8 ms·

If you want to treat climate change as an existential threat, then you do whatever it takes to keep all existing nuclear running until fossil fuel plants are go

If you want to treat climate change as an existential threat, then you do whatever it takes to keep all existing nuclear running until fossil fuel plants are gone from the entire continent. And you put a little money to subsidize/stimulate new nuclear on the off chance some of the advanced nuclear concepts work out (or as a backup in case renewables improve slower than we think). You don’t have to stop or even slow renewables deployment to do this. They are fairly different industries with different workforce’s, so there are resources to do both simultaneously without significant interference. And you’re not going to get “too much” electricity as cheap abundant electricity will help accelerate decarbonization of other things like building heat and transport and industrial processes. Existing nuclear ESPECIALLY must be protected. And existing hydro. Number 1 and number 2 (tied with wind) clean energy sources. Nuclear power produces as much energy in our country as coal. We can phase out coal twice as fast if we at very least keep nuclear around a few years longer.

NullPrefix 6y ago
>cheap abundant electricity will help accelerate decarbonization of other things Thinking about them Dogecoins
- surajs 6y ago
  achievement unlocked, but seriously, not a single mention of fuckushima this deep in the discussion, oh how quickly they grow up!
asdff 6y ago
It is so upsetting to see CA close down precious nuclear power plants, not because they have built a better alternative to using natural gas or other dirty fuels to cover this load, they haven't, but because it is unprofitable to do the required maintenance and necessary improvements. The need for profit is killing our planet. When it comes to basic essential things like shelter, energy, food, water, profit is pure parasitic loss and should be eliminated. These things really should run at a loss, considering these things generate all other economic activity there is, but we insist that they must be run privately and for profit.
- foxbarrington 6y ago
  If the negative externalities that are killing our planet are included in the cost, those killers become less profitable. This can be done via taxes or other means.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    Unfortunately, oligopolies invariably perceive such measures as incentive & opportunity for regulatory capture i.e. corruption, which resets progress. It follows that correcting the energy market requires also restructuring the sector.
- sagarm 6y ago
  > not because they have built a better alternative to using natural gas or other dirty fuels to cover this load, they haven't, but because it is unprofitable to do the required maintenance and necessary improvements. Solar and wind are pervasive and cheap in California. If nuclear is no better for the environment and more expensive, why should it keep running? The whole "profit" thing is a way to manage scarce resources, i.e. minimize waste. That's exactly what we want. You're right that for basic needs like shelter, energy, food, and water, we shouldn't accept that some people might have to go without. So we have tipped the scales through programs like section 8, progressive energy rates, EBT, etc to get that outcome will still seeing other resources efficiently used.
  - likpok 6y ago
    The competition isn't "nuclear vs renewables", California is not going to not build renewables (it got 40% of it's utility-scale energy from them in 2018!). It's what you do about the rest: over half of CA's energy comes from natural gas. If you can keep nuclear alive longer, you can use the renewable growth to draw down fossil-fuel energy. If you don't, you need to replace the nuclear energy before you can start decomissioning any gas plants.
    - suster 6y ago
      If your long-term goal is a maximum of renewables, there is a significant difference between nuclear and natural gas. Nuclear generation can't react to changes in demand very fast and so doesn't play well with large amounts of wind generation. It's ok with solar, because you can predict night-time 8 hours in advance, which is optimal for ramping up nuclear generation. Combined-cycle gas turbines, while they do use fossil fuels, are the most carbon-efficient way to get electricity from fossil fuels, and can quickly react to changes in demand. So while I agree with the point about not getting rid of nuclear too fast, both nuclear and natural gas have their place in moving to mostly renewables. Natural gas could especially be important if it allows other fossil-fuel burning, eg for transport, to be replaced by electricity generated with non-zero but low carbon emissions.
LaMarseillaise 6y ago
> They are fairly different industries Funding for each may actually benefit the others. For example, FLiBe salt is being considered as a coolant in some Gen IV fission, as well as compact fusion and concentrated solar. Production will increase if there is a definite market for it, making it easier to obtain.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Annual world production of beryllium is around 200 tonnes. Any solution using FLiBe is not scalable. I very much doubt FLiBe was ever seriously considered for solar applications.
  - whatisthiseven 6y ago
    What about economies of scale? Wouldn't we expect as demand rose, more suppliers and production would also come about?
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Total world Be resource is estimated to be 100,000 tons, although that's likely an underestimate. Still, the MSRE (a 7.4MW(th) reactor) used about a ton of beryllium in the fuel and secondary coolant salts. The world would need several million times the thermal power output of the MSRE to replace fossil fuels. The ARC fusion reactor concept would require even more Be per MW(th) of output.
setBoolean 6y ago
Germany would like a word about that.
starkd 6y ago
This is a good provision, but they are going to have to aggressively promote new sources of nuclear power, if they are going to feed all the new Electric Vehicles coming online AND replace coal. Not just keeping old aging plants operating.
djdjdjdjdj 6y ago
Do you have a calculation on how much renewable you could make if you remove the subsidies? Nuclear is 4 times more expensive, it would be interesting to know if we could boost renewable much further much faster.
throwaway_isms 6y ago
>If you want to treat climate change as an existential threat Chasing that rabbit down the hole, what happens if the US does wean off fossil fuel entirely, but countries like Russia and China continue (and say it is projected to increase 400X like China in the last 30 years). Then its an existential threat, does that mean use of force, or limit ourselves to diplomatic means that will ultimately fail and just accept the resulting existential outcome? Does the analysis change when it is a less diplomatically controversial Country such as India? Alternatively what if those Countries beat the US to weaning off fossil fuel and determine overnight any continued US use of fossil fuel is an existential threat and act of war? It sounds like hyperbole but I remember when the US began regulating incandescent light bulbs and it was floated by certain media outlets as an attack on freedom and liberties. We have literally seen murders of people telling others to wear a mask during the pandemic, and I watched a news segment claiming a normal year sees 150-300 FAA incidents on planes and we have seen 1,300 already this year mostly related to passengers refusing to wear masks and many times escalating to attacks on the airline workers for attempting to enforce the CDC mask guidelines. We live in violent and chaotic times, where millions and millions of people allow themselves to be worked up into mobs by a media that does it willfully and deliberately. I don't see it as an easy transition domestically much less globally, and those in power don't care about the science but seem to froth at the mouth for this kind of discontent.
splithalf 6y ago
Except budgets by definition are limited. We cannot do all the things all the time. Sorry to be a buzzkill but we need adult minds on this problem, not simpletons who can’t understand how limited our options are at this point.
sandfly 6y ago
Suppose that a genie gives every human on earth access to infinite power, with no externalities like CO2 or radioactive waste. Would it make the world a better place or would it turn into a dystopian nightmare? I think it would be like pouring sugar over a bacteria colony. The earth's crust could be economically strip mined. Ore could be smelted into metal at negligible cost, which could in turn be used to make more machines to strip mine the crust at a faster rate. Oceans could be boiled to access rare metals, or maybe just for fun by a bored teenager. This isn't to detract from OPs practical comment, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
- aeternum 6y ago
  The natural resources of the earth are completely insignificant if you have access to infinite power. We could travel to and mine planets that are about to be consumed by blackholes or stars. ..and with infinite power, even that isn't necessary because we could simply create whatever matter we wanted directly from energy.

