21 ms·

California is a great example of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. At some point, we are going to realize "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work.

California is a great example of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. At some point, we are going to realize "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work. We need nuclear. Good intentions doesn't make a good government. California politicians seem to have a lot of good intentions on homelessness, jail reform, education, healthcare, but the reality is just an awful hell zone.

quest88 4y ago
How will nuclear solve the problem? Does it provide enough energy?
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  Yes
- QuarterReptile 4y ago
  It does if you build it. Edit: a typo
- WaitWaitWha 4y ago
  Absolutely; the following countries have most of their electricity made by nuke plants[0]: France 69.0% Ukraine 55.0% Slovakia 52.3% Belgium 50.8% Hungary 46.8% [0] International atomic energy agency; US Energy Information Administration Updated: August 2022
  - berkut 4y ago
    It can solve the problem: that doesn't mean there aren't other potential issues that need to be handled correctly. Take France for instance - it's currently becoming a net importer of electricity due to many (~60%) of its Nuclear reactors being offline for maintenance.
- swarnie 4y ago
  Far better than dinosaur juice imo.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  It's the only energy source that can run 24/7 on a tiny land footprint without emitting carbon or being overly dependent on local weather. The one nuclear plant in California makes 10% of the entire states electricity. And last night the state assembly voted 31/1 to not prematurely shut it down as planned.
  - croes 4y ago
    We see in France how good that works. And we don't fear russia bombing Ukraine's WECs
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      Climate change and the 8 million people who die per year from fossil and renewable biofuel combustion products (WHO numbers) are far more concerning. Nuclear solves wayyy more problems than it causes. Oh and nuclear fission used in breeder reactors is just as renewable as the fusion fuel in the sun that powers wind/solar/hydro/bio. We can make 100% of the world's primary energy for 4 billion years with nuclear before running out of fuel.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > or being overly dependent on local weather. It was interesting to see (thanks, Europe) how nuclear power plants are still somewhat susceptible to global climate change, since they require vast amounts of water below a certain temperature to run.
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      Those are administrative limits set before climate change to help protect fish. You can solve the problem by keeping fish farther away from the outlets. Nuclear plants can also be cooled with nearly zero water usage, using dry cooling (dump heat straight to air basically with air radiators). This is more expensive, but may make sense as climate change kicks in. It's perfectly doable and safe.
      - 4y ago
- vitiral 4y ago
  "8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235." https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ That is 24 giga watt hours from a kg or uranium. The article says California is set to "top 48 gigawatts" on some days. If it stayed at peak usage all year 48 * 24 * 365 / 24 = 17,520 kg of uranium for constant peak California consumption. That seems like a lot until you think about how much oil it saves
  - sologoub 4y ago
    Interesting thought experiment - for the same capacity, we’d need 2300 sq.mi of photovoltaic gross land[1], assuming we need to way overbuild let’s make that 3x (6900 sq. mi). That’s equivalent to ~15% of Mojave desert being covered in solar and not accounting for battery storage needed. That same capacity would require 26 Diablo canyon equivalent stations or only 30.5 sq.mi. [2] Of course, Greater Los Angeles area itself is 33,954 sq.mi, so if we assume 10% of that are roofs, parking lots and other structures that can be covered with a solar panel setup somehow (big assumption, but this is a thought experiment after all), we’d have close to 1/2 of the total already covered. Add other populated areas in CA and things don’t look so outlandish with some combination of Nuclear/storage/solar. The big question is whether we have the social cohesion to pull this off or not. The train from LA to SF mess has me worried here… [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mo... [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      The initial quote is for "heat" energy. To get that into electricity in a steam turbine you lose about 2/3rds of it.
      - vitiral 4y ago
        Pretty sure modern steam conversion is now over 50%, should be higher for super heated. It's come a long ways.
QuarterReptile 4y ago
>At some point, we are going to realize "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work. Not only this, but while making other aspects of life worse or more expensive, it will also make the environment worse. Anyone who feels 'middle class' in CA has enormous buying power for consumer goods, and an obvious one for this problem is a gas/propane generator. When the accepted wisdom is for all the California suburbanites to have generators as buffers against unreliable power grids, the environment loses.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  What a lesson in unintended consequences of overbearing policy.
  - travisporter 4y ago
    Deregulation ~= tragedy of the commons
    - EricE 4y ago
      lol - overbearing policy restricts to the least common denominator with no opportunity for innovation. Solar and Wind have been the biggest suppressor for developing longer term base load. Why would anyone who is remotely sane take a risk to develop base load power when politicians shift priorities on whatever the flavor of the day is. This has been going on for decades which is why we are now where we are. Base load generation takes a significant commitment and requires long term planning, but current politics place a high penalty on anything requiring a long term commitment. Talk about a tragedy of commons :p
      - travisporter 4y ago
        That's a very fair point, and to be clear, nuclear/geothermal/hydro baseload should be our top priority. But I fear regulation of things like fly ash, co2 emissions will be considered overbearing and then what's stopping fossil fuels?
- 4y ago
bluedino 4y ago
Don't forget the "banning" of ICE
- jlmorton 4y ago
  Note that increased load from electric vehicles is helpful to the grid, not harmful. From a reliability perspective, all recurring load is beneficial, as it increases the overall capacity of the grid, insulating it from demand shocks, such as cooling during heatwaves. But increased base load that can be easily time-shifted is _massively_ beneficial to the grid.
exyi 4y ago
non-nuclear green energy works as part of the system. I agree you need nuclear, but you don't need 100% nuclear. If I understand it correctly, the problem now is AC demand which is easier to satisfy with solar. On hot days it tends to be sunny. Nuclear needs a ton of water for cooling which might also be a problem in the desert. AFAIK that's one of the reasons why France's nuclear plants are struggling currently.
- mike_hock 4y ago
  You can't do 100% nuclear as you need something responsive that can react to spikes.
  - danhor 4y ago
    Even worse, if you have a large amount of wind & solar, the remaining power sources have to be very flexible. Nuclear is very non-flexible (especially in the financial sense).
  - p1mrx 4y ago
    High temperature reactors can react to spikes, by storing heat in a molten salt before driving the turbines.
dmos62 4y ago
Not trying to be cynical, but I hope this gets worse before it gets better, for the sake of publicity. I think non-nuclear green energy expectations need to be reined in.
- gjvc 4y ago
  "reined", like a horse
  - dmos62 4y ago
    Thank you. s/reign/rein
- gjvc 4y ago
