Nuclear plants in the US keep closing(vox.com)
vox.com
Nuclear plants in the US keep closing
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/2/5671394/nuclear-power-retirements-climate-change
10 comments
Maybe not a horrible situation, but completely unnecessary. It's another part of our present culture which will seem narrow-minded and primitive in retrospect.
staving off catastrophic climate change is the issue, more natural gas doesn't help.
natural gas as a replacement for coal-fired power does help, though. it helps a lot.
In terms of total emissions, no we are doing much worse. Many, many gas wells crack and poisons the land and releases enormous amounts of gases hundreds times worse than CO2.
In terms of total pollution, it removes the vast majority toxic waste produced by coal which kills many people. Not to mention the mercury levels in the ocean it's causing.
WE really needed advanced technologies like Nuclear Energy in the face of virtually a coal/gas apocalypse. We are now in serious jeopardy without it. Why do you think China's making Nuclear energy such a massive initiative? Even India is doing decent research on them because they're sitting on a pile of thorium.
This isn't a problem that we can be gambling with. We only get one good try at this because there will be tens of thousands of years of repercussions. The fact that we're settling with "good enough" on this could mean millions will be displaced & billions of people could starve to death. All because we're being controlled by a greedy gov, greedier lobbyists & a population too stupid to do the right thing.
In terms of total pollution, it removes the vast majority toxic waste produced by coal which kills many people. Not to mention the mercury levels in the ocean it's causing.
WE really needed advanced technologies like Nuclear Energy in the face of virtually a coal/gas apocalypse. We are now in serious jeopardy without it. Why do you think China's making Nuclear energy such a massive initiative? Even India is doing decent research on them because they're sitting on a pile of thorium.
This isn't a problem that we can be gambling with. We only get one good try at this because there will be tens of thousands of years of repercussions. The fact that we're settling with "good enough" on this could mean millions will be displaced & billions of people could starve to death. All because we're being controlled by a greedy gov, greedier lobbyists & a population too stupid to do the right thing.
No - see "US Coal Exports Erode All CO2 Savings from Shale Gas" http://co2scorecard.org/home/researchitem/29
The gas lobby is really powerful in the US, and it's critical to get this myth busted.
(And doubly "no", see the sibling comment)
The gas lobby is really powerful in the US, and it's critical to get this myth busted.
(And doubly "no", see the sibling comment)
No big loss. Energy storage is going to hit the scene big time in a very near timeframe, and the "but baseload!" arguments for nuclear are going to hold much less weight.
No idea why this is downvoted. This is very true. Batteries are coming down the learning curve very quickly. Distributed storage and high-resolution demand response are very real possibilities. Especially if electric cars come online quickly. And this would eliminate a lot of the intermittency issues.
On a mostly-renewables grid:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/the-grid-of-2030-all-...
The culture of budgeting new nuclear plants: http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2013/11/21/why-officia...
Nuclear is tied to water in problematic ways: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/the-energy-futurist/the-ener...
The culture of budgeting new nuclear plants: http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2013/11/21/why-officia...
Nuclear is tied to water in problematic ways: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/the-energy-futurist/the-ener...
The power plants that are closing would not be allowed to be built now. New plants are safer, and some designs appear to be inherently safe from meltdown.
Vermont Yankee leaks. Seabrook might be at risk from earthquake. It's time for new and safer nuke plants.
Vermont Yankee leaks. Seabrook might be at risk from earthquake. It's time for new and safer nuke plants.
If we were talking about replacing old nuclear plants, that would be a different conversation. That isn't what's happening. We're largely transitioning from our aging nuclear infrastructure to our older and even less safe methods of power generation.
Possible solutions:
* Increased incentives for solar (which serves as a consistent energy source during daylight hours)
* Guaranteed rates for base load nuclear generation
* A carbon tax on fossil fuel generation, used to subsidize nuclear
Across the US, we already pay for reserve capacity, known as "peaker plants". They are paid simply to sit idle all year for those few days when we reach maximum system demand. It would be similar to paying low/zero-carbon base load plants (nuclear) to produce flat out, acknowledging their fixed costs.
