6 ms·

I think this is problem with nuclear power... You can never get a new project started without a public outcry. So instead of new, safe, carbon neutral nuclear

I think this is problem with nuclear power... You can never get a new project started without a public outcry. So instead of new, safe, carbon neutral nuclear power (like thorium reactors, passive cooling, etc), we're are continuing to running literal old-timer nuclear plants (Diablo Canyon was built in 1981). Most folks would not drive a car from 80s, but somehow we're cool with running powerplants that old. IMHO The best for our carbon footprint with safety would be new nuclear plants.

passwordoops 3y ago
My knee jerk reaction to the headline was "YES"! Then your healthy dose of reality had to bring me down
kelseyfrog 3y ago
The Diablo Canyon plant construction is closer to WWII than it is to today.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 3y ago
  So what? How long are power plants "supposed" to last?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Design lifespan for a nuclear plant is typically 30-40 years or so.
panick21_ 3y ago
There are still many old nuclear plants running just fine and produce electricity at decent prices. Not that I am opposed to new nuclear construction but its a completely wrong to suggest these old plants are to old.
idopmstuff 3y ago
Do you have any specific criticisms of its safety? Age doesn't make something unreliable or unsafe. If you had a Nokia phone in the 80s, I'll bet that thing is more reliable than any phone produced in the last decade.
- dheera 3y ago
  I'm all for more nuclear power displacing natural gas and coal and worse things until we can find a way to deploy renewable energy faster. Nuclear is near-zero carbon, it's just not renewable, but that's less of a problem in the short term. What I don't like is that Diablo Canyon is built on the shoreline, which is ripe for another Fukushima-like disaster in the event of a tsunami that hits California. Even if that cliff edge is high it may destabilize with a high enough wave.
- undersuit 3y ago
  Reliably unusable and unsafe. The defunct first generation cellphone networks had no encryption.
epistasis 3y ago
The problem with nuclear is not the public outcry against it. That did not stop our attempts at Vogtle or Summer in the 2000s. What stopped these new nuclear builds, and doomed future new nuclear builds, was fraud on the part of management, unconstructable designs, incompetence in EPC, etc. these are the challenges with nuclear. If somebody could build cost effective nuclear that didn't bankrupt those building it, there are roughly 100 reactors in the US nearing their end of life that local populations would love to keep running. Nuclear didn't die because of public outcry in the US, it died because of cost overruns and bankrupting utilities. No buyer wants to take on that risk.
- philwelch 3y ago
  Almost all of the cost issues with nuclear power is regulatory in nature. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...
  - IntelMiner 3y ago
    With how brazenly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been captured? Unlikely
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Even if this were true (and I have my doubts), nobody has a proposal for a different regulatory scheme that would lower costs. France has seen similarly high costs with an entirely different regulatory scheme, for example. "Regulations" are the excuse of people that didn't do their homework or prepare for the serious work of large construction projects. All of which have huge overruns in the US, regulations or not. In truth, it's a labor and productivity problem. Advanced economies have far more productive uses for workers than sitting around construction sites, waiting for something to arrive so that they can finally do a small amount of work before waiting some more.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      [flagged]
the_doctah 3y ago
Am I crazy to think something like a nuclear power plant should last decades?
lotsofpulp 3y ago
> Most folks would not drive a car from 80s, but somehow we're cool with running powerplants that old. What is the connection between car longevity and nuclear power plant longevity?
kelnos 3y ago
Given the renewable option, I don't think CA should be building new nuclear plants. The state has plenty of sun, year-round, and plenty of open, undeveloped space to build PV fields with battery storage. I think it's perfectly fine (and smart) to keep Diablo Canyon running longer. $6B over five years doesn't seem crazy at all for a plant rated for 2.2GW. And shutting it down when our generation mix still heavily relies on burning natural gas would be a step backward. But renewables are here now, today, and are cost-effective, much more so than building new nuclear plants, which are huge capital undertakings, that take many years to build, and the disposal of nuclear waste is still fraught with political and NIMBY issues. I think you are incorrect to suggest that building new nuclear plants (even the new safest, cleanest designs) is the best bet for our carbon footprint. It seems pretty clear to me -- at least in a place like California -- that solar is miles ahead the better choice. > Most folks would not drive a car from 80s, but somehow we're cool with running powerplants that old. C'mon, that's just disingenuous. You can't just throw out a random machine and try to compare it apples-to-apples with a nuclear power plant.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Are you opposed to all reactor designs? Because MSRs generate way less waste than even existing designs, don’t need a turbine/water cooling, and can’t melt down.
jefftk 3y ago
> Diablo Canyon was built in 1981 More relevantly, if you're talking about the age of the design, construction started in 1968.
deepbluev7 3y ago
For reference, the nuclear plants Germany shut down, were all built in the 1980s as well, although some of them in 1989 with construction started in '82 or the 70s. People still complain, that those got shut down, but really the problem was rather that no new ones were built in the last 40 years, especially considering what we learned in that time. Renewables are simply much easier to build. They mostly affect people that can see them and especially solar can be built in a lot of places, that don't really bother people, unless they don't like how they look (like a roof or to shade parking spots). Wind is a bit more difficult, but apart from the shadow and in closer distances the noise, the look isn't actually that bad. Kids tend to get about as excited about them as when they see a fire or dump truck. It is mostly that we prefer to look at peoples cars and streets than a spinning wheel on a wind turbine. That's probably the big benefit renewables have. They have relatively few downsides to people and failure modes are mostly predictable as well (electrical faults or falling over would probably be the worst case and feel much easier to run away from, when you try to imagine them). So there shouldn't be as much resistance against them, apart from people living directly next to them even when people are unreasonable. If a 100% electrical grid with renewables is possible (and I think it is), I think it is simply the better option, because it really shouldn't bother anyone (and probably also is cheaper and quicker to build). But maybe I am overestimating how much people care about looks or the coolness factor of nuclear.