  psst... "reined", like a horse
- golemotron 4y ago
  All eyes on Germany this coming winter.
  - croes 4y ago
    All eyes on France now. Because their nuclear power plants don't work, Germany needs to burn gas to produce electricity for them.
    - christophilus 4y ago
      Yeah. Of all the crazy climate-related goings on, this one surprised me the most. I never considered the possibility that the natural warming of water systems would compromise nuclear power. It makes sense; I’d just never considered it!
      - cnlevy 4y ago
        This was an environnemental directive, for not releasing water too hot into the rivers. This measure has been temporarily suspended by the government. The major factor is for delayed maintenance during COVID, and corrosion problems appearing lately. https://www.dw.com/en/french-nuclear-plants-break-a-sweat-over-heat-wave/a-62806646 https://www.dw.com/en/french-nuclear-plants-break-a-sweat-ov...
cpursley 4y ago
Europe is learning (or not learning it?) the hard way... https://twitter.com/DolanGeraldine/status/1564392353300889603 https://twitter.com/DolanGeraldine/status/156439235330088960... Their choices are to start building reactors now, suck it up and remove sanctions against Russian energy or massive de-industrialization and back to the dark ages.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Reactors could not be built in time, and nuclear reactors can not be built at sufficient scale to solve the problem. The only way to survive is massive wind, solar, storage, and transmission. France could have led the way, but when they started building Flamanville last decade, they discovered that they nuclear doesn't really fit modern economies that well. And with half their reactors offline for extended repairs right now, France has been a big part of Europe's energy crunch. Macron has only proposed up to 14 new reactors, and there's no way they will come online before 2040. Nuclear is a solution from the past, we need to build for the future.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    Well, at least the Hungarians aren't dumb (i.e., know basic math). They're planning a few more reactors. Guess everyone else can huddle around the ikea furnature fires...
    - epistasis 4y ago
      I would suggest that the French also know basic math. It is great that Hungary has been able to build a reactor, but they will need a lot more, and it would also be good if they could share some of that construction knowledge with their neighbors, or even build for them.
      - cpursley 4y ago
        That would be the Russians: https://balkangreenenergynews.com/hungary-to-build-paks-ii-nuclear-power-plant-with-russia/ https://balkangreenenergynews.com/hungary-to-build-paks-ii-n... Ironically, Russian reactors would reduce dependence on Russian gas. That kindof hurts my brain.
htk 4y ago
Or you can also see it as the time to pay for all the demagogy and virtue signaling.
amluto 4y ago
California’s electricity system is all kinds of broken. Has anyone noticed the cost per kWh or the rate at which it’s increasing? Or the fact that there are a whole pile of different rate plans, several of which offer incentives to use electricity at times that would be discouraged by other plans? CA is very far down a good-intention-paved road, and not all of it is related to nuclear per se.
naasking 4y ago
> At some point, we are going to realize "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work. It does work if you actually listen to the engineers that know what they're talking about. Renewable deployments need significant overcapacity, and have to be paired with grid expansion to average over regional variability, and energy storage to average over temporal variability. Overbuilding should be no big deal because renewables are super cheap right now and that's something that can be done immediately. Grid expansion and storage were just not getting the attention they needed, but at least I see indications that storage is getting some investment now.
- EricE 4y ago
  Storage is going to take more than hand waving. At some point you actually have to *deliver* cost effective energy storage at scale - right now. Otherwise shut up and start building more reliable base load from older tech; unless you want more blackouts. Physics doesn't give a crap about your feelings.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    https://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/Blog/Posts/A-golden-age-of-energy-storage.aspx https://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/Blog/Posts/A-golden-age-of... > Just a few years ago, the notion that battery storage would play a key role in California’s energy future was seen by many as a quixotic dream for an emerging technology not yet reliable or cost-effective enough to be counted on. > But in the past year alone, as California accelerates its transition to a carbon-free electric grid by 2045, there is a growing appreciation that battery storage has arrived in a big way, that it is performing well and playing an increasingly greater role in the state’s energy future. > Mainzer called the influx of battery storage capacity on the grid over the past year “an incredible growth curve, an incredible success story,” adding that “We’ve entered a golden age of energy storage here in California.” The ISO now has more than 3,160 MW of battery storage connected to the grid and is expected to add another 700 MW by the end of June.
    - EricE 4y ago
      700 MW? progress but still a drop in the bucket.
peteradio 4y ago
I've recently read some comment stating that conventional nuclear would run out of fuel in 5 years if we powered the world with only nuclear. What is the rebuttal?
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  rebuttal: source and figures? That might be true with stockpiles of already-mined uranium, but we can definitely mine more uranium.
  - EricE 4y ago
    we can also burn the "waste" we are insanely intent on burying in different reactor designs.
- cnlevy 4y ago
  There is only minor uranium prospecting at the moment, since the demand is declining. Additionnally, it doesnt take into account new technology for extracting uranium (from sea water, for example) When demand will increase, propsection will as well, and reserves will "magically" appear out of prospection, same as gas reserves, or "Peak Oil" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
  - peteradio 4y ago
    So 5 years takes into account stockpiles and known sources. Is there any back of the envelope estimate of how much mine-able uranium may be out there?
colinmhayes 4y ago
Nuclear plants take around a decade to start up. Electricity generation companies are worried that by the time a new plant starts producing energy solar/other renewables will be so cheap that their plant will be obsolete. No one is willing to invest a billion dollars into a project with such long lead time given the uncertainty we are facing.
- UnpossibleJim 4y ago
  Don't the modern Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) greatly reduce both the cost and time (more importantly the time) for a nuclear reactor to get up and running? Or have I been sold on a lie?
  - blitzar 4y ago
    "SMR's will be viable technology within a year." quote someone 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025
    - EricE 4y ago
      The fact that SMRs have made any progress at all *in spite of* the environment so strongly titled against them is, frankly, amazing. If half of the energy spend demonizing nuclear was spent on modernizing it, SMRs would be a long solved problem. It's the ultimate "stop hitting yourself" :p
      - blitzar 4y ago
        You could easily say the same about wind, solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal, 'clean coal' (what a joke), insulation, efficiency, large scale, local scale, interconnects etc. But no, everyone has their one true source of planet saving energy (that they have a financial interest in) and every cent that goes to any other is destroying humanity or treason that should be punished by death. The grid of the future will have a bit of everything, and between now and then it will have a range of temporary forms to ease the transition.