I cringe at the thought of a substantial number of natural gas turbine plants being built, and the price of natural gas skyrocketing.
* Increased incentives for solar (which serves as a consistent energy source during daylight hours)
* Guaranteed rates for base load nuclear generation
* A carbon tax on fossil fuel generation, used to subsidize nuclear
Across the US, we already pay for reserve capacity, known as "peaker plants". They are paid simply to sit idle all year for those few days when we reach maximum system demand. It would be similar to paying low/zero-carbon base load plants (nuclear) to produce flat out, acknowledging their fixed costs.
I cringe at the thought of a substantial number of natural gas turbine plants being built, and the price of natural gas skyrocketing.
Building more solar/wind power means building more gas turbines, because that's the only way to ensure you can meet demand from a solar plant when it's dark out or a wind plant when it's not windy.
If we want more nuclear capacity we need to be serious about it. I think LFTR probably deserves a few billions in research, if it pans out it could make nuclear competitive on price and reduce a whole crap-ton of issues normally associated with nuclear.
If we want more nuclear capacity we need to be serious about it. I think LFTR probably deserves a few billions in research, if it pans out it could make nuclear competitive on price and reduce a whole crap-ton of issues normally associated with nuclear.
Although increased forecasting accuracy for renewables will lessen the need for standby. See "Better Weather Analysis Could Lead to Cheaper Renewables" http://www.technologyreview.com/news/518051/better-weather-a...
Google invests in a weather forecasting firm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Climate_Corporation); combined with Nest data, Google could lead the utility energy management space.
It doesn't require forecasting to predict nightfall every day, that's still a serious problem for solar.
Increased incentives for solar (which serves as a consistent energy source during daylight hours)
Solar, though, is not a panacea, for a variety of reasons: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/243plj/the_koch_at... or http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/09/jcap-... or http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/04/24/sol...
Solar, though, is not a panacea, for a variety of reasons: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/243plj/the_koch_at... or http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/09/jcap-... or http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/04/24/sol...
I always thought that it would be a better alternative to peak-demand power plants to have a variable-demand industry connected to the base-load power plant.
Rather than firing up the peak-demand plants when load rises, just keep the plant humming along at the same rate and throttle back the cement producer, or biomass gasifier, or fertilizer plant, or aluminum smelter, or paper mill, or desalinator, until the grid load comes back down. Any industry that can singlehandedly soak up all the excess power on additional production would do.
Rather than firing up the peak-demand plants when load rises, just keep the plant humming along at the same rate and throttle back the cement producer, or biomass gasifier, or fertilizer plant, or aluminum smelter, or paper mill, or desalinator, until the grid load comes back down. Any industry that can singlehandedly soak up all the excess power on additional production would do.
Yes, we'd just need some kind of signal that was proportional to demand. If the demand was high, the signal would also be high, so that consumers would know it was time to cut back on consumption. And likewise, for producers, a high signal would indicate that it was time to bring on extra capacity. Of course, we'd want the signal to be something meaningful that people wouldn't ignore. It would be best if the whole signaling infrastructure was decentralized, so that producers and consumers could act according to their own needs without coordinating through a central authority. It seems like there may be a startup opportunity in there somewhere.
You just described how Nest is using their data and how utilities are trying to use Time Of Data metering to signal pricing to consumers (using smart meters).
Also, most if not all industrial electricity users have load shedding agreements with utilities; in the event of demand spikes, those industrial users are required to curb their power use within X number of minutes.
Also, most if not all industrial electricity users have load shedding agreements with utilities; in the event of demand spikes, those industrial users are required to curb their power use within X number of minutes.
They already do that. There just isn't any industry that can singlehandedly soak up all the excess power (subject to constraints of proximity to power plants, distance from cities, etc). There's a chance electric cars will change this.
