8 ms·

Why California is shutting down its last nuclear plant

18 points by dcgudeman 5y ago

phone8675309 5y ago
Had a family member that worked at the plant for several years, and this article nails it - despite there being an energy shortage (enough) people don't want nuclear power so it's not profitable. No for-profit company that wants to stay in business is going to produce something that its customers won't buy.
senortumnus 5y ago
On one hand, the retirement of the prior generation of nuclear power plants opens the door for deployment of next-generation reactor designs. On the other, we are at real risk of losing the on-the-ground technical expertise required to run one. I think nuclear remains a valuable technology for power generation in a carbon-free manner, providing the steady production that can offer stability to back up the more volatile types such as wind and solar. Small footprint from a square-foot standpoint too. Should be an ongoing engineering project. Yes there are waste downsides but those are not insurmountable in the grand scheme of things.
- coz131 5y ago
  Who is gonna pay? Nuclear reactors are expensive to build and maintain.
  - panick21 5y ago
    The idea that all nuclear reactors for all time will be expensive to build and maintain is exactly what newer reactors are trying to overcome. Crazy how in the 60s reactors were build by small teams with low millions and today you need an army of people and 30 billion. Nothing about a nuclear reactor in inherently expensive. The reason current PWR style reactors are expensive is because they require a gigantic civil engineering project, long term financing and very expensive costume steam turbines and costume reactor vessels. We could live in world where conventional turbines from natural gas plants are used, a team of only a few people manage like 10 reactors at the same time and the capital build cost of the plant is less then that of a gas plant. There is nothing based on first principle that prevents this. Sadly nuclear technology fell so out of favor, and at the same time the regulatory agency basically made progress on non PWR impossible that we are decades behind where we should be. Thankfully Canada has realized this and has adopted a new framework for nuclear regulation. In the US FINALLY the DoE has admitted that their regulatory framework makes no sense and they are attempting to slowly change it as well.
  - belorn 5y ago
    > Who is gonna pay? The people who think climate change is important enough to not allow more coal, gas and oil to be burned. If people can do so more cheaply through other means they should naturally do that first, through the common results of closing nuclear plants has always been an increase use of gas, oil and/or coal.
throwawaysea 5y ago
“Stop Letting Your Ridiculous Fears Of Nuclear Waste Kill The Planet” https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19/stop-letting-your-ridiculous-fears-of-nuclear-waste-kill-the-planet/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19... > By letting go of our nutty fears of nuclear waste we can save nuclear power. America’s nuclear waste fund — which is comprised of money paid into it by the operators of nuclear plants — still has $46 billion in it. It should be used to subsidize the continued operation of economically distressed nuclear plants, and subsidize the building of new ones. > If such a fund paid out five percent interest per year — an amount the IRS requires philanthropic foundations to give away annually — then $2.3 billion could flow to the distressed or new nuclear plants. That amount would be enough to keep uneconomical nuclear plants operating while creating an incentive to build new reactors.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > nutty fears Both Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents will have trillion-dollar cleanups. $46 billion is only 4.6% of each cleanup. Can I send you the bills for those cleanups? If not, stop being a nuclear apologist.
  - cma 5y ago
    You can't even send the company a bill in the US, the nuclear liability cap puts operator liability an order of magnitude or more below what would be needed in a serious event with a bad wind.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Chernobyl used very old reactor technologies. Fukushima had backup diesel generators below ground level. Both modes of failure will likely never happen again and can be validated through regulation.
    - redis_mlc 5y ago
teslabox 5y ago
The Duck Curve [0] is the enemy of grid reliability. Until the electric system figures out what to do with the useless energy generated in the middle of the day, we'll be chained to natural gas plants for surge generation. [0] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-... Perhaps blowing bubbles in the ocean dead zones [1] would be a productive use of excess power? The bubblers would be turned on and off to bleed off extra electrons from the grid. [1] How big is the Ocean Dead Zone off the Coast of California? - https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMOS33D1492H/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMOS33D1492H/abstra... From the cnbc submission: > Finally, once the wheels are in motion to shut a nuclear plant down, it's expensive and complicated process to reverse. > > Diablo was set on the path to be decommissioned in 2016 and will operate until 2025. Then, the fuel has to be removed from the site. If the next two winters are excessively cold [2], a real leader might arise to tell the anti-nuclear activists, 'you mean well, but we do actually need these thing for the next 20 years.' This leader would point out that the alternative is for all the Californians who are priced out of expensive electricity/natural gas to use coal from the Navajo Nation/etc to heat their homes [3]. [2] South Pole posts most severe cold season on record (seattletimes.com) (2021) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28734308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28734308 [3] Coal Heating in the United States - https://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2017/06/trends-in-heating-with-coal-in-united.html https://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2017/06/trends-in-heating-...
- Factorium 5y ago
  Just charge EVs, and then discharge them during the afternoon and evening. Peak energy prices are approximately double that of off-peak. For example, if 50% of a standard Tesla 3 battery could be reserved for this, 31kWh, you could make about $8 per day, or $2,900/year, plus be contributing hugely to grid stability. It could be as simple as setting cars to discharge back into the grid any remaining power from 4PM-8PM (depending on user preference), and charging from 11PM - 7AM. It seems totally reasonable for regulators, grid operators, carmakers to collaborate and create standards and mechanisms for car owners to charge and discharge based on their typical driving needs and live pricing. Look at the enthusiasm for GPU mining - people will flock to getting their cars to do this.
massysett 5y ago
Because all of California’s talk about slowing climate change is just that: unserious, cocktail-party talk.
- mjfl 5y ago
  Just visit Los Angeles and witness the ocean of cars clogging the streets everywhere and you will know this.

