4 ms·

It's funny that you mention Diablo Canyon's ocean intake, but then say it's politicians pushing for shutdown. Diablo Canyon is being shutdown, not by politicia

It's funny that you mention Diablo Canyon's ocean intake, but then say it's politicians pushing for shutdown. Diablo Canyon is being shutdown, not by politicians, but by the utility PG&E. The wikipedia page for DC now stays that PG&E is shutting it down because they don't want to operate it half time when there are cheaper renewable resources, but in the past I think a bigger impact was that water cooling system. DC uses once through cooling currently, and would need to convert away from that in order to meet modern environmental regulations. So though I suppose you could blame "politicians" for pushing for the closure, that omits some really important facts about why PG&E is closing, and it all comes down to costs and environmental regulations that affect all plants, not just nuclear.

loeg 5y ago
Those costs facing PG&E are essentially imposed by politicians subsidizing solar/wind.
- epistasis 5y ago
  Without any subsidies at all, nuclear can not compete with solar + storage in costs. If we want nuclear to survive on the grid, we need to figure out how essential is actually is, and then work out market structures or subsidies that will keep nuclear around. It's too late for Diablo Canyon, the decision to close was made five years ago, and the only reason to extend its life now is for an emergency but if extra generation capacity on the grid. If DC's life is extended 10 years or so that way, it may provide a bridge to a new generation of SMRs, but I am extremely skeptical that SMRs will be any cheaper than other large thermal generators of electricity, and those cants compete on costs now.
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    No, he's right, nuclear is held back by red tape. The energy density of nuclear is so high it beats literally everything. Sans pointless laws or subsidies there is no reason to believe nuclear is less useful than renewables.
    - forgotmypw17 5y ago
      Nuclear is also by far more dangerous and long-term-problematic than everything else, hence the regulations.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        Nuclear contamination potential is no different than any other industrial activity humans engage in with poisonous materials at that scale and when we spill it it has the nice side effect of being and going away over time. You can't say that about heavy metal laced mine tailings leeching into a watershed or the various chemicals humanity has cooked up over the years and then dumped in the ocean. People just get their panties in a knot over nuclear contamination because "omg invisible" or something like that.
        forgotmypw17 5y ago
        >nice side effect of being and going away over time Pray tell, how long do you expect to live, and many centuries is your definition of "going away over time"?
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >Pray tell, how long do you expect to live, and many centuries is your definition of "going away over time"? Anything that's "death soon or guaranteed cancer later" levels of energetic won't be lasting centuries because physics. Centuries is infinitely faster than the myriad of substances that don't go anywhere unless we pick them up and move them. Browse the EPA's national priority list for examples. Nuclear is no more of a environmental contamination hazard than any other similar scale human activity involving nasty stuff.
        forgotmypw17 5y ago
        >Anything that's "death soon or guaranteed cancer later" levels of energetic won't be lasting centuries because physics. I don't know which "physics" you're referring to, but here are the half-lives of just the most common isotopes (out of OVER 100) released in Chernobyl. iodine-131: 8.04 days caesium-137: 30 years strontium-90: 29.12 years plutonium-241 (decays into Americium-241): 14.4 years Americium-241: 430 years Remember, these are HALF-LIFE numbers, meaning half the isotopes will still be radioactive after these time intervals.
evv 5y ago
Maybe it's funny but yes, I blame politicians. Who do you think defines rules for PG&E? Is the energy density of nuclear not high enough? We can't afford it? There too many CO2 emissions? California produces ~40% of our electricity with fossil fuels, and if we switch to electric vehicles, demand will dramatically grow. Plus we need to replace the 9% of power that Diablo Canyon provides until 2024. The situation is dire for CA, a state that is supposedly a leader on climate action, and who is blessed with good weather and economy. Good luck deploying solar+storage in places that have winter and worse economic constraints. Look at France if you really think politics is not the problem. The vast majority of their power is nuclear. Zero carbon emissions from those reactors. France is the largest exporter of electricity in the world. Do you think France has some secret nuclear technology, or do they have different physical constraints? I don't think so. I do applaud French politicians for mobilizing against climate change.
- epistasis 5y ago
  > France has some secret nuclear technology, or do they have different physical constraints France's new nuclear is exactly as outrageously expensive as the US's. Flamanville unit 3. Expected to be built in 4.5 years, €3.1B. Now at 14 years of construction, €19.1B, could be more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... We have a vastly different and better set of technology in 2020 than we did in 1970. The tech for pouring concrete and welding miles upon miles of rebar and precision piping have not improved. Solar and wind and storage are in the process of leapfrogging all power generation by steam turbines.