passwordoops 3y ago

My knee jerk reaction to the headline was "YES"! Then your healthy dose of reality had to bring me down

kelseyfrog 3y ago

The Diablo Canyon plant construction is closer to WWII than it is to today.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 3y ago
So what? How long are power plants "supposed" to last?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Design lifespan for a nuclear plant is typically 30-40 years or so.

panick21_ 3y ago

There are still many old nuclear plants running just fine and produce electricity at decent prices. Not that I am opposed to new nuclear construction but its a completely wrong to suggest these old plants are to old.

idopmstuff 3y ago

Do you have any specific criticisms of its safety? Age doesn't make something unreliable or unsafe. If you had a Nokia phone in the 80s, I'll bet that thing is more reliable than any phone produced in the last decade.

dheera 3y ago
I'm all for more nuclear power displacing natural gas and coal and worse things until we can find a way to deploy renewable energy faster. Nuclear is near-zero carbon, it's just not renewable, but that's less of a problem in the short term. What I don't like is that Diablo Canyon is built on the shoreline, which is ripe for another Fukushima-like disaster in the event of a tsunami that hits California. Even if that cliff edge is high it may destabilize with a high enough wave.
undersuit 3y ago
Reliably unusable and unsafe. The defunct first generation cellphone networks had no encryption.

epistasis 3y ago

The problem with nuclear is not the public outcry against it. That did not stop our attempts at Vogtle or Summer in the 2000s. What stopped these new nuclear builds, and doomed future new nuclear builds, was fraud on the part of management, unconstructable designs, incompetence in EPC, etc. these are the challenges with nuclear. If somebody could build cost effective nuclear that didn't bankrupt those building it, there are roughly 100 reactors in the US nearing their end of life that local populations would love to keep running. Nuclear didn't die because of public outcry in the US, it died because of cost overruns and bankrupting utilities. No buyer wants to take on that risk.

philwelch 3y ago
Almost all of the cost issues with nuclear power is regulatory in nature. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...
- IntelMiner 3y ago
  With how brazenly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been captured? Unlikely
- epistasis 3y ago
  Even if this were true (and I have my doubts), nobody has a proposal for a different regulatory scheme that would lower costs. France has seen similarly high costs with an entirely different regulatory scheme, for example. "Regulations" are the excuse of people that didn't do their homework or prepare for the serious work of large construction projects. All of which have huge overruns in the US, regulations or not. In truth, it's a labor and productivity problem. Advanced economies have far more productive uses for workers than sitting around construction sites, waiting for something to arrive so that they can finally do a small amount of work before waiting some more.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    [flagged]

the_doctah 3y ago

Am I crazy to think something like a nuclear power plant should last decades?

lotsofpulp 3y ago

> Most folks would not drive a car from 80s, but somehow we're cool with running powerplants that old. What is the connection between car longevity and nuclear power plant longevity?

kelnos 3y ago

Given the renewable option, I don't think CA should be building new nuclear plants. The state has plenty of sun, year-round, and plenty of open, undeveloped space to build PV fields with battery storage. I think it's perfectly fine (and smart) to keep Diablo Canyon running longer. $6B over five years doesn't seem crazy at all for a plant rated for 2.2GW. And shutting it down when our generation mix still heavily relies on burning natural gas would be a step backward. But renewables are here now, today, and are cost-effective, much more so than building new nuclear plants, which are huge capital undertakings, that take many years to build, and the disposal of nuclear waste is still fraught with political and NIMBY issues. I think you are incorrect to suggest that building new nuclear plants (even the new safest, cleanest designs) is the best bet for our carbon footprint. It seems pretty clear to me -- at least in a place like California -- that solar is miles ahead the better choice. > Most folks would not drive a car from 80s, but somehow we're cool with running powerplants that old. C'mon, that's just disingenuous. You can't just throw out a random machine and try to compare it apples-to-apples with a nuclear power plant.

vlovich123 3y ago
Are you opposed to all reactor designs? Because MSRs generate way less waste than even existing designs, don’t need a turbine/water cooling, and can’t melt down.

jefftk 3y ago

> Diablo Canyon was built in 1981 More relevantly, if you're talking about the age of the design, construction started in 1968.

deepbluev7 3y ago

For reference, the nuclear plants Germany shut down, were all built in the 1980s as well, although some of them in 1989 with construction started in '82 or the 70s. People still complain, that those got shut down, but really the problem was rather that no new ones were built in the last 40 years, especially considering what we learned in that time. Renewables are simply much easier to build. They mostly affect people that can see them and especially solar can be built in a lot of places, that don't really bother people, unless they don't like how they look (like a roof or to shade parking spots). Wind is a bit more difficult, but apart from the shadow and in closer distances the noise, the look isn't actually that bad. Kids tend to get about as excited about them as when they see a fire or dump truck. It is mostly that we prefer to look at peoples cars and streets than a spinning wheel on a wind turbine. That's probably the big benefit renewables have. They have relatively few downsides to people and failure modes are mostly predictable as well (electrical faults or falling over would probably be the worst case and feel much easier to run away from, when you try to imagine them). So there shouldn't be as much resistance against them, apart from people living directly next to them even when people are unreasonable. If a 100% electrical grid with renewables is possible (and I think it is), I think it is simply the better option, because it really shouldn't bother anyone (and probably also is cheaper and quicker to build). But maybe I am overestimating how much people care about looks or the coolness factor of nuclear.