Paper mills are pretty good at providing large amounts of instantaneous interruptible load. I'm sure there are others, but you're probably right, soaking up ALL the excess baseload in a baseload only grid i would be a challenge.
Energy storage, using electric car batteries as grid smoothing utilities is an interesting approach. Grid sized flow batteries[1] are another interesting option.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
Energy storage, using electric car batteries as grid smoothing utilities is an interesting approach. Grid sized flow batteries[1] are another interesting option.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
Bitcoin mining to the rescue!
I live 10 miles from the last operating one in California (Diablo Canyon, just south of San Luis Obispo, run by PG&E). I have several friends and parents of friends who work there. It's the #5 employer in our county behind only the county itself, prisons, and the university.
One friend said he expects it to be shut down (or at least announced) by 2020.
Maybe this is an uninformed opinion but it will be a bummer if they do. That's a lot of lost jobs for our area (1,700). I've lived here most of my life and no one hear feels unsafe (despite being near fault lines). They spend so much money on this thing, seems crazy to shut it down. (I heard they spent $70M on their SAP installation).
One friend said he expects it to be shut down (or at least announced) by 2020.
Maybe this is an uninformed opinion but it will be a bummer if they do. That's a lot of lost jobs for our area (1,700). I've lived here most of my life and no one hear feels unsafe (despite being near fault lines). They spend so much money on this thing, seems crazy to shut it down. (I heard they spent $70M on their SAP installation).
Interestingly there is a small and lucrative market that specializes in "closing" and "decommission" of nuclear power plants.
Just like it takes decades to build and start operating them. It takes very very long to close and decommission them.
I knew someone who was in that business, very nice niche market!
Just like it takes decades to build and start operating them. It takes very very long to close and decommission them.
I knew someone who was in that business, very nice niche market!
Everyone likes to talk about scare-mongers when something like this pops up, which is disappointing and condescending. I oppose nuclear power plans on the basis of their incredible cost, always more than any budget or contingency plan can account for. It's a waste of money that can be put to better use in the renewables field.
Which renewables have proven themselves to be remotely as efficient, practical and cost-effective as nuclear plants? I'm not aware of any unless you live around relatively special geography (e.g. there are places where hydro, geothermal or even wind power are strong contenders, but it doesn't seem like it can be generalized).
The scare-mongering is the very reason nuclear is so expensive.
Nuclear has the lowest cost per kWh of any option on the market given their lifespans.
Don't know why you're getting downvotes...nuclear's share has shrunk not due to scare-mongers but due to nuclear's poor cost profile.
That's largely a consequence of design, there are other designs which are much cheaper to operate.
do you have sources for your opposition?
An article sponsored by GE that discusses how great nuclear power is? How surprising.
Yes Nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gasses, but to say it's clean isn't true either. Nuclear waste is particularly nasty, and the politics behind dumping it are concerning.
Yes Nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gasses, but to say it's clean isn't true either. Nuclear waste is particularly nasty, and the politics behind dumping it are concerning.
I know that you were downvoted for the first sentence, but the second is a serious problem and this is why in my country, with a referendum, we legislated against the use of any form of production of energy through nuclear fission.
Maybe it does not seem a problem UNTIL you found that some nuclear waste (and with some I mean A LOT) have been buried illegally and without controls not too far from your house [true story -> http://gizmodo.com/the-mob-is-secretly-dumping-nuclear-waste...]
Maybe it does not seem a problem UNTIL you found that some nuclear waste (and with some I mean A LOT) have been buried illegally and without controls not too far from your house [true story -> http://gizmodo.com/the-mob-is-secretly-dumping-nuclear-waste...]
The problem with fossil fuels vs. nuclear is that everybody thinks of fossil fuels as SAFE. They are not.
"Nuclear waste is bad--but I'm okay with you guys destroying the Gulf of Mexico."
Dumping every ounce of nuclear waste we have at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico would cause less damage than Deepwater Horizon did.
And that's before you start talking about things like coal dust that actually adds MORE radioactivity to the environment than nuclear waste.
