Can't wait for the deniers to post: look at that picture! She's in an office! With lights! And probably HVAC! If she *really* cared, she'd be out in a tent!

Hypocrites! Actually using electricity! The nerve!

"If you subtract our solar (and wind) supply, as shown in the purple curve [of the net demand trend chart], you can see that the remaining sources need to handle a very steep ramp-up in demand in the evening, which is challenging."

Yes, and that will keep substantial carbon in the daily-averaged mix for the foreseeable future. We must also shape demand to better match supply in order to maintain grid stability. A chronically unstable grid would be a major repeating disaster. Anything from PCE on that?

@Curmudgeon -- Yes, isn't that an interesting graph? This phenomenon, referred to as the "duck curve", has been known for years, and addressing it is a big focus across the state, both on the supply and on the demand side. That is why PCE is so explicit about their goal to "match generation with load on a time-coincident basis". Their 2018 Integrated Resource Plan is also explicit about their developing programs to support "demand-side energy management". They can come in several flavors, such as time-of-use incentives. The big investor-owned utilities are rolling that out this year or next, per CPUC mandate. EVs are an example of demand that can be flexible, with many chargers already supporting schedules.

Keep in mind that it is not only natural gas that can serve to even out load. Palo Alto, for example, is able to shift some of its hydropower to evening hours.

I will see if PCE is ready to share more of their thinking on these programs.

"Keep in mind that it is not only natural gas that can serve to even out load. Palo Alto, for example, is able to shift some of its hydropower to evening hours."

Right, but Palo Alto's load is only a fraction of a percent of the grid load, so its influence is negligible. We need gridwide carbon-free supply demand balancing solutions.

We must also remember that Palo Alto is a fortunate beneficiary of a not to be repeated hydropower opportunity with the WPA. Others cannot go where we lead.

I have a statement from PCE regarding their adoption of "time of use" (TOU) rates to help adjust flexible demand away from the busiest times.

"PCE has been working very closely with PG&E and all of the other active CCA's on the plans for TOU rollout starting in 2020. The current draft plan (which has not yet been approved) has PCE slated for TOU transition in September of 2021. The transition will be optional, if customers do not want to move to a TOU rate then can choose to stay with their current rate schedule, but initial analysis of PCE's residential customer base indicates that most customers will benefit from the new proposed TOU rates."

@Curmudgeon -- I'm not aware of anything particularly unique re the functionality of Palo Alto's hydro. I checked with the utility, and they weren't either, saying most large hydropower plants provide some flexibility. (There are various types of flexibility, and the plant that provides most of Palo Alto's hydropower is actually somewhat less flexible than normal.)

To be clear, I'm not saying that people will copy 1:1 what we are doing, or vice versa. Different areas have different resources. But I certainly hope we can all learn from each other, and this area is pretty far along wrt power emissions compared to many other places in the state/country. For example, PCE is helping Merced think through various options for their CCA. That is great.

"I'm not aware of anything particularly unique re the functionality of Palo Alto's hydro."

I'm not referring to throttling water flows. Palo Alto's hydro power comes from sources that serve only a defined set of customers Web Link Cities not in those pools, such as those in PG&E's huge market, cannot follow Palo Alto's enlightened hydro lead. To make a real dent in emissions we need different options.

Absolutely, we need a variety of options. Hydro isn't enough, though it is the second largest element of our state's power supply (around 15%), used by utilities across much of the state. Batteries are increasingly being deployed (especially in the south, where hydro is scarce), and the demand-side shaping is important. The state is pursuing many avenues to address this renewables gap without relying on fossil fuels (or nuclear).

We have gone off the grid so to speak.

(1) For heating (house & water) we burn wood as we have many trees on our private property.

(2) For lighting, we use kerosene lanterns & wall light fixtures.

(3) For refrigeration & appliances, we have solar panels. No power tools, just traditional hand tools except for a chainsaw.

With the exception of the solar panels, our life is relatively 19th century & we even have horse on a turnstile that periodically draws well water for irrigation purposes. Our regular water source is Hetch-Hetchy.

Sewage is by septic tank.

Our life in La Honda is relatively free from all of the suburban life hassles & overall reliance on PG&E nd/or city provided municipal services. We prefer things that way & thumb our noses to the everyday constraints of a modern conventional world.

About the only 'convenience' compromise we have made is in regards to transportation & field work...an old 1975 Ford F-250 4x4 & a small John Deere 3-wheel tractor.

