California Joins Bid to Save Nuclear Power

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-25/california-long-leery-of-nuclear-power-joins-bid-to-save-it

by TheDudeMan • 4 years ago

23 46 4 years ago

I hope this goes well. I can't help but to think about what kind of society lead us here [1] and how can we avoid in the future. I'm looking at you, California, with a stern gaze.

Opposition to nuclear power increased when President Richard Nixon called for the construction of 1000 nuclear plants by the year 2000.

Gee...only if we did.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Calif...

adgjlsfhk1• 4 years ago

To be fair, California is one of the worst places to put nuclear reactors given how earthquake prone it is.

systemvoltage2• 4 years ago

The movement in California is against nuclear power in general. It reverberates across the nation through its influence.

masonic2• 4 years ago

Only in proximity to fault zones, mostly near the coast.

TheDudeMan2• 4 years ago

Maybe Nixon meant safe reactors instead of meltdown-prone LWRs.

vlovich123• 4 years ago

We should almost certainly phase out Diablo Canyon. However, only because we supplant it by bringing on more newer and safer plants in more seismically stable locations to replace it. Replacing it without a plan just increases fossil fuel usage or results in outages. In the interim there should be very good plans to shut off the plant in case of a natural disaster.

ncmncm14• 4 years ago

We should phaseout Diablo Canyon because propping up that ramshackle contraption would burn enough money to build out twice the PV capacity it would take to replace it.

ncmncm14• 4 years ago

Each dollar diverted to nukes from renewables brings climate disaster nearer.

The big booster of nukes today is Big Fossil, because each nuke project started represents at least ten years of solid sales of NG, or worse, while construction is delayed again and again. With any luck, it will be cancelled before completion, and none of those dollars will have gone to panels that would immediately displace their product. Certainly none will be refunded.

No nuke has ever been built with money not coerced from somebody.

Areading314• 4 years ago

Renewables are not a viable solution to energy needs on their own. It is not possible to heat houses or power a grid during low-wind periods in winter or at northern latitudes for sustained periods (weeks to months) with wind and solar. Nuclear can act as a zero carbon base load power. And we need to be making those investments now, or we'll be stuck with fossil for a lot longer than 10 years.

I'll also add that renewables were made possible by massive government subsidies while they developed enough economies of scale to compete with other power sources. High carbon tax with subsidies for ALL zero carbon energy, including nuclear, are the way forward.

melling6• 4 years ago

“Renewables are not a viable solution to energy needs on their own”

Why has this been explained repeatedly for decades, yet still not understood?

We’ve basically squandered half a century trying to stop climate change because people don’t like nuclear power

liketochill2• 4 years ago

I think it is important to have a mix of energy sources, and nuclear is a reliable option that is carbon free and doesn’t depend on the weather.

What brings climate disaster closer is that we have lost the ability to effectively build large complex projects such as nuclear plants.

ncmncm14• 4 years ago

Solar and wind farms are going up all over. Failures to bring nukes to completion don't seem to have affected those.

melling6• 4 years ago

Imagine if the United States didn’t get 20% of its electricity from nuclear power for the last several decades

ncmncm14• 4 years ago

We would have saved enough to build out 100% solar.

Imagine if we had initiated building out 100% solar decades ago, triggering the PV cost collapse in 1990 instead of 2010.

mirzap• 4 years ago

Each dollar spent on solar or wind brings climate and energy disaster nearer. Nuclear is the only way to go. At the moment there's no other technology that can support exponential energy requirements from our civilisation. Solar can't provide that. Wind definitely can't provide that. We can see right now what it means when country relies too much on solar/wind energy. Look how Germany's grid is unstable last couple of years, and it'll only get worse with increased dependence on unreliable energy sources.

adrianN• 4 years ago

Germany's grid is not unstable.

TheDudeMan2• 4 years ago

This article is not about constructing new reactors.

bjourne• 4 years ago

The tone of the article is not very objective at all. Especially not in the way it characterizes the environmentalist movement. It appears that this nuclear plant in California will stay open because president Biden has signed a bill that will ensure that the plant will receive federal bailout money to keep operating. I.e Americans not living in California will subsidize California's nuclear plant. Hard to frame that as a massive win for nuclear.

ncmncm14• 4 years ago

As literally always, nukes supported with coerced money.

aerostable_slug3• 4 years ago

DCPP is not going to stay open. That bridge was crossed long ago, and it's difficult to imagine a realistic scenario where the plant gets relicensed and power purchase agreements are guaranteed such that running DCPP remains profitable even with California's renewables mandates.

Renewing a plant's license is like building a rate case (which takes years), but harder. It takes time and money and we don't have enough of either to succeed, no matter what Biden or Newsom claim. NRC could waive certain things to speed it up but they won't (nor should they).

FWIW, I live just a few miles from DCPP, have been onsite there a number of times when I worked for PG&E, and I sleep very well at night. PG&E may have screwed up in a lot of ways over the years, but DCPP is a well-run facility and it's a shame it has to close prematurely (lots of life left in that plant).

ncmncm14• 4 years ago

Coercing elevated rates to pay for keeping it open would be a deal as bad as paying federal taxes to help prop it up. DC cannot compete on price even already built, ignoring capex.

California Joins Bid to Save Nuclear Power

Related Stories