It seems to me that energy policy is all about tradeoffs. Deliberately expensive energy that keeps people impoverished is an abomination (to this Brandon Regime's everlasting shame). Furthermore, it is ironic because they want deliberately high energy costs to force us into solar and wind, yet the high costs also make it yet more difficult to explore and develop other alternatives that could be useful, perhaps moreso long term as the technology progresses; it is the exact opposite policy to what should be pursued. "All of the above" should be the order of the day, as we transition to better options over time. The rabidly anti-nuclear position is driven by an irrational fear, but more importantly anti-human Malthusian delusions of a Utopia that can never exist, and (despite protests to the contrary) are objectively evil in their intentions.
Agree. As Thomas Sowell wisely said, all government solutions are tradeoffs. And even if we utilized renewables to the fullest, they would still not keep a modern society going. Sometimes I feel like it's all about taking more in taxes (see $48B surplus) or just controlling the people. Totally support MS in his campaign!
What has not been mentioned is the horrific environmental cost of renewables. Wind and solar farms take up huge amounts of land in environmentally important places - where do you get the BEST winds? On flyways that migrating birds need to get to where they need to be.
Solar farms and crops of biofuel plants are on marginal land that is part of the ever decreasing wildlife habitats. There is a famous solar farm in California that is plunked down on the diminishing habitat of the desert tortoise, and they actually located and removed 600 tortoises. They cannot live in captivity - so most of them died.
The remaining old-growth jungles in Indonesia are being leveled to grow palm oil and biofuels, where the endangered orangutans cling to survival. Is this a trade-off you can live with?
For a low carbon economy what the "All of the above" strategy means is a Nuclear grid with added wind & solar that just causes the NPP's to idle when the sun is shining and/or wind is blowing. So you are adding the massive cost of a 2nd grid that really doesn't do anything, doesn't even save significant fuel cost. Even if wind turbines and solar panels were free, they would still be absurdly expensive. Reality check: The only Low Carbon path forward is an all nuclear energy supply, with tidbits of hydro, or if you happen to be blessed with ample reservoir hydro (a rare location) you can have some wind & solar if you also have a good resource of those.
1.1 Renewables are expensive, unreliable, short life</b>
Renewables (solar, wind, hydro, biomass, etc.) are hugely expensive, unreliable and have short operating lives (e.g. 15 to 30 years). And they require huge energy storage capacity.
The disposal costs for solar panels and wind turbines will be very high, adding to the cost of the electricity they generate.
The transmission costs are huge because the transmission line to each renewable plant must be sized to carry the full output of each plant but, on average, transmit only 15% to 35% of the output capacity of solar and wind plants.
Also, the transmission lines must be very long because the renewable plants are widely dispersed in country areas away from where the power is used. The transmission lines need to run to energy storage sites (pumped hydro and batteries) and from the energy storage sites to the areas where the power is required.
The transmission system will become increasingly vulnerable to disruption by foreign powers. The economic cost of disruption can be huge as it disrupts manufacturing and transport.
<b>1.2 Nuclear power is safest and cheapest</b>
Nuclear power is the safest and can become the cheapest way to supply power as:
• The enormous regulatory impediments that are making them so costly to build are removed;
• Small modular reactors (SMR) are built in factories, shipped to site and installed rapidly;
• Their costs come down as more and more are built on production lines in factories, and they are improved and their production and construction costs come down;
• They can operate for up to 60 to 80 years, thus greatly reducing the cost of replacements;
• Transmission costs can be greatly reduced over time as smaller reactors replace large ones and they are installed close to demand centres; and, eventually, as micro reactors replace SMRs. Micro reactors can be sized for industrial estates, commercial properties, shopping centres, apartment complexes, and eventually for individual residential properties, thus greatly reducing the size of and, eventually, the need for an electricity grid.
I will settle for traditional nuclear power to start with. The smaller, safer still reactors (an amazing statement given how incredibly safe modern nuclear power is), need more highly enriched uranium. Turns out the hard part is getting uranium past a certain point and from there weapons grade is easier to achieve. That objection is politically hard to overcome.
Traditional nuclear power, now. Please! We have to get building as we are running out of time.
A victory of changed opinion is a hard-won victory, and it wouldn't have happened without your efforts. Having read the linked LA Times article, it does sound like a triumph indeed, certainly in terms of changing minds. But the article made it sound as though the likelihood of saving Diablo Canyon for anything other than maybe a few years is by no means assured, and Newsom himself claims he is still keen on its eventual dismantling. I suppose in matters Nuclear Energy, we have to take our political victories in whatever size measures—no matter how positive and encouraging—are available. I hope that the outcome turns out to be that, once DC's full status and output is revived, state government has no choice but to realize that keeping it running, and spending the money for needed upgrades, is in the all of our best interest.