I bought a house in the Central Valley that has a dozen solar panels installed on our roof. Even with the solar panels, our electric bill was over $1500 last year and we don't even use an exorbitant amount of electricity. We do laundry once a week and use the dishwasher every other day on average. We keep most lights off when not in use and try to be otherwise energy conscious.

I really don't understand why people are so opposed to Nuclear power as a clean alternative. It has been used very successfully in Europe for decades without incident (except for Russia which was foreseeable given how they handled things then).

Solar will never be sufficient as it requires huge tracts of land (deforestation anyone?) as well as clear skies. Rainy days affect the amount of energy produced just as much as cloudy days do, and we got almost 6 solid months of rain in the Central Valley this year.

Although, I can live simply if I choose, I do not want to be forced to do so just because some forms of energy production are now 'politically incorrect'. In my almost 55 years, I can remember each time the environmentalists told us 'the world is ending if we don't stop doing X in Y years. Everything from Mercury in the fish, to Acid Rain, to Global Cooling, to a Population over 6 Billion, to food shortages due to drought, yada, yada, yada.

That is not to say that there are not serious challenges or that SOME changes are not needed, but I refuse to be panicked into surrendering my rights and way of life based on a Phantom Menace. I've simply lived too long to be that stupid.

Nuclear, clean coal and responsibly extracted and refined oil are the answers, buttressed by the far more expensive and equally problematic solar and wind farms are the only way to produce sufficient energy for us to maintain our way of life AND to be able to AFFORD to continue to live it.


Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)

>> I really don't understand why people are so opposed to Nuclear power as a clean alternative. It has been used very successfully in Europe for decades without incident...

As long as there are adequate cooling facilities, nuke power is the way to go!

The entire world's submarine fleets can't be all that wrong.

> Waving Goodbye To The 21st Century

We want to get back to the land as well.

The only problem is we cannot do it in Palo Alto...too many city ordinances.

@Waving -- It sounds like you enjoy your lifestyle, and you care about the planet; thank you for the comment! I am guessing you don’t buy much stuff -- that is a big emissions win. If you want to step up your game, the most important thing to think about is how much you are driving. (I expect La Honda is not the easiest place for biking or transit.) The lion’s share of our emissions in California come from driving. That is one reason why per-capita emissions in cities are relatively low -- people use transit more and drive less. Is there is a way you can use a more efficient vehicle (motor scooter? used EV?) for much of your driving? For the wood you are burning, remember that forests absorb a lot of carbon, and deforestation is a major contributor to global warming. Using only dead wood would help.

@Jim -- A guy down the street from me also has that issue, where his electric bill is high despite his solar panels. I wish that kind of thing were easier to figure out… You are right that it’s easier to swap out infrastructure or technology than it is to change people’s habits, even when most people do believe in the science. That is why things like the Impossible Burger and clean electricity are so impactful: people don’t have to change, but “magically” they are living cleaner lives. And, yes, cost matters! One thing to know is that solar and wind are much cheaper than coal and new nuclear in the US, which is ultimately why they are growing like crazy. It’s the storage costs that need to come down to compete with cheap natural gas. So right now a combination of renewables and hydro, with natural gas to pick up the slack (plus existing nuclear), is winning out cost-wise. The challenge will be to shift from gas to other sources of affordable, flexible, clean power. In addition, people are trying to get a handle on the true costs of extracting and burning fossil fuels, which are not accounted for today. Lots of interesting problems, thanks for the comment!

@Isotopes -- Nuclear is an interesting question imo. It is not affordable or time-feasible to build new plants in the US. But could it be? Europe’s approach to nuclear is different. But we are developing other flexible energy technologies quickly.

> If you want to step up your game, the most important thing to think about is how much you are driving.

We drive once a week...to Costco, gas station (top-off gas tank/2-3 gallons max.) & miscellaneous errands. Can't get or do much less than that!


> The lion's share of our emissions in California come from driving.

This 'lion's share' can be attributed to the daily COMMUTERS & shoppers. We are not 5+ day contributors to this pollution conundrum.


> Is there is a way you can use a more efficient vehicle (motor scooter? used EV?) for much of your driving?

The everyday COMMUTERS should be the ones considering EVs, electric scooters & what not. We burn roughly 156 gallons of regular unleaded gasoline per year which equates to about 800 driven miles per annum)...tell the COMMUTERS to get below that figure & then we'll talk.