bjt2n3904 4y ago
There's a great comic / meme I saw that perfectly describes my feelings towards this situation. A: Climate change will kill us all. Let's dismantle our socioeconomic system to prevent it! B: How about nuclear power? A: I don't want nuclear power! A: I want to dismantle our socioeconomic system!
croes 4y ago
And than you look at France.
- berkut 4y ago
  While France is generally a lot more self-sufficient (and exports energy to its neighbours), that's not happening currently, as almost 59% of its reactors are offline for maintenance.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    But the op claims the one true solution is nucear 90% of the time every time... unfortunately for the country that is all in on nuclear the lights are only on because of ... well renewables and coal.
president 4y ago
It's not good intentions. Most of these policies are created because they sound nice and "compassionate" to your average good-hearted but naive voter. Unfortunately, the reality is that a lot of these problems require "tough love" type solutions.
dncornholio 4y ago
> "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work Saying green energy just doesn't work is bullocks. Solar works great, can run your AC basically for free during daytime. It's not a complete solution, but it definitely will create less stress on the grid.
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  I hear two arguments: a) renewables provide the most power when power is used the most (during the day when the sun is shining to run a/c) b) charging EVs at night will balance the grid I don't think you can do B with A, right?
  - dncornholio 4y ago
    I never said A or B. My point is super straightforward, having solar is better for the grid than having no solar.
    - MerelyMortal 4y ago
      I never said that you said A or B. Of course having something useful is better than not having it. The issue is, that a lot of people seem to be interested in replacing more-useful things (nuclear which provides power during the day for a/c and power at night for EVs) with less-useful things (solar which only provides power during the day).
kmeisthax 4y ago
I disagree with calling California's intentions "good". On homelessness, for example, that is largely a problem of California's own making. At every step the state has decided to make homes more expensive and turn homeowners into a landed gentry. As part of this, the loudest NIMBYs basically dictate what can and can't be built in the state. I would not be surprised if those NIMBYs have also been hard at work stymying necessary grid infrastructure in the same way they stymied affordable housing and high-speed rail. Nuclear energy's downfall is a complicated subject with factors outside of California's control. Even if California wanted nuclear today, they would have to get past a whole host of regulatory and financial barriers they don't meaningfully control. It's the sort of thing the federal government needs to decide to start paying R&D on again.
TechBro8615 4y ago
> California politicians seem to have a lot of good intentions What evidence do you have for this? It seems to me that the intentions of most California politicians are motivated by what causes people to vote for them. But their voters are a mostly captive audience, since they have such little choice in the matter - what are they gonna do, elect a “semi-fascist MAGA Republican?” Of course not! So California politicians can do whatever they want, because their base will vote for them to beat any Republican. That means they just need to beat opponents from their own party in primaries, where they take positions on issues that are generally far outside of mainstream preferences. They’re optimizing for pleasing the extremists in their party, not for implementing whatever “good intentions” they might claim to have.
- kelp 4y ago
  Yes, the state is basically run by Democrats, but there are clear factions within that. For example the recent special election for California State Assembly 17th district seat (San Francisco) was between Matt Haney and David Campos. Campos is very much in the progressive camp, and doesn't believe in things like "supply and demand". Haney used to be in the progressive camp, but he's the kind of politician that adapts his views to what he thinks will get him elected. So over the past few years he's shifted more towards the moderate camp, and ran on a much more moderate platform. So, what you end up having is a far left group, and then more of a center left. Then at the local level you have stuff like Shasta county almost getting taken over by far right groups: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-12/shasta-county-far-right-candidates-mostly-lose-uprising-continues https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-12/shasta-c...
huntertwo 4y ago
While I don’t disagree that nuclear is the ideal, this event does not prove that solar and wind is not enough. A properly implemented wind and solar system can most certainly support California. They just need more of it. Half of California’s electricity in 2021 came from natural gas anyway. Don’t forget nuclear isn’t compatible with our reality either: it’s politically infeasible to implement nuclear because everybody is scared of it. It’s also extremely expensive upfront.
ren_engineer 4y ago
it's pretty basic math, just look at the input/output for each energy type. Nuclear is the only option possible to maintain current living standards other than fossil fuels, moving to other renewables would 100% require the entire planet to accept lower quality of life for the first time since the industrial revolution
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Renewables are the future. Impossible to beat the simplicity of a solid state panel, or axle directly into a generator of wind. We are simply in the awful transitionary phase right now. It's not like starting up another Virgil C. Summer or Vogtle would have made a difference today. > Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276]. However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]–[282]; storage (battery, compressed air, pumped hydro)[40]–[43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place. > With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive. Variability, especially short term, has many mitigation options, and energy system studies are increasingly capturing these in their 100% RE scenarios. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910
tzs 4y ago
> California is a great example of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. At some point, we are going to realize "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work. We need nuclear. Isn't Californias times of peak electricity almost always in the daytime and in summer? And largely due to the need for air conditioning in many places during those times? Why wouldn't widespread rooftop solar be able to deal with that?
- ajvs 4y ago
  The article states that later in the day is the biggest issue: "Officials asked residents to conserve power on both Wednesday and Thursday between 4 and 9 p.m. local time".
Lichtso 4y ago
I assume you don't live in / know about the situation in France. Here most of the nuclear fission power plants are down because during the heat wave the rivers have dried up and don't provide enough coolant anymore. Yes, they are all under maintenance / being repaired as well, but that is because they aren't operational anyway so why not use the time to do what has been postponed for too long. No one in their sane minds would take down half their power plants for maintenance simultaneously. Also, nuclear power plants do not just stop producing energy when they are down, they even consume some. In other words, nuclear fission power plants are not the solution, they even make the situation during a heat wave worse. I wish there was a silver bullet, but I fear this is not it.
- p1mrx 4y ago
  Traditional reactors can be air cooled, it just costs more. For high temperature reactors (e.g. helium or molten salt), air cooling is trivial.
