5 ms·

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 oi

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

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