18 points by dcgudeman 5y ago

Had a family member that worked at the plant for several years, and this article nails it - despite there being an energy shortage (enough) people don't want nuclear power so it's not profitable. No for-profit company that wants to stay in business is going to produce something that its customers won't buy.

senortumnus 5y ago

On one hand, the retirement of the prior generation of nuclear power plants opens the door for deployment of next-generation reactor designs. On the other, we are at real risk of losing the on-the-ground technical expertise required to run one. I think nuclear remains a valuable technology for power generation in a carbon-free manner, providing the steady production that can offer stability to back up the more volatile types such as wind and solar. Small footprint from a square-foot standpoint too. Should be an ongoing engineering project. Yes there are waste downsides but those are not insurmountable in the grand scheme of things.

coz131 5y ago
Who is gonna pay? Nuclear reactors are expensive to build and maintain.
- panick21 5y ago
  The idea that all nuclear reactors for all time will be expensive to build and maintain is exactly what newer reactors are trying to overcome. Crazy how in the 60s reactors were build by small teams with low millions and today you need an army of people and 30 billion. Nothing about a nuclear reactor in inherently expensive. The reason current PWR style reactors are expensive is because they require a gigantic civil engineering project, long term financing and very expensive costume steam turbines and costume reactor vessels. We could live in world where conventional turbines from natural gas plants are used, a team of only a few people manage like 10 reactors at the same time and the capital build cost of the plant is less then that of a gas plant. There is nothing based on first principle that prevents this. Sadly nuclear technology fell so out of favor, and at the same time the regulatory agency basically made progress on non PWR impossible that we are decades behind where we should be. Thankfully Canada has realized this and has adopted a new framework for nuclear regulation. In the US FINALLY the DoE has admitted that their regulatory framework makes no sense and they are attempting to slowly change it as well.
- belorn 5y ago
  > Who is gonna pay? The people who think climate change is important enough to not allow more coal, gas and oil to be burned. If people can do so more cheaply through other means they should naturally do that first, through the common results of closing nuclear plants has always been an increase use of gas, oil and/or coal.

throwawaysea 5y ago

“Stop Letting Your Ridiculous Fears Of Nuclear Waste Kill The Planet” https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19/stop-letting-your-ridiculous-fears-of-nuclear-waste-kill-the-planet/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19... > By letting go of our nutty fears of nuclear waste we can save nuclear power. America’s nuclear waste fund — which is comprised of money paid into it by the operators of nuclear plants — still has $46 billion in it. It should be used to subsidize the continued operation of economically distressed nuclear plants, and subsidize the building of new ones. > If such a fund paid out five percent interest per year — an amount the IRS requires philanthropic foundations to give away annually — then $2.3 billion could flow to the distressed or new nuclear plants. That amount would be enough to keep uneconomical nuclear plants operating while creating an incentive to build new reactors.

redis_mlc 5y ago
> nutty fears Both Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents will have trillion-dollar cleanups. $46 billion is only 4.6% of each cleanup. Can I send you the bills for those cleanups? If not, stop being a nuclear apologist.
- cma 5y ago
  You can't even send the company a bill in the US, the nuclear liability cap puts operator liability an order of magnitude or more below what would be needed in a serious event with a bad wind.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Chernobyl used very old reactor technologies. Fukushima had backup diesel generators below ground level. Both modes of failure will likely never happen again and can be validated through regulation.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago

teslabox 5y ago

The Duck Curve [0] is the enemy of grid reliability. Until the electric system figures out what to do with the useless energy generated in the middle of the day, we'll be chained to natural gas plants for surge generation. [0] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-... Perhaps blowing bubbles in the ocean dead zones [1] would be a productive use of excess power? The bubblers would be turned on and off to bleed off extra electrons from the grid. [1] How big is the Ocean Dead Zone off the Coast of California? - https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMOS33D1492H/abstract https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMOS33D1492H/abstra... From the cnbc submission: > Finally, once the wheels are in motion to shut a nuclear plant down, it's expensive and complicated process to reverse. > > Diablo was set on the path to be decommissioned in 2016 and will operate until 2025. Then, the fuel has to be removed from the site. If the next two winters are excessively cold [2], a real leader might arise to tell the anti-nuclear activists, 'you mean well, but we do actually need these thing for the next 20 years.' This leader would point out that the alternative is for all the Californians who are priced out of expensive electricity/natural gas to use coal from the Navajo Nation/etc to heat their homes [3]. [2] South Pole posts most severe cold season on record (seattletimes.com) (2021) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28734308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28734308 [3] Coal Heating in the United States - https://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2017/06/trends-in-heating-with-coal-in-united.html https://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2017/06/trends-in-heating-...

Factorium 5y ago
Just charge EVs, and then discharge them during the afternoon and evening. Peak energy prices are approximately double that of off-peak. For example, if 50% of a standard Tesla 3 battery could be reserved for this, 31kWh, you could make about $8 per day, or $2,900/year, plus be contributing hugely to grid stability. It could be as simple as setting cars to discharge back into the grid any remaining power from 4PM-8PM (depending on user preference), and charging from 11PM - 7AM. It seems totally reasonable for regulators, grid operators, carmakers to collaborate and create standards and mechanisms for car owners to charge and discharge based on their typical driving needs and live pricing. Look at the enthusiasm for GPU mining - people will flock to getting their cars to do this.

massysett 5y ago

Because all of California’s talk about slowing climate change is just that: unserious, cocktail-party talk.

mjfl 5y ago
Just visit Los Angeles and witness the ocean of cars clogging the streets everywhere and you will know this.