colechristensen 4y ago
I think it goes beyond good intentions into management based on distorted reality thinking followed by entirely predictable failures followed by many people explaining how the dumpster fire created is actually nice and not a problem at all. (You can see this last part in other comments here)
photochemsyn 4y ago
100% solar/wind/storage grid is entirely realizable in California using existing technology. It will require major infrastructure and manufacturing investment, unless people think relying on China-based supply chains is still a good idea for something as fundamental as the energy supply. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/los-angeles-100-percent-renewable-study.html https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/los-angeles-100-percent-renewa... Note the reason nuclear isn't being considered is mostly that you'll get more GWH per billion spent on solar/wind/storage than you will per billion spent on any new nuclear facility (which would take at least ten years to build anyway, by most estimates).
butUhmErm 4y ago
Good intentions behind making life “more comfortable” achieving a result of inequality, inane busy work, and climate inversion is everyone’s fault. Laws and borders are ephemera; California did not create this contemporary reality; the species did. It’s easier to deflect than accept one’s role. I expect better of so-called adults; why buy the arguments of people contributing to the problem deriding others as the source? Do less. Stop chasing incentives and buying into the nation state propaganda yourself then. Otherwise shut up with externalizing the blame; you’re part of the problem.
jeffbee 4y ago
Green energy is working fine. The grid operator declares their little emergency, people conserve power and optional loads are disconnected, and everyone is none the wiser. It's really the perfect triumph of regulated market forces. As for nuclear, it is disappointing that people can't see through PG&E's little tin cup scam. If we give them at least $1.4 billion, we will get at most 10 more years of Diablo. If we spend the same amount on wind, we'll get the same energy in the 10 years, and then we'll get 30 more years. It's a no-brainer and they should just kick PG&E in the teeth instead.
blitzar 4y ago
France says you are wrong
- drost 4y ago
  https://www.statista.com/statistics/270367/share-of-nuclear-power-in-the-power-supply-of-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/270367/share-of-nuclear-... What are you talking about?
  - blitzar 4y ago
    without foreign countries pumping in electricity the lights would be off in paris right now.
CodeWriter23 4y ago
The 3 now decommissioned plants CA had were good for 2000 MW each. When they were online. Which was about 1/2-2/3 of the time. San Onofre’s shutdown was actually offset by at the time, the worlds largest solar project near Calexico. I recall our state being able to go to 55,000 MW before having to curtail consumption. Now we are declaring an emergency at 43,000 MW (yesterday’s peak, source CAISO website). What we are dealing with here is failed public policy. I agree electrification is a good and noble goal. But it is quite obvious our leaders have declared certain changes necessary without creating a transition strategy. That or their unstated transition plan is a legislatively-induced crisis.
falcolas 4y ago
FWIW, Nuclear only accounts for about 10% of the total power generation in CA. Less when you consider the power CA imports. New nuclear power plants take around 20 years and $40B to build, each. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
- ipnon 4y ago
  The antecedent is that we could completely solve California’s energy and climate change crises by 2042 for $360 billion. A mountainous policy hurdle, but taller peaks have been climbed.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    They'd already committed to do better than that back in 2018, 5 years ago and keep accelerating the timescale: In March 2022, CPUC approved a plan to add 18.8 GW solar, 6.7 GW wind, and 14.7 GW batteries by 2032 at 18c/kWh, reaching 73% renewables.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_California
  - falcolas 4y ago
    9 nuclear power plants, at ~5 GWh/y apiece (45,000 GWh/y combined) would barely cover the estimated power requirements of the 2035 electric car plans (around 43,000 GWh/y). 45,000 GWh/y is also less than half of the power CA imports. 43,000 GWh/y = 15m cars * .24 KWh/m * 12,000 annual miles .24 KWh/m is for the latest Tesla 3 cars. 5GWh/y is from https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-much-electricity-does-typical-nuclear-power-plant-generate https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-...
- rasz 4y ago
  Because CA mandated this low share >The main driver deterring PG&E from seeking a 20-year operating licence extension is the 2015 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of producing 50% of its electricity from qualified renewable energy sources by 2030. PG&E’s model for the future cost of operating Diablo Canyon indicated that the cost per kilowatt hour was going to almost double, since the company would be forced to lower the amount of power it could produce from the plant in order to meet the state’s requirement. Dropping the capacity factor from the current 92% to say 50% would virtually double the price per kilowatt hour since costs are largely fixed. >The state law which effectively dictates that by 2030 Diablo Canyon should operate at lower capacity each year and buy in power from intermittent renewables has apparently sealed the fate of the plant.
ho_schi 4y ago
Important proverb but I'm skeptically if it fits here. The example is France, which struggles to generate enough energy because their nuclear fission reactors need: * Water * Maintenance * Security issues For these reasons in July 2022 only 26 from 56 were operating. Therefore Germany exports electrical energy to France with only 3 remaining nuclear fission reactors. And also to Swiss because usually Italy imports energy from France. Luckily electrical grids in Europe are connected which each other. Electrical Energy in Germany 2022-08-30 Coal 38,0% Wind 14,9% Gas 14,2% Solar 11,4% Biomass 7,9% Nuclear Fission 6,9% Others 6,8% (should be water and other resources) More than 50% are coal and gas. Bad. More than 40% are renewable. Good! Gas is intended only to fill short gaps. The plan is to increase wind-energy and solar-energy by a lot. While not controllable they are reliable. Nobody can cut off wind or gas. Another challenge is storing enough energy in hydrogen. Which is considered to be a good thing since some shift in recent years. We will need even more electrical energy for battery cars and for creating SAF/EFUEL for planes and the industry. The tricky part is doing the right thing, for the right reason, at the right time. Looking back that would've been done easy thirty years back ignoring short minded economic needs driven by capitalism. I still hope for progress regarding nuclear fusion because it could be so much better than fission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis_since_late_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis... https://www.srf.ch/news/international/energiepolitik-frankreich-abgestellte-atomkraftwerke-stuerzen-frankreich-in-energiekrise https://www.srf.ch/news/international/energiepolitik-frankre... https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/energiepreise-aktuell-so-hart-trifft-die-krise-deutschland-18232227.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/energiepreise-aktuell... # updated daily
epistasis 4y ago
> At some point, we are going to realize "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work. We need nuclear. This is not a factual statement, it's a religious statement. "Green energy" has nothing to do with what is going on with this grid emergency.
bradgessler 4y ago
Meanwhile California mandates that only EVs can be sold by 2035 for new cars without any real tangible energy policy to meet demand for power.