NullPrefix 6y ago

>cheap abundant electricity will help accelerate decarbonization of other things Thinking about them Dogecoins

surajs 6y ago
achievement unlocked, but seriously, not a single mention of fuckushima this deep in the discussion, oh how quickly they grow up!

asdff 6y ago

It is so upsetting to see CA close down precious nuclear power plants, not because they have built a better alternative to using natural gas or other dirty fuels to cover this load, they haven't, but because it is unprofitable to do the required maintenance and necessary improvements. The need for profit is killing our planet. When it comes to basic essential things like shelter, energy, food, water, profit is pure parasitic loss and should be eliminated. These things really should run at a loss, considering these things generate all other economic activity there is, but we insist that they must be run privately and for profit.

foxbarrington 6y ago
If the negative externalities that are killing our planet are included in the cost, those killers become less profitable. This can be done via taxes or other means.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  Unfortunately, oligopolies invariably perceive such measures as incentive & opportunity for regulatory capture i.e. corruption, which resets progress. It follows that correcting the energy market requires also restructuring the sector.
sagarm 6y ago
> not because they have built a better alternative to using natural gas or other dirty fuels to cover this load, they haven't, but because it is unprofitable to do the required maintenance and necessary improvements. Solar and wind are pervasive and cheap in California. If nuclear is no better for the environment and more expensive, why should it keep running? The whole "profit" thing is a way to manage scarce resources, i.e. minimize waste. That's exactly what we want. You're right that for basic needs like shelter, energy, food, and water, we shouldn't accept that some people might have to go without. So we have tipped the scales through programs like section 8, progressive energy rates, EBT, etc to get that outcome will still seeing other resources efficiently used.
- likpok 6y ago
  The competition isn't "nuclear vs renewables", California is not going to not build renewables (it got 40% of it's utility-scale energy from them in 2018!). It's what you do about the rest: over half of CA's energy comes from natural gas. If you can keep nuclear alive longer, you can use the renewable growth to draw down fossil-fuel energy. If you don't, you need to replace the nuclear energy before you can start decomissioning any gas plants.
  - suster 6y ago
    If your long-term goal is a maximum of renewables, there is a significant difference between nuclear and natural gas. Nuclear generation can't react to changes in demand very fast and so doesn't play well with large amounts of wind generation. It's ok with solar, because you can predict night-time 8 hours in advance, which is optimal for ramping up nuclear generation. Combined-cycle gas turbines, while they do use fossil fuels, are the most carbon-efficient way to get electricity from fossil fuels, and can quickly react to changes in demand. So while I agree with the point about not getting rid of nuclear too fast, both nuclear and natural gas have their place in moving to mostly renewables. Natural gas could especially be important if it allows other fossil-fuel burning, eg for transport, to be replaced by electricity generated with non-zero but low carbon emissions.