loeg 5y ago

Those costs facing PG&E are essentially imposed by politicians subsidizing solar/wind.

epistasis 5y ago
Without any subsidies at all, nuclear can not compete with solar + storage in costs. If we want nuclear to survive on the grid, we need to figure out how essential is actually is, and then work out market structures or subsidies that will keep nuclear around. It's too late for Diablo Canyon, the decision to close was made five years ago, and the only reason to extend its life now is for an emergency but if extra generation capacity on the grid. If DC's life is extended 10 years or so that way, it may provide a bridge to a new generation of SMRs, but I am extremely skeptical that SMRs will be any cheaper than other large thermal generators of electricity, and those cants compete on costs now.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  No, he's right, nuclear is held back by red tape. The energy density of nuclear is so high it beats literally everything. Sans pointless laws or subsidies there is no reason to believe nuclear is less useful than renewables.
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    Nuclear is also by far more dangerous and long-term-problematic than everything else, hence the regulations.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Nuclear contamination potential is no different than any other industrial activity humans engage in with poisonous materials at that scale and when we spill it it has the nice side effect of being and going away over time. You can't say that about heavy metal laced mine tailings leeching into a watershed or the various chemicals humanity has cooked up over the years and then dumped in the ocean. People just get their panties in a knot over nuclear contamination because "omg invisible" or something like that.
      - forgotmypw17 5y ago
        >nice side effect of being and going away over time Pray tell, how long do you expect to live, and many centuries is your definition of "going away over time"?
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >Pray tell, how long do you expect to live, and many centuries is your definition of "going away over time"? Anything that's "death soon or guaranteed cancer later" levels of energetic won't be lasting centuries because physics. Centuries is infinitely faster than the myriad of substances that don't go anywhere unless we pick them up and move them. Browse the EPA's national priority list for examples. Nuclear is no more of a environmental contamination hazard than any other similar scale human activity involving nasty stuff.
        forgotmypw17 5y ago
        >Anything that's "death soon or guaranteed cancer later" levels of energetic won't be lasting centuries because physics. I don't know which "physics" you're referring to, but here are the half-lives of just the most common isotopes (out of OVER 100) released in Chernobyl. iodine-131: 8.04 days caesium-137: 30 years strontium-90: 29.12 years plutonium-241 (decays into Americium-241): 14.4 years Americium-241: 430 years Remember, these are HALF-LIFE numbers, meaning half the isotopes will still be radioactive after these time intervals.

evv 5y ago

Maybe it's funny but yes, I blame politicians. Who do you think defines rules for PG&E? Is the energy density of nuclear not high enough? We can't afford it? There too many CO2 emissions? California produces ~40% of our electricity with fossil fuels, and if we switch to electric vehicles, demand will dramatically grow. Plus we need to replace the 9% of power that Diablo Canyon provides until 2024. The situation is dire for CA, a state that is supposedly a leader on climate action, and who is blessed with good weather and economy. Good luck deploying solar+storage in places that have winter and worse economic constraints. Look at France if you really think politics is not the problem. The vast majority of their power is nuclear. Zero carbon emissions from those reactors. France is the largest exporter of electricity in the world. Do you think France has some secret nuclear technology, or do they have different physical constraints? I don't think so. I do applaud French politicians for mobilizing against climate change.

epistasis 5y ago
> France has some secret nuclear technology, or do they have different physical constraints France's new nuclear is exactly as outrageously expensive as the US's. Flamanville unit 3. Expected to be built in 4.5 years, €3.1B. Now at 14 years of construction, €19.1B, could be more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... We have a vastly different and better set of technology in 2020 than we did in 1970. The tech for pouring concrete and welding miles upon miles of rebar and precision piping have not improved. Solar and wind and storage are in the process of leapfrogging all power generation by steam turbines.