quest88 4y ago

How will nuclear solve the problem? Does it provide enough energy?

thepasswordis 4y ago
Yes
QuarterReptile 4y ago
It does if you build it. Edit: a typo
WaitWaitWha 4y ago
Absolutely; the following countries have most of their electricity made by nuke plants[0]: France 69.0% Ukraine 55.0% Slovakia 52.3% Belgium 50.8% Hungary 46.8% [0] International atomic energy agency; US Energy Information Administration Updated: August 2022
- berkut 4y ago
  It can solve the problem: that doesn't mean there aren't other potential issues that need to be handled correctly. Take France for instance - it's currently becoming a net importer of electricity due to many (~60%) of its Nuclear reactors being offline for maintenance.
swarnie 4y ago
Far better than dinosaur juice imo.
acidburnNSA 4y ago
It's the only energy source that can run 24/7 on a tiny land footprint without emitting carbon or being overly dependent on local weather. The one nuclear plant in California makes 10% of the entire states electricity. And last night the state assembly voted 31/1 to not prematurely shut it down as planned.
- croes 4y ago
  We see in France how good that works. And we don't fear russia bombing Ukraine's WECs
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Climate change and the 8 million people who die per year from fossil and renewable biofuel combustion products (WHO numbers) are far more concerning. Nuclear solves wayyy more problems than it causes. Oh and nuclear fission used in breeder reactors is just as renewable as the fusion fuel in the sun that powers wind/solar/hydro/bio. We can make 100% of the world's primary energy for 4 billion years with nuclear before running out of fuel.
- falcolas 4y ago
  > or being overly dependent on local weather. It was interesting to see (thanks, Europe) how nuclear power plants are still somewhat susceptible to global climate change, since they require vast amounts of water below a certain temperature to run.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Those are administrative limits set before climate change to help protect fish. You can solve the problem by keeping fish farther away from the outlets. Nuclear plants can also be cooled with nearly zero water usage, using dry cooling (dump heat straight to air basically with air radiators). This is more expensive, but may make sense as climate change kicks in. It's perfectly doable and safe.
    - 4y ago
vitiral 4y ago
"8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235." https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ That is 24 giga watt hours from a kg or uranium. The article says California is set to "top 48 gigawatts" on some days. If it stayed at peak usage all year 48 * 24 * 365 / 24 = 17,520 kg of uranium for constant peak California consumption. That seems like a lot until you think about how much oil it saves
- sologoub 4y ago
  Interesting thought experiment - for the same capacity, we’d need 2300 sq.mi of photovoltaic gross land[1], assuming we need to way overbuild let’s make that 3x (6900 sq. mi). That’s equivalent to ~15% of Mojave desert being covered in solar and not accounting for battery storage needed. That same capacity would require 26 Diablo canyon equivalent stations or only 30.5 sq.mi. [2] Of course, Greater Los Angeles area itself is 33,954 sq.mi, so if we assume 10% of that are roofs, parking lots and other structures that can be covered with a solar panel setup somehow (big assumption, but this is a thought experiment after all), we’d have close to 1/2 of the total already covered. Add other populated areas in CA and things don’t look so outlandish with some combination of Nuclear/storage/solar. The big question is whether we have the social cohesion to pull this off or not. The train from LA to SF mess has me worried here… [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mo... [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    The initial quote is for "heat" energy. To get that into electricity in a steam turbine you lose about 2/3rds of it.
    - vitiral 4y ago
      Pretty sure modern steam conversion is now over 50%, should be higher for super heated. It's come a long ways.

QuarterReptile 4y ago

>At some point, we are going to realize "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work. Not only this, but while making other aspects of life worse or more expensive, it will also make the environment worse. Anyone who feels 'middle class' in CA has enormous buying power for consumer goods, and an obvious one for this problem is a gas/propane generator. When the accepted wisdom is for all the California suburbanites to have generators as buffers against unreliable power grids, the environment loses.

edmcnulty101 4y ago
What a lesson in unintended consequences of overbearing policy.
- travisporter 4y ago
  Deregulation ~= tragedy of the commons
  - EricE 4y ago
    lol - overbearing policy restricts to the least common denominator with no opportunity for innovation. Solar and Wind have been the biggest suppressor for developing longer term base load. Why would anyone who is remotely sane take a risk to develop base load power when politicians shift priorities on whatever the flavor of the day is. This has been going on for decades which is why we are now where we are. Base load generation takes a significant commitment and requires long term planning, but current politics place a high penalty on anything requiring a long term commitment. Talk about a tragedy of commons :p
    - travisporter 4y ago
      That's a very fair point, and to be clear, nuclear/geothermal/hydro baseload should be our top priority. But I fear regulation of things like fly ash, co2 emissions will be considered overbearing and then what's stopping fossil fuels?
4y ago

bluedino 4y ago

Don't forget the "banning" of ICE

jlmorton 4y ago
Note that increased load from electric vehicles is helpful to the grid, not harmful. From a reliability perspective, all recurring load is beneficial, as it increases the overall capacity of the grid, insulating it from demand shocks, such as cooling during heatwaves. But increased base load that can be easily time-shifted is _massively_ beneficial to the grid.

exyi 4y ago

non-nuclear green energy works as part of the system. I agree you need nuclear, but you don't need 100% nuclear. If I understand it correctly, the problem now is AC demand which is easier to satisfy with solar. On hot days it tends to be sunny. Nuclear needs a ton of water for cooling which might also be a problem in the desert. AFAIK that's one of the reasons why France's nuclear plants are struggling currently.

mike_hock 4y ago
You can't do 100% nuclear as you need something responsive that can react to spikes.
- danhor 4y ago
  Even worse, if you have a large amount of wind & solar, the remaining power sources have to be very flexible. Nuclear is very non-flexible (especially in the financial sense).
- p1mrx 4y ago
  High temperature reactors can react to spikes, by storing heat in a molten salt before driving the turbines.

dmos62 4y ago

Not trying to be cynical, but I hope this gets worse before it gets better, for the sake of publicity. I think non-nuclear green energy expectations need to be reined in.