LaMarseillaise 6y ago

> They are fairly different industries Funding for each may actually benefit the others. For example, FLiBe salt is being considered as a coolant in some Gen IV fission, as well as compact fusion and concentrated solar. Production will increase if there is a definite market for it, making it easier to obtain.

pfdietz 6y ago
Annual world production of beryllium is around 200 tonnes. Any solution using FLiBe is not scalable. I very much doubt FLiBe was ever seriously considered for solar applications.
- whatisthiseven 6y ago
  What about economies of scale? Wouldn't we expect as demand rose, more suppliers and production would also come about?
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Total world Be resource is estimated to be 100,000 tons, although that's likely an underestimate. Still, the MSRE (a 7.4MW(th) reactor) used about a ton of beryllium in the fuel and secondary coolant salts. The world would need several million times the thermal power output of the MSRE to replace fossil fuels. The ARC fusion reactor concept would require even more Be per MW(th) of output.

setBoolean 6y ago

Germany would like a word about that.

starkd 6y ago

This is a good provision, but they are going to have to aggressively promote new sources of nuclear power, if they are going to feed all the new Electric Vehicles coming online AND replace coal. Not just keeping old aging plants operating.

djdjdjdjdj 6y ago

Do you have a calculation on how much renewable you could make if you remove the subsidies? Nuclear is 4 times more expensive, it would be interesting to know if we could boost renewable much further much faster.

throwaway_isms 6y ago

>If you want to treat climate change as an existential threat Chasing that rabbit down the hole, what happens if the US does wean off fossil fuel entirely, but countries like Russia and China continue (and say it is projected to increase 400X like China in the last 30 years). Then its an existential threat, does that mean use of force, or limit ourselves to diplomatic means that will ultimately fail and just accept the resulting existential outcome? Does the analysis change when it is a less diplomatically controversial Country such as India? Alternatively what if those Countries beat the US to weaning off fossil fuel and determine overnight any continued US use of fossil fuel is an existential threat and act of war? It sounds like hyperbole but I remember when the US began regulating incandescent light bulbs and it was floated by certain media outlets as an attack on freedom and liberties. We have literally seen murders of people telling others to wear a mask during the pandemic, and I watched a news segment claiming a normal year sees 150-300 FAA incidents on planes and we have seen 1,300 already this year mostly related to passengers refusing to wear masks and many times escalating to attacks on the airline workers for attempting to enforce the CDC mask guidelines. We live in violent and chaotic times, where millions and millions of people allow themselves to be worked up into mobs by a media that does it willfully and deliberately. I don't see it as an easy transition domestically much less globally, and those in power don't care about the science but seem to froth at the mouth for this kind of discontent.

splithalf 6y ago

Except budgets by definition are limited. We cannot do all the things all the time. Sorry to be a buzzkill but we need adult minds on this problem, not simpletons who can’t understand how limited our options are at this point.

sandfly 6y ago

Suppose that a genie gives every human on earth access to infinite power, with no externalities like CO2 or radioactive waste. Would it make the world a better place or would it turn into a dystopian nightmare? I think it would be like pouring sugar over a bacteria colony. The earth's crust could be economically strip mined. Ore could be smelted into metal at negligible cost, which could in turn be used to make more machines to strip mine the crust at a faster rate. Oceans could be boiled to access rare metals, or maybe just for fun by a bored teenager. This isn't to detract from OPs practical comment, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

aeternum 6y ago
The natural resources of the earth are completely insignificant if you have access to infinite power. We could travel to and mine planets that are about to be consumed by blackholes or stars. ..and with infinite power, even that isn't necessary because we could simply create whatever matter we wanted directly from energy.