3 ms·
> 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
by sagarm 5y 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 5y agoThe 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 5y agoIf 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.
- whimsicalism 5y ago> If nuclear is no better for the environment and more expensive, why should it keep running? 40% of power in CA is generated with natural gas. If you can close the nuclear power plant and replace it with the equivalent amount of solar and wind, you should just keep the nuclear plant open and build that amount of solar and wind anyways.