gjvc 4y ago
"reined", like a horse
- dmos62 4y ago
  Thank you. s/reign/rein
gjvc 4y ago
psst... "reined", like a horse
golemotron 4y ago
All eyes on Germany this coming winter.
- croes 4y ago
  All eyes on France now. Because their nuclear power plants don't work, Germany needs to burn gas to produce electricity for them.
  - christophilus 4y ago
    Yeah. Of all the crazy climate-related goings on, this one surprised me the most. I never considered the possibility that the natural warming of water systems would compromise nuclear power. It makes sense; I’d just never considered it!
    - cnlevy 4y ago
      This was an environnemental directive, for not releasing water too hot into the rivers. This measure has been temporarily suspended by the government. The major factor is for delayed maintenance during COVID, and corrosion problems appearing lately. https://www.dw.com/en/french-nuclear-plants-break-a-sweat-over-heat-wave/a-62806646 https://www.dw.com/en/french-nuclear-plants-break-a-sweat-ov...

cpursley 4y ago

Europe is learning (or not learning it?) the hard way... https://twitter.com/DolanGeraldine/status/1564392353300889603 https://twitter.com/DolanGeraldine/status/156439235330088960... Their choices are to start building reactors now, suck it up and remove sanctions against Russian energy or massive de-industrialization and back to the dark ages.

epistasis 4y ago
Reactors could not be built in time, and nuclear reactors can not be built at sufficient scale to solve the problem. The only way to survive is massive wind, solar, storage, and transmission. France could have led the way, but when they started building Flamanville last decade, they discovered that they nuclear doesn't really fit modern economies that well. And with half their reactors offline for extended repairs right now, France has been a big part of Europe's energy crunch. Macron has only proposed up to 14 new reactors, and there's no way they will come online before 2040. Nuclear is a solution from the past, we need to build for the future.
- cpursley 4y ago
  Well, at least the Hungarians aren't dumb (i.e., know basic math). They're planning a few more reactors. Guess everyone else can huddle around the ikea furnature fires...
  - epistasis 4y ago
    I would suggest that the French also know basic math. It is great that Hungary has been able to build a reactor, but they will need a lot more, and it would also be good if they could share some of that construction knowledge with their neighbors, or even build for them.
    - cpursley 4y ago
      That would be the Russians: https://balkangreenenergynews.com/hungary-to-build-paks-ii-nuclear-power-plant-with-russia/ https://balkangreenenergynews.com/hungary-to-build-paks-ii-n... Ironically, Russian reactors would reduce dependence on Russian gas. That kindof hurts my brain.

htk 4y ago

Or you can also see it as the time to pay for all the demagogy and virtue signaling.

amluto 4y ago

California’s electricity system is all kinds of broken. Has anyone noticed the cost per kWh or the rate at which it’s increasing? Or the fact that there are a whole pile of different rate plans, several of which offer incentives to use electricity at times that would be discouraged by other plans? CA is very far down a good-intention-paved road, and not all of it is related to nuclear per se.

naasking 4y ago

> At some point, we are going to realize "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work. It does work if you actually listen to the engineers that know what they're talking about. Renewable deployments need significant overcapacity, and have to be paired with grid expansion to average over regional variability, and energy storage to average over temporal variability. Overbuilding should be no big deal because renewables are super cheap right now and that's something that can be done immediately. Grid expansion and storage were just not getting the attention they needed, but at least I see indications that storage is getting some investment now.

EricE 4y ago
Storage is going to take more than hand waving. At some point you actually have to *deliver* cost effective energy storage at scale - right now. Otherwise shut up and start building more reliable base load from older tech; unless you want more blackouts. Physics doesn't give a crap about your feelings.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  https://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/Blog/Posts/A-golden-age-of-energy-storage.aspx https://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/Blog/Posts/A-golden-age-of... > Just a few years ago, the notion that battery storage would play a key role in California’s energy future was seen by many as a quixotic dream for an emerging technology not yet reliable or cost-effective enough to be counted on. > But in the past year alone, as California accelerates its transition to a carbon-free electric grid by 2045, there is a growing appreciation that battery storage has arrived in a big way, that it is performing well and playing an increasingly greater role in the state’s energy future. > Mainzer called the influx of battery storage capacity on the grid over the past year “an incredible growth curve, an incredible success story,” adding that “We’ve entered a golden age of energy storage here in California.” The ISO now has more than 3,160 MW of battery storage connected to the grid and is expected to add another 700 MW by the end of June.
  - EricE 4y ago
    700 MW? progress but still a drop in the bucket.

peteradio 4y ago

I've recently read some comment stating that conventional nuclear would run out of fuel in 5 years if we powered the world with only nuclear. What is the rebuttal?

MerelyMortal 4y ago
rebuttal: source and figures? That might be true with stockpiles of already-mined uranium, but we can definitely mine more uranium.
- EricE 4y ago
  we can also burn the "waste" we are insanely intent on burying in different reactor designs.
cnlevy 4y ago
There is only minor uranium prospecting at the moment, since the demand is declining. Additionnally, it doesnt take into account new technology for extracting uranium (from sea water, for example) When demand will increase, propsection will as well, and reserves will "magically" appear out of prospection, same as gas reserves, or "Peak Oil" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
- peteradio 4y ago
  So 5 years takes into account stockpiles and known sources. Is there any back of the envelope estimate of how much mine-able uranium may be out there?

colinmhayes 4y ago

Nuclear plants take around a decade to start up. Electricity generation companies are worried that by the time a new plant starts producing energy solar/other renewables will be so cheap that their plant will be obsolete. No one is willing to invest a billion dollars into a project with such long lead time given the uncertainty we are facing.