The pro-nuclear pro-environment group Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) persistently focused on the legal arguments for keeping Diablo Canyon running since its founding in 2013. In the CPUC Proceeding regarding Diablo Canyon that ran from 2016-2018, CGNP was the lone advocate for DCPP extended operations among 55 Parties, including PG&E. In the current Proceeding that began with the passage of California SB 846 on September 2, 2022, a majority of the Parties, including CGNP were supportive of DCPP extended operations. There were only 15 parties, so there was a huge shift towards advocacy. You may see CGNP's legal advocacy before the CPUC in the current proceeding at https://cgnp.org/sb-846-update/ We provided hundreds of pages of legal arguments and relevant exhibits. Here's breaking news: Two hours ago, the CPUC added Agenda Item 59 regarding DCPP extended operations to the hold list for the November 30, 2023 voting meeting. It is being held to the next CPUC voting meeting on December 14, 2023. Opponents of DCPP extended operations have been feverishly lobbying the CPUC during the past two weeks. CGNP remains optimistic.
In the face of escalating alarm about climate change, the siren song of “clean and affordable and reliable” power finds an audience eager to overlook a business model that is dependent on state support and often greased with corruption; failed experiments now hailed as “innovative”; a pattern of artful disinformation; and a trail of poison from accidents and leaks (not to mention the 95,000 tons of radioactive waste currently stored at reactor sites with nowhere to go) that will affect generations yet unborn.
Wish we could have saved San Onofre nuke plant. I'm thinking we might have learned a few things about nuclear power since the 1970s.
Building SONGS inspired me, a "girl", to learn to weld and get my certification. San Onofre didn't hire me for a pipefitter, but I never regretted learning to weld.
I'm wishing we still had the reliable nuclear energy for Southern California.
Now can you stop the Geoengineering that is causing the drought??? All the farmers at tge local farmers market have been telling everyone that the constant Geoengineering is creating constant hot and cold and shocking everything so it does not grow properly. They are poisoning everyone and everything with these constant chemicals!
Congratulations! Big win for Team Reality. Next stop - Sacramento.
Great work. We need more of this. 8,800 square miles of additional energy footprint is NOT the solution.
It seems to me that energy policy is all about tradeoffs. Deliberately expensive energy that keeps people impoverished is an abomination (to this Brandon Regime's everlasting shame). Furthermore, it is ironic because they want deliberately high energy costs to force us into solar and wind, yet the high costs also make it yet more difficult to explore and develop other alternatives that could be useful, perhaps moreso long term as the technology progresses; it is the exact opposite policy to what should be pursued. "All of the above" should be the order of the day, as we transition to better options over time. The rabidly anti-nuclear position is driven by an irrational fear, but more importantly anti-human Malthusian delusions of a Utopia that can never exist, and (despite protests to the contrary) are objectively evil in their intentions.
Agree. As Thomas Sowell wisely said, all government solutions are tradeoffs. And even if we utilized renewables to the fullest, they would still not keep a modern society going. Sometimes I feel like it's all about taking more in taxes (see $48B surplus) or just controlling the people. Totally support MS in his campaign!
What has not been mentioned is the horrific environmental cost of renewables. Wind and solar farms take up huge amounts of land in environmentally important places - where do you get the BEST winds? On flyways that migrating birds need to get to where they need to be.
Solar farms and crops of biofuel plants are on marginal land that is part of the ever decreasing wildlife habitats. There is a famous solar farm in California that is plunked down on the diminishing habitat of the desert tortoise, and they actually located and removed 600 tortoises. They cannot live in captivity - so most of them died.
The remaining old-growth jungles in Indonesia are being leveled to grow palm oil and biofuels, where the endangered orangutans cling to survival. Is this a trade-off you can live with?
For a low carbon economy what the "All of the above" strategy means is a Nuclear grid with added wind & solar that just causes the NPP's to idle when the sun is shining and/or wind is blowing. So you are adding the massive cost of a 2nd grid that really doesn't do anything, doesn't even save significant fuel cost. Even if wind turbines and solar panels were free, they would still be absurdly expensive. Reality check: The only Low Carbon path forward is an all nuclear energy supply, with tidbits of hydro, or if you happen to be blessed with ample reservoir hydro (a rare location) you can have some wind & solar if you also have a good resource of those.
🎯
<b>Nuclear power is the way to go, not renewables
1.1 Renewables are expensive, unreliable, short life</b>
Renewables (solar, wind, hydro, biomass, etc.) are hugely expensive, unreliable and have short operating lives (e.g. 15 to 30 years). And they require huge energy storage capacity.
The disposal costs for solar panels and wind turbines will be very high, adding to the cost of the electricity they generate.
