4 ms·

This would be the final straw for me and I would have to move states. It's unbelievable what these state employees spend their time on, as if they are some kind

by proc0 3y ago

This would be the final straw for me and I would have to move states. It's unbelievable what these state employees spend their time on, as if they are some kind of lordship ruling over the peasants. > But amid the debate over rate design, we’ve lost sight of the much bigger challenge of how to bring down utility costs overall You increase supply!! Build more nuclear!! Then it will be cheap for everyone. But nooo, somehow the cost of nuclear is more than the cost of climate change.

jsyang00 3y ago
pretty much nothing the rotten state of California does should constitute a surprise to anyone anymore
throwaway5959 3y ago
Nuclear would be more expensive than the solar, wind and battery storage tech we’re building out now. Please do some research before you comment on posts here, this isn’t X.
- Newlaptop 3y ago
  Nuclear is only expensive because we've spent decades bureaucratically strangling it with red tape. The technology exists to safely do nuclear at low cost. We just need to remove the billions of dollars wasted in intentionally-bad regulatory processes that were written into law to prevent nuclear from being successful.
  - stop50 3y ago
    There are only a few countries that can deal with their nuclear trash in a semipermanent solution and those never had much and are relativ save from problems that could happen.
- proc0 3y ago
  Renewables don't scale and don't have the energy density to satisfy the demand that would require replacing fossil fuels. It's not even close. We don't know when that new battery tech will be ready, it could easily be another decade or more... so the real question is do we want to risk climate change more and more, or should we use nuclear to replace fossil fuels immediately while the renewable tech matures.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    California gets most of its electricity from renewables, a small amount of nuclear and the balance is natural gas and imports. https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
    - thedrbrian 3y ago
      Even in summer CAISO admit it's only getting 47% from renewables. YTD from the December report is 35% https://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/ReportsBulletins/RenewablesReporting.aspx#MonthlyRenewables https://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/ReportsBulletins/Renewabl...
      - throwaway5959 3y ago
        Only 47%. lol OK. Let’s check back in five years from now and see where CA is at.
  - iknowstuff 3y ago
    I’ve explained here before how the cost of installations like tesla megapacks we have in CA + solar is still significantly cheaper than nuclear. With a much faster ROI. Nuclear makes no financial sense in CA.
    - throwaway5959 3y ago
      Plus no radioactive waste to manage for thousands of years, which no one seems to factor into the cost.
- marcusverus 3y ago
  Cheap solar is a meme. Zero solar farms can provide their sticker output overnight after an overcast winter day. Most can't provide their sticker output all night after a sunny summer day! Of course, these shortfalls can't result in blackouts, so instead we simply keep extra backup capacity on standby. The studies never price this in, but you can rest assured that the energy companies do.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Thankfully, California's main problems in the southern California region is the need for electricity to run air conditioners during the day, so that's not the worst problem. Nuclear would be better but there are other problems with it that make it unviable.
    - marcusverus 3y ago
      California's own regulations will soon be adding a lot of evening/night-time demand [0]. Surely it's a problem that a huge amount of demand will be coming online just as solar output is falling to nil? Nuclear plants have been powering France for 50 years, of course it is viable! [0] https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/california-ban-gasoline-cars.html https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/cal...
jerlam 3y ago
It's not supply that's the main driver of costs: One of the biggest such costs in California is the billions of dollars being spent on hardening and burying power lines to reduce the risk of them sparking wildfires. Utilities are also bearing the costs of compensating the victims of wildfires caused by poorly maintained grid equipment
- proc0 3y ago
  That's part of supply. It's how the energy is supplied to the customer. Mismanagement of the supply includes both the wild fires caused by not clearing the dry brush, the poor maintenance of the grid, and the shutting down of nuclear plants without building new ones. All of this affects how much energy people are getting and increases prices. If at least we had a good production by building nuclear, the other factors would be alleviated.
  - Arrath 3y ago
    While I think I agree with you the broader sense, what youre describing is typically broken out into "distribution" and "generation". Sure it's pedantic but surely so is their accounting.
    - proc0 3y ago
      No, that's fair. I could be more precise in terminology there, next time.
readyman 3y ago
>Build more nuclear!! The private sector is uninterested in such long term ROI so "building more buclear" would require a major expansion of public investment. Would you support that? If so, the next question is whether that investment is delivered to the private sector as a subsidy or whether the infrastructure will be built and maintained publicly, because the former has a terrible track record while the latter has shown great historical success (France, Germany, and even the US) but is not in the imaginations of the current ruling class. What do you prefer?
- proc0 3y ago
  Yeah I would support public investment in nuclear. I think it would be good to at least explore the options, build smaller nuclear facilities if possible, learning along the way. Renewables are still great for smaller use cases, and it can continue improving. I think either way it has to be a collab. between private and public sectors because of the magnitude of the risk, which in theory is largely understood but in practice people can make mistakes and those will be costly. Ultimately this would only be done because of climate change, otherwise we could just take our time switching to renewables.
MuffinFlavored 3y ago
> This would be the final straw for me and I would have to move states. There will still be 39,000,000+ people left in the state if you do.
iknowstuff 3y ago
Explain the nuclear fixation please. The construction of new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia provides a real-world example to re-evaluate the costs associated with building nuclear power versus a combination of solar power and battery storage. The Plant Vogtle expansion involved the construction of two new reactors, Units 3 and 4, which faced significant delays and cost overruns. Initially estimated to cost around $14 billion with an expected operational start in 2016, the project's expenses ballooned to over $30 billion, more than double the original estimate. This increase does not include an additional $3.68 billion paid by the original contractor, Westinghouse, to the owners after going bankrupt, which brings the total spending to more than $34 billion. The construction started in 2009, with Unit 3 reaching "initial criticality" in 2023, marking the beginning of a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction. Unit 3 is expected to come into service in mid-2023, with Unit 4 following in late 2023 or early 2024 [1](https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-arrives-7-years-late-17b-over-cost https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-...) [2](https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-cost-now-forecast-top-30-billion https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-c...) [3](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-new-nuclear-reactors-could-be-the-last-built-in-the-us https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-ne...). - Nuclear (Vogtle): The total projected costs for the Vogtle expansion are nearing $35 billion for two reactors, providing a combined capacity of 2.2 GW. This translates to approximately $15.9 billion per GW. - Solar + Megapack: the capital cost for solar power is around $1 billion per GW. Adding battery storage to match the continuous output capability of nuclear plants significantly affects the total cost. Tesla Megapack costs vary, but an estimate of around $200 million for 1 GWh of storage was given. The exact cost for solar plus Megapack to achieve comparable 24/7 output capacity as nuclear would depend on the required storage duration to offset the variability of solar generation. The Vogtle project's cost overruns and delays highlight the financial risks associated with large-scale nuclear projects. The actual cost of Vogtle significantly exceeds initial projections, emphasizing the challenge of managing complex nuclear construction projects within budget and timeline expectations. In contrast, solar and battery storage projects, such as those utilizing Tesla's Megapack, offer faster deployment times and have seen decreasing costs over time. However, to achieve a continuous power supply similar to a 1 GW nuclear plant, substantial investment in storage would be necessary, potentially narrowing the cost difference.
dalyons 3y ago
Nuclear would increase costs, due to it being the most expensive form of new generation we have.
EarthMephit 3y ago
Surely if the government wanted to go down this route, it would be a lot fairer and simpler to manage with the government sending a low-income rebate/refund check to low-income households when they do their taxes? They could then collect the costs off the energy companies. The proposed solution seems like a corporation's wet-dream - Being able to charge consumers exactly the maximum amount of what they are able to pay for a product.