UnpossibleJim 4y ago
Don't the modern Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) greatly reduce both the cost and time (more importantly the time) for a nuclear reactor to get up and running? Or have I been sold on a lie?
- blitzar 4y ago
  "SMR's will be viable technology within a year." quote someone 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025
  - EricE 4y ago
    The fact that SMRs have made any progress at all *in spite of* the environment so strongly titled against them is, frankly, amazing. If half of the energy spend demonizing nuclear was spent on modernizing it, SMRs would be a long solved problem. It's the ultimate "stop hitting yourself" :p
    - blitzar 4y ago
      You could easily say the same about wind, solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal, 'clean coal' (what a joke), insulation, efficiency, large scale, local scale, interconnects etc. But no, everyone has their one true source of planet saving energy (that they have a financial interest in) and every cent that goes to any other is destroying humanity or treason that should be punished by death. The grid of the future will have a bit of everything, and between now and then it will have a range of temporary forms to ease the transition.

bjt2n3904 4y ago

There's a great comic / meme I saw that perfectly describes my feelings towards this situation. A: Climate change will kill us all. Let's dismantle our socioeconomic system to prevent it! B: How about nuclear power? A: I don't want nuclear power! A: I want to dismantle our socioeconomic system!

croes 4y ago

And than you look at France.

berkut 4y ago
While France is generally a lot more self-sufficient (and exports energy to its neighbours), that's not happening currently, as almost 59% of its reactors are offline for maintenance.
- blitzar 4y ago
  But the op claims the one true solution is nucear 90% of the time every time... unfortunately for the country that is all in on nuclear the lights are only on because of ... well renewables and coal.

president 4y ago

It's not good intentions. Most of these policies are created because they sound nice and "compassionate" to your average good-hearted but naive voter. Unfortunately, the reality is that a lot of these problems require "tough love" type solutions.

dncornholio 4y ago

> "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work Saying green energy just doesn't work is bullocks. Solar works great, can run your AC basically for free during daytime. It's not a complete solution, but it definitely will create less stress on the grid.

MerelyMortal 4y ago
I hear two arguments: a) renewables provide the most power when power is used the most (during the day when the sun is shining to run a/c) b) charging EVs at night will balance the grid I don't think you can do B with A, right?
- dncornholio 4y ago
  I never said A or B. My point is super straightforward, having solar is better for the grid than having no solar.
  - MerelyMortal 4y ago
    I never said that you said A or B. Of course having something useful is better than not having it. The issue is, that a lot of people seem to be interested in replacing more-useful things (nuclear which provides power during the day for a/c and power at night for EVs) with less-useful things (solar which only provides power during the day).

kmeisthax 4y ago

I disagree with calling California's intentions "good". On homelessness, for example, that is largely a problem of California's own making. At every step the state has decided to make homes more expensive and turn homeowners into a landed gentry. As part of this, the loudest NIMBYs basically dictate what can and can't be built in the state. I would not be surprised if those NIMBYs have also been hard at work stymying necessary grid infrastructure in the same way they stymied affordable housing and high-speed rail. Nuclear energy's downfall is a complicated subject with factors outside of California's control. Even if California wanted nuclear today, they would have to get past a whole host of regulatory and financial barriers they don't meaningfully control. It's the sort of thing the federal government needs to decide to start paying R&D on again.

TechBro8615 4y ago

> California politicians seem to have a lot of good intentions What evidence do you have for this? It seems to me that the intentions of most California politicians are motivated by what causes people to vote for them. But their voters are a mostly captive audience, since they have such little choice in the matter - what are they gonna do, elect a “semi-fascist MAGA Republican?” Of course not! So California politicians can do whatever they want, because their base will vote for them to beat any Republican. That means they just need to beat opponents from their own party in primaries, where they take positions on issues that are generally far outside of mainstream preferences. They’re optimizing for pleasing the extremists in their party, not for implementing whatever “good intentions” they might claim to have.

kelp 4y ago
Yes, the state is basically run by Democrats, but there are clear factions within that. For example the recent special election for California State Assembly 17th district seat (San Francisco) was between Matt Haney and David Campos. Campos is very much in the progressive camp, and doesn't believe in things like "supply and demand". Haney used to be in the progressive camp, but he's the kind of politician that adapts his views to what he thinks will get him elected. So over the past few years he's shifted more towards the moderate camp, and ran on a much more moderate platform. So, what you end up having is a far left group, and then more of a center left. Then at the local level you have stuff like Shasta county almost getting taken over by far right groups: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-12/shasta-county-far-right-candidates-mostly-lose-uprising-continues https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-12/shasta-c...

huntertwo 4y ago

While I don’t disagree that nuclear is the ideal, this event does not prove that solar and wind is not enough. A properly implemented wind and solar system can most certainly support California. They just need more of it. Half of California’s electricity in 2021 came from natural gas anyway. Don’t forget nuclear isn’t compatible with our reality either: it’s politically infeasible to implement nuclear because everybody is scared of it. It’s also extremely expensive upfront.

ren_engineer 4y ago

it's pretty basic math, just look at the input/output for each energy type. Nuclear is the only option possible to maintain current living standards other than fossil fuels, moving to other renewables would 100% require the entire planet to accept lower quality of life for the first time since the industrial revolution

Gwypaas 4y ago
Renewables are the future. Impossible to beat the simplicity of a solid state panel, or axle directly into a generator of wind. We are simply in the awful transitionary phase right now. It's not like starting up another Virgil C. Summer or Vogtle would have made a difference today. > Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276]. However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]–[282]; storage (battery, compressed air, pumped hydro)[40]–[43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place. > With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive. Variability, especially short term, has many mitigation options, and energy system studies are increasingly capturing these in their 100% RE scenarios. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910

tzs 4y ago

> California is a great example of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. At some point, we are going to realize "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work. We need nuclear. Isn't Californias times of peak electricity almost always in the daytime and in summer? And largely due to the need for air conditioning in many places during those times? Why wouldn't widespread rooftop solar be able to deal with that?

ajvs 4y ago
The article states that later in the day is the biggest issue: "Officials asked residents to conserve power on both Wednesday and Thursday between 4 and 9 p.m. local time".

Lichtso 4y ago

I assume you don't live in / know about the situation in France. Here most of the nuclear fission power plants are down because during the heat wave the rivers have dried up and don't provide enough coolant anymore. Yes, they are all under maintenance / being repaired as well, but that is because they aren't operational anyway so why not use the time to do what has been postponed for too long. No one in their sane minds would take down half their power plants for maintenance simultaneously. Also, nuclear power plants do not just stop producing energy when they are down, they even consume some. In other words, nuclear fission power plants are not the solution, they even make the situation during a heat wave worse. I wish there was a silver bullet, but I fear this is not it.

p1mrx 4y ago
Traditional reactors can be air cooled, it just costs more. For high temperature reactors (e.g. helium or molten salt), air cooling is trivial.