"Nuclear waste is bad--but I'm okay with you guys destroying the Gulf of Mexico."
Dumping every ounce of nuclear waste we have at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico would cause less damage than Deepwater Horizon did.
And that's before you start talking about things like coal dust that actually adds MORE radioactivity to the environment than nuclear waste.
Well, another awesome legacy of the Baby Boomers and Gen-X. Thanks for all the scaremongering, folks--I'm sure my kids will appreciate your principles when we have to ration their electricity.
This comment is an off-topic tangent into pre-fab indignation and thus has a low signal/noise ratio.
It doesn't take many comments like this to ruin a thread for substantive discussion. The desired conditions are, unfortunately, fragile.
All: please don't post comments like this to HN.
It doesn't take many comments like this to ruin a thread for substantive discussion. The desired conditions are, unfortunately, fragile.
All: please don't post comments like this to HN.
This is good news. Solar will fill the gap.
Is there any reason to find this claim more credible than "The Flying Spaghetti Monster will provide all the energy we need"? People have been saying that solar is about to take off for about three decades now. They were wrong at every step of the way. Maybe you're right, but the odds are not in your favor. At this point, I'll believe it when I see it.
Until then, nuclear power is actually proven to work and to do so more safely than any comparably effective fuel source, so it's unfortunate to see people saying we should abandon it in favor of a technology that has a demonstrated track record of not being good enough, and thus will just lead us to rely more on fossil fuels.
Until then, nuclear power is actually proven to work and to do so more safely than any comparably effective fuel source, so it's unfortunate to see people saying we should abandon it in favor of a technology that has a demonstrated track record of not being good enough, and thus will just lead us to rely more on fossil fuels.
We won't get non-trivial energy coverage by photovoltaic panels until they're unfortunately as cost effective as coal/oil. Which is predicted that it won't be until 2030. Most likely the coal industry will exploit their power to hold back said competition with as long as possible. So it could even take to 2050 before coal use will even start to dwindle.
Literally the only technology worth our time right now is advanced nuclear fission. Occasionally hydroelectric when they're in the appropriate location.
I wish people would realise that solar will only be amazingly useful when we build dyson spheres. But we need Fusion AND Fission to get there.
Literally the only technology worth our time right now is advanced nuclear fission. Occasionally hydroelectric when they're in the appropriate location.
I wish people would realise that solar will only be amazingly useful when we build dyson spheres. But we need Fusion AND Fission to get there.
Solar power has been growing at an exponential rate for the last several years. The interesting thing about exponential growth is that it isn't actually all that fast in its first stages, and easy to dismiss as meaningless. Once adoption really gets going, solar will become very large very fast.
But nothing in the real world really follows an exponential. In reality, what looks exponential is almost always a logistic curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
I'm optimistic about solar too, but even if it looks exponential now, this doesn't tell you much about where it will level off. That will no doubt be determined by how cheap the panels become, and how cost effective storage technologies turn out to be.
I'm optimistic about solar too, but even if it looks exponential now, this doesn't tell you much about where it will level off. That will no doubt be determined by how cheap the panels become, and how cost effective storage technologies turn out to be.
Technically, nuclear is safer than solar.
But who needs logic.
But who needs logic.
[deleted]
In what way is this true?
Not sure but he might be referring to the fact that the silicon crystals used for these panels require poisonous gases that thousands times worse for the environment than most produced by any E source.
Or the fact that they require huge amounts of energy to produce. Often offsetting the energy they produce themselves by many years. Not to mention the energy for all these panel come mostly from China which uses mostly coal plants. Which also use some of the shittiest, low grade flammable dirt from Australia (it's cheap).
Or the fact that they require huge amounts of energy to produce. Often offsetting the energy they produce themselves by many years. Not to mention the energy for all these panel come mostly from China which uses mostly coal plants. Which also use some of the shittiest, low grade flammable dirt from Australia (it's cheap).
At this point, it will probably be natural gas then what comes next. We have plenty of resources in the US to bridge to the next power source.