by proc0 3y ago

jsyang00 3y ago

pretty much nothing the rotten state of California does should constitute a surprise to anyone anymore

throwaway5959 3y ago

Nuclear would be more expensive than the solar, wind and battery storage tech we’re building out now. Please do some research before you comment on posts here, this isn’t X.

Newlaptop 3y ago
Nuclear is only expensive because we've spent decades bureaucratically strangling it with red tape. The technology exists to safely do nuclear at low cost. We just need to remove the billions of dollars wasted in intentionally-bad regulatory processes that were written into law to prevent nuclear from being successful.
- stop50 3y ago
  There are only a few countries that can deal with their nuclear trash in a semipermanent solution and those never had much and are relativ save from problems that could happen.
proc0 3y ago
Renewables don't scale and don't have the energy density to satisfy the demand that would require replacing fossil fuels. It's not even close. We don't know when that new battery tech will be ready, it could easily be another decade or more... so the real question is do we want to risk climate change more and more, or should we use nuclear to replace fossil fuels immediately while the renewable tech matures.
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  California gets most of its electricity from renewables, a small amount of nuclear and the balance is natural gas and imports. https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
  - thedrbrian 3y ago
    Even in summer CAISO admit it's only getting 47% from renewables. YTD from the December report is 35% https://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/ReportsBulletins/RenewablesReporting.aspx#MonthlyRenewables https://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/ReportsBulletins/Renewabl...
    - throwaway5959 3y ago
      Only 47%. lol OK. Let’s check back in five years from now and see where CA is at.
- iknowstuff 3y ago
  I’ve explained here before how the cost of installations like tesla megapacks we have in CA + solar is still significantly cheaper than nuclear. With a much faster ROI. Nuclear makes no financial sense in CA.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    Plus no radioactive waste to manage for thousands of years, which no one seems to factor into the cost.
marcusverus 3y ago
Cheap solar is a meme. Zero solar farms can provide their sticker output overnight after an overcast winter day. Most can't provide their sticker output all night after a sunny summer day! Of course, these shortfalls can't result in blackouts, so instead we simply keep extra backup capacity on standby. The studies never price this in, but you can rest assured that the energy companies do.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Thankfully, California's main problems in the southern California region is the need for electricity to run air conditioners during the day, so that's not the worst problem. Nuclear would be better but there are other problems with it that make it unviable.
  - marcusverus 3y ago
    California's own regulations will soon be adding a lot of evening/night-time demand [0]. Surely it's a problem that a huge amount of demand will be coming online just as solar output is falling to nil? Nuclear plants have been powering France for 50 years, of course it is viable! [0] https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/california-ban-gasoline-cars.html https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/cal...