colechristensen 4y ago

I think it goes beyond good intentions into management based on distorted reality thinking followed by entirely predictable failures followed by many people explaining how the dumpster fire created is actually nice and not a problem at all. (You can see this last part in other comments here)

photochemsyn 4y ago

100% solar/wind/storage grid is entirely realizable in California using existing technology. It will require major infrastructure and manufacturing investment, unless people think relying on China-based supply chains is still a good idea for something as fundamental as the energy supply. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/los-angeles-100-percent-renewable-study.html https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/los-angeles-100-percent-renewa... Note the reason nuclear isn't being considered is mostly that you'll get more GWH per billion spent on solar/wind/storage than you will per billion spent on any new nuclear facility (which would take at least ten years to build anyway, by most estimates).

butUhmErm 4y ago

Good intentions behind making life “more comfortable” achieving a result of inequality, inane busy work, and climate inversion is everyone’s fault. Laws and borders are ephemera; California did not create this contemporary reality; the species did. It’s easier to deflect than accept one’s role. I expect better of so-called adults; why buy the arguments of people contributing to the problem deriding others as the source? Do less. Stop chasing incentives and buying into the nation state propaganda yourself then. Otherwise shut up with externalizing the blame; you’re part of the problem.

jeffbee 4y ago

Green energy is working fine. The grid operator declares their little emergency, people conserve power and optional loads are disconnected, and everyone is none the wiser. It's really the perfect triumph of regulated market forces. As for nuclear, it is disappointing that people can't see through PG&E's little tin cup scam. If we give them at least $1.4 billion, we will get at most 10 more years of Diablo. If we spend the same amount on wind, we'll get the same energy in the 10 years, and then we'll get 30 more years. It's a no-brainer and they should just kick PG&E in the teeth instead.

blitzar 4y ago

France says you are wrong

drost 4y ago
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270367/share-of-nuclear-power-in-the-power-supply-of-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/270367/share-of-nuclear-... What are you talking about?
- blitzar 4y ago
  without foreign countries pumping in electricity the lights would be off in paris right now.

CodeWriter23 4y ago

The 3 now decommissioned plants CA had were good for 2000 MW each. When they were online. Which was about 1/2-2/3 of the time. San Onofre’s shutdown was actually offset by at the time, the worlds largest solar project near Calexico. I recall our state being able to go to 55,000 MW before having to curtail consumption. Now we are declaring an emergency at 43,000 MW (yesterday’s peak, source CAISO website). What we are dealing with here is failed public policy. I agree electrification is a good and noble goal. But it is quite obvious our leaders have declared certain changes necessary without creating a transition strategy. That or their unstated transition plan is a legislatively-induced crisis.

falcolas 4y ago

FWIW, Nuclear only accounts for about 10% of the total power generation in CA. Less when you consider the power CA imports. New nuclear power plants take around 20 years and $40B to build, each. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...

ipnon 4y ago
The antecedent is that we could completely solve California’s energy and climate change crises by 2042 for $360 billion. A mountainous policy hurdle, but taller peaks have been climbed.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  They'd already committed to do better than that back in 2018, 5 years ago and keep accelerating the timescale: In March 2022, CPUC approved a plan to add 18.8 GW solar, 6.7 GW wind, and 14.7 GW batteries by 2032 at 18c/kWh, reaching 73% renewables.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_California
- falcolas 4y ago
  9 nuclear power plants, at ~5 GWh/y apiece (45,000 GWh/y combined) would barely cover the estimated power requirements of the 2035 electric car plans (around 43,000 GWh/y). 45,000 GWh/y is also less than half of the power CA imports. 43,000 GWh/y = 15m cars * .24 KWh/m * 12,000 annual miles .24 KWh/m is for the latest Tesla 3 cars. 5GWh/y is from https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-much-electricity-does-typical-nuclear-power-plant-generate https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-...
rasz 4y ago
Because CA mandated this low share >The main driver deterring PG&E from seeking a 20-year operating licence extension is the 2015 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of producing 50% of its electricity from qualified renewable energy sources by 2030. PG&E’s model for the future cost of operating Diablo Canyon indicated that the cost per kilowatt hour was going to almost double, since the company would be forced to lower the amount of power it could produce from the plant in order to meet the state’s requirement. Dropping the capacity factor from the current 92% to say 50% would virtually double the price per kilowatt hour since costs are largely fixed. >The state law which effectively dictates that by 2030 Diablo Canyon should operate at lower capacity each year and buy in power from intermittent renewables has apparently sealed the fate of the plant.

ho_schi 4y ago

Important proverb but I'm skeptically if it fits here. The example is France, which struggles to generate enough energy because their nuclear fission reactors need: * Water * Maintenance * Security issues For these reasons in July 2022 only 26 from 56 were operating. Therefore Germany exports electrical energy to France with only 3 remaining nuclear fission reactors. And also to Swiss because usually Italy imports energy from France. Luckily electrical grids in Europe are connected which each other. Electrical Energy in Germany 2022-08-30 Coal 38,0% Wind 14,9% Gas 14,2% Solar 11,4% Biomass 7,9% Nuclear Fission 6,9% Others 6,8% (should be water and other resources) More than 50% are coal and gas. Bad. More than 40% are renewable. Good! Gas is intended only to fill short gaps. The plan is to increase wind-energy and solar-energy by a lot. While not controllable they are reliable. Nobody can cut off wind or gas. Another challenge is storing enough energy in hydrogen. Which is considered to be a good thing since some shift in recent years. We will need even more electrical energy for battery cars and for creating SAF/EFUEL for planes and the industry. The tricky part is doing the right thing, for the right reason, at the right time. Looking back that would've been done easy thirty years back ignoring short minded economic needs driven by capitalism. I still hope for progress regarding nuclear fusion because it could be so much better than fission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis_since_late_2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis... https://www.srf.ch/news/international/energiepolitik-frankreich-abgestellte-atomkraftwerke-stuerzen-frankreich-in-energiekrise https://www.srf.ch/news/international/energiepolitik-frankre... https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/energiepreise-aktuell-so-hart-trifft-die-krise-deutschland-18232227.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/energiepreise-aktuell... # updated daily

epistasis 4y ago

> At some point, we are going to realize "green" non nuclear energy doesn't work. We need nuclear. This is not a factual statement, it's a religious statement. "Green energy" has nothing to do with what is going on with this grid emergency.

bradgessler 4y ago

Meanwhile California mandates that only EVs can be sold by 2035 for new cars without any real tangible energy policy to meet demand for power.