by that when there's plenty of less unique coastline they could have built on.
    - Lammy 6y ago
      I’ve been there many times, and I agree the overhead wires would detract from the look especially of the inner coast, and I’m sure boaters would grumble some times when passing it, but the Head itself is a whole lot of scrub plants and nothing. Even the information placards celebrating the defeat of clean energy are unreadably weathered and the entire site obviously not cared for: https://i.imgur.com/TocVZoG.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/TocVZoG.jpeg
- _huayra_ 6y ago
  I agree as well. Given the San Bruno gas explosion and the myriad fires started by unmaintained equipment, I'm glad PG&E didn't go wild with the "spicy rocks" way of making electricity. That said, I think most of the people who actually do the work (e.g. linemen, reactor operators) are definitely ready to do the work. A lot of my family works for PG&E in various capacities and everyone from the civil engineer to my lineman uncle love their job. What they all complain about is the pressure to run it like the profit-motivated "business" that it is, i.e. screw everyone but the C-suite including the rate payers. As much as people complain about the overreach of California's politics and how bloated it can be, I'd much rather have someone who is publicly accountable and can be removed by the voters as the head of PG&E. It's high time California eminent domain them to not serve up shoddy service to their constituents. I just hope more lives aren't lost due to PG&E inaction in the future, only to have them issue some "we're vewy sowy" half-assed apology while barely admitting any wrongdoing (if at all).
  - sep_field 6y ago
    https://letsownpge.org https://letsownpge.org has some answers to these issues.
- andbberger 6y ago
  But PG&E successfully operated a handful of nuclear plants in California for decades and still operates Diablo Canyon... The stewards of our current energy sources aren't very responsible, their have been a number of rather catastrophic and avoidable accidents. Seems like a pick your poison kind of situation. I pick nuclear. Radiation is just not that big of a deal

redis_mlc 6y ago

> While for 40 years California may have opposed nuclear power, it might be time for people to figure out how to make it work. Let me know when you figure out how to make the operator pay the insurance, cleanup and decommissioning costs. HN nuclear fanbois keep evading this question. It will take the entire nation of Japan to clean up Fukushima.

icodestuff 6y ago
The NRC already requires that.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  No, it doesn't, and I wish the HN gaslighting would stop: - Operaring certificates keep getting extended, which pushes decommissioning into the future - there are US laws that distort the insurance market, passing the risk on to tax payers over $13 billion: https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/ https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-... Fukushima's cleanup estimate is already at $750 billion plus army resources, and estimates keep climbing. - US companies can create shell companies that isolate nuclear "divisions" financially.
orwin 6y ago
> It will take the entire nation of Japan to clean up Fukushima. Citation needed. Why don't people understand that the GIEC and UNSCEAR are essentially the same, except that the GIEC have one of their group focused on making politic statements (not the group i like the most, obviously). But if you trust the GIEC documentation and agregation, why not trust UNSCEAR's? I mean, you don't get to cherry pick science. If you're not a climate/radionuclear scientist, you should either distrust both UNSCEAR or GIEC, or trust both. Not GIEC Group3, they mostly heed scientific advice hopefully, but they are different.

jillesvangurp 6y ago

The reality is that lots of places are actively shutting down coal & nuclear already and are replacing them with wind, solar, and batteries without blackouts being a thing. All that takes is money. And even that is changing as wind and solar bids now routinely undercut everything else on the market. That's basically driving the transition in the most unlikely places (like oil and gas producing Texas or coal producing Virginia). Many places elsewhere have all but completed the transition to renewables and are well on their way to 100% renewable grids early next decade. That's not some fantasy, it's basically largely past tense in a lot of places not plagued by blackouts with any kind of frequency.

Lammy 6y ago
The electricity I buy from PG&E is generated primarily with natural gas https://news.yahoo.com/news/sierra-club-took-26-million-natural-gas-lobby-054500586.html https://news.yahoo.com/news/sierra-club-took-26-million-natu...
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
> All that takes is money. The biggest case against nuclear actually isn’t environmental, but economic: they still take a lot of money to build and rebuild after their useful life is over. The reason no one is fighting too hard to keep nuclear around as an option is because it simply isn’t feasible without the government subsidies handed out in the 60s and 70s. But nuclear with its really cheap fuel and the new ability to store power in batteries when demand is lower might be feasible if the capital and insurance costs can be tamed more.
- DrBazza 6y ago
  > The reason no one is fighting too hard to keep nuclear around as an option is because it simply isn’t feasible without the government subsidies handed out in the 60s and 70s. I still find this argument hard to believe. The physics involved is pretty simple, immerse the rods in water, bring them together, water boils, water turns turbine. It's the polar opposite of fusion. What makes fission reactors cost money is the Government being involved from the first pen on paper, to the cutting of the ribbon and all the steps in between. Allowing private companies to design and build them, the Government to regulate, only, should reduce the price dramatically. SMRs are a thing: https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small...

29athrowaway 6y ago

Many nuclear power plants work by generating steam that moves a turbine. You can also achieve something similar using geothermal energy. Like this geothermal plant in California that generates 700 MW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5kYyGmoaFo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5kYyGmoaFo