jerlam 3y ago

It's not supply that's the main driver of costs: One of the biggest such costs in California is the billions of dollars being spent on hardening and burying power lines to reduce the risk of them sparking wildfires. Utilities are also bearing the costs of compensating the victims of wildfires caused by poorly maintained grid equipment

proc0 3y ago
That's part of supply. It's how the energy is supplied to the customer. Mismanagement of the supply includes both the wild fires caused by not clearing the dry brush, the poor maintenance of the grid, and the shutting down of nuclear plants without building new ones. All of this affects how much energy people are getting and increases prices. If at least we had a good production by building nuclear, the other factors would be alleviated.
- Arrath 3y ago
  While I think I agree with you the broader sense, what youre describing is typically broken out into "distribution" and "generation". Sure it's pedantic but surely so is their accounting.
  - proc0 3y ago
    No, that's fair. I could be more precise in terminology there, next time.

readyman 3y ago

>Build more nuclear!! The private sector is uninterested in such long term ROI so "building more buclear" would require a major expansion of public investment. Would you support that? If so, the next question is whether that investment is delivered to the private sector as a subsidy or whether the infrastructure will be built and maintained publicly, because the former has a terrible track record while the latter has shown great historical success (France, Germany, and even the US) but is not in the imaginations of the current ruling class. What do you prefer?

proc0 3y ago
Yeah I would support public investment in nuclear. I think it would be good to at least explore the options, build smaller nuclear facilities if possible, learning along the way. Renewables are still great for smaller use cases, and it can continue improving. I think either way it has to be a collab. between private and public sectors because of the magnitude of the risk, which in theory is largely understood but in practice people can make mistakes and those will be costly. Ultimately this would only be done because of climate change, otherwise we could just take our time switching to renewables.

MuffinFlavored 3y ago

> This would be the final straw for me and I would have to move states. There will still be 39,000,000+ people left in the state if you do.

iknowstuff 3y ago

Explain the nuclear fixation please. The construction of new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia provides a real-world example to re-evaluate the costs associated with building nuclear power versus a combination of solar power and battery storage. The Plant Vogtle expansion involved the construction of two new reactors, Units 3 and 4, which faced significant delays and cost overruns. Initially estimated to cost around $14 billion with an expected operational start in 2016, the project's expenses ballooned to over $30 billion, more than double the original estimate. This increase does not include an additional $3.68 billion paid by the original contractor, Westinghouse, to the owners after going bankrupt, which brings the total spending to more than $34 billion. The construction started in 2009, with Unit 3 reaching "initial criticality" in 2023, marking the beginning of a self-sustaining nuclear fission reaction. Unit 3 is expected to come into service in mid-2023, with Unit 4 following in late 2023 or early 2024 [1](https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-arrives-7-years-late-17b-over-cost https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/05/25/georgia-nuclear-rebirth-...) [2](https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-cost-now-forecast-top-30-billion https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/05/09/georgia-nuclear-plants-c...) [3](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-new-nuclear-reactors-could-be-the-last-built-in-the-us https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/georgias-big-ne...). - Nuclear (Vogtle): The total projected costs for the Vogtle expansion are nearing $35 billion for two reactors, providing a combined capacity of 2.2 GW. This translates to approximately $15.9 billion per GW. - Solar + Megapack: the capital cost for solar power is around $1 billion per GW. Adding battery storage to match the continuous output capability of nuclear plants significantly affects the total cost. Tesla Megapack costs vary, but an estimate of around $200 million for 1 GWh of storage was given. The exact cost for solar plus Megapack to achieve comparable 24/7 output capacity as nuclear would depend on the required storage duration to offset the variability of solar generation. The Vogtle project's cost overruns and delays highlight the financial risks associated with large-scale nuclear projects. The actual cost of Vogtle significantly exceeds initial projections, emphasizing the challenge of managing complex nuclear construction projects within budget and timeline expectations. In contrast, solar and battery storage projects, such as those utilizing Tesla's Megapack, offer faster deployment times and have seen decreasing costs over time. However, to achieve a continuous power supply similar to a 1 GW nuclear plant, substantial investment in storage would be necessary, potentially narrowing the cost difference.

dalyons 3y ago

Nuclear would increase costs, due to it being the most expensive form of new generation we have.

EarthMephit 3y ago

Surely if the government wanted to go down this route, it would be a lot fairer and simpler to manage with the government sending a low-income rebate/refund check to low-income households when they do their taxes? They could then collect the costs off the energy companies. The proposed solution seems like a corporation's wet-dream - Being able to charge consumers exactly the maximum amount of what they are able to pay for a product.