The transmission costs are huge because the transmission line to each renewable plant must be sized to carry the full output of each plant but, on average, transmit only 15% to 35% of the output capacity of solar and wind plants.
Also, the transmission lines must be very long because the renewable plants are widely dispersed in country areas away from where the power is used. The transmission lines need to run to energy storage sites (pumped hydro and batteries) and from the energy storage sites to the areas where the power is required.
The transmission system will become increasingly vulnerable to disruption by foreign powers. The economic cost of disruption can be huge as it disrupts manufacturing and transport.
<b>1.2 Nuclear power is safest and cheapest</b>
Nuclear power is the safest and can become the cheapest way to supply power as:
• The enormous regulatory impediments that are making them so costly to build are removed;
• Small modular reactors (SMR) are built in factories, shipped to site and installed rapidly;
• Their costs come down as more and more are built on production lines in factories, and they are improved and their production and construction costs come down;
• They can operate for up to 60 to 80 years, thus greatly reducing the cost of replacements;
• Transmission costs can be greatly reduced over time as smaller reactors replace large ones and they are installed close to demand centres; and, eventually, as micro reactors replace SMRs. Micro reactors can be sized for industrial estates, commercial properties, shopping centres, apartment complexes, and eventually for individual residential properties, thus greatly reducing the size of and, eventually, the need for an electricity grid.
I will settle for traditional nuclear power to start with. The smaller, safer still reactors (an amazing statement given how incredibly safe modern nuclear power is), need more highly enriched uranium. Turns out the hard part is getting uranium past a certain point and from there weapons grade is easier to achieve. That objection is politically hard to overcome.
Traditional nuclear power, now. Please! We have to get building as we are running out of time.
Good , important data to keep in mind. See also my post above, about the environmental costs of renewables.
A victory of changed opinion is a hard-won victory, and it wouldn't have happened without your efforts. Having read the linked LA Times article, it does sound like a triumph indeed, certainly in terms of changing minds. But the article made it sound as though the likelihood of saving Diablo Canyon for anything other than maybe a few years is by no means assured, and Newsom himself claims he is still keen on its eventual dismantling. I suppose in matters Nuclear Energy, we have to take our political victories in whatever size measures—no matter how positive and encouraging—are available. I hope that the outcome turns out to be that, once DC's full status and output is revived, state government has no choice but to realize that keeping it running, and spending the money for needed upgrades, is in the all of our best interest.
Great work
Kudos. You deserve em. Newly engineered nuclear plants are more efficient, less costly, and take up less ground space. Congrat's again!!!
Well done!
Great job
Happy to hear that. I'm hopeful that we will see this elsewhere as well.
Wonderful news! Congratulations!
The pro-nuclear pro-environment group Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) persistently focused on the legal arguments for keeping Diablo Canyon running since its founding in 2013. In the CPUC Proceeding regarding Diablo Canyon that ran from 2016-2018, CGNP was the lone advocate for DCPP extended operations among 55 Parties, including PG&E. In the current Proceeding that began with the passage of California SB 846 on September 2, 2022, a majority of the Parties, including CGNP were supportive of DCPP extended operations. There were only 15 parties, so there was a huge shift towards advocacy. You may see CGNP's legal advocacy before the CPUC in the current proceeding at https://cgnp.org/sb-846-update/ We provided hundreds of pages of legal arguments and relevant exhibits. Here's breaking news: Two hours ago, the CPUC added Agenda Item 59 regarding DCPP extended operations to the hold list for the November 30, 2023 voting meeting. It is being held to the next CPUC voting meeting on December 14, 2023. Opponents of DCPP extended operations have been feverishly lobbying the CPUC during the past two weeks. CGNP remains optimistic.
In the face of escalating alarm about climate change, the siren song of “clean and affordable and reliable” power finds an audience eager to overlook a business model that is dependent on state support and often greased with corruption; failed experiments now hailed as “innovative”; a pattern of artful disinformation; and a trail of poison from accidents and leaks (not to mention the 95,000 tons of radioactive waste currently stored at reactor sites with nowhere to go) that will affect generations yet unborn.
Wish we could have saved San Onofre nuke plant. I'm thinking we might have learned a few things about nuclear power since the 1970s.
Building SONGS inspired me, a "girl", to learn to weld and get my certification. San Onofre didn't hire me for a pipefitter, but I never regretted learning to weld.
I'm wishing we still had the reliable nuclear energy for Southern California.
Now can you stop the Geoengineering that is causing the drought??? All the farmers at tge local farmers market have been telling everyone that the constant Geoengineering is creating constant hot and cold and shocking everything so it does not grow properly. They are poisoning everyone and everything with these constant chemicals!
Congratulations Michael! I'm very happy to read this.