Besides, a Prius or Volt isn't any good as a working ranch vehicle. Our well-tuned/unsmogged (except for the CA required PCV valve) 390 cubic inch old Ford pick-up does the job adequately & as aforementioned, we don't drive that much so no need to go OCD when it's everyone else who is polluting the globe on a daily & regular basis.

Our environmental conscious is clean. Can others say the same? Doubt it.

>> I really don't understand why people are so opposed to Nuclear power as a clean alternative.

How clean is it? You want the waste stored here in Palo Alto? You may want to ask the folks in the Ukraine, and downwind through eastern Europe and into Germany about clean nuclear power.

Beyond that - they're just too expensive. And decommissioning is never counted in the cost, and it's prohibitive. Another significant cost is the private insurance company premiums.

Oh, wait... insurance companies will NOT insure nukes. Too dangerous/expensive a proposition. So it requires a government intrusion - corporate welfare. Even with government bailouts/corporate welfare, no one even wants to build them anyway. When's the last time a utility in CA said they really want to build one?

Might as well just subsidize renewables.

"How clean is it? You want the waste stored here in Palo Alto?"

Nobody's proposing that. So let's get real.

Chernobyl was a very bad amalgam of politics and engineering. The reactor was put into an unstable operating condition because the existence of that condition was a Soviet state secret which the plant operators were not allowed to know about. Yup. Result: as you described. Lesson: keep ideology away from critical systems. Here and now.

I used to oppose nuclear power because of the waste issue. But I've realized that placing nuclear waste in isolated managed repositories is far preferable to disposing CO2 into the atmosphere. And, wishful predictions notwithstanding, we're going to need substantial carbon-free sources to supplement wind and solar for a very long time. Nuclear is the only candidate.

> unstable operating condition because the existence of that condition was a Soviet state secret

And you also have some convoluted excuses for Fukushima and 3 mile island, undoubtedly.

> Nuclear is the only candidate

No. It is, however, the most expensive, with incredible costs and uncertain long term liabilities.

...but this is an academic discussion anyway, as even the industry isn't asking for any new plants.

> The entire world's submarine fleets can't be all that wrong.

Ha. There are at least 7 nuclear powered subs at the bottom of a sea. Does not count diesels that were armed with nukes at the bottom of various oceans.

... *that we know of*

Seven-plus nuke power plants sitting at the bottom of the ocean, some with dead sailors, others just polluting our oceans. Yeah. Nothing to see here.

Now, what was the comment about governments?

Palo Alto might not be a good site for a nuclear reactor but there are other areas where one might be more appropriate.

Somewhere near the water is always best (i.e. Puerto Rico) or out in the boonies (i.e. Modoc County CA, Nevada desert etc.).

Some 3rd world countries in Africa, SE Asia, Malaysia would probably be OK as well.

As for nuclear-powered submarines...they are the only practical means of launching nukes from the ocean floor while remaining operational for an extended period of time.

While we all hope that will never happen why should the US Navy be confined to operating diesel-powered subs that require far more servicing intervals if the Russians are going to have nuclear submarines.

Why give them the edge?

Straw man. No one said the navy shouldn't use nukes where appropriate. That said, there is some discussion of returning to diesels: Web Link

Was just pointing out the false implication in the statement: The entire world's submarine fleets can't be all that wrong.

Also: fantastic NIMBYism - "let the poor host our nuke plants".

"> unstable operating condition because the existence of that condition was a Soviet state secret

And you also have some convoluted excuses for Fukushima and 3 mile island, undoubtedly."

I'm disadvantaged in this exchange by my poor facility for fantasies. All I got is the facts. Read Midnight in Chernobyl by Adam Higginbotham and get some for yourself.

Nice. One narrative (though, yes, Higginbotham *does* get a lot of buzz for it) and you ignore Fukushima, nuke sub mishaps, exorbitant costs for nukes, decommissioning costs, the huge risks that keep insurers from touching them, etc..

But as you say: 'all I got is the facts'.

Fact: in a perfect world, nukes would be nice fantasy. Lastly, even the utilities aren't trying to build them. When's the last time they even asked to build one in CA?

Remember Bodega Bay in the 60's? Supposedly, the foundations are still there.

> Somewhere near the water is always best (i.e. Puerto Rico) or out in the boonies (i.e. Modoc County CA, Nevada desert etc.).

> Some 3rd world countries in Africa, SE Asia, Malaysia would probably be OK as well.

>> Also: fantastic NIMBYism - "let the poor host our nuke plants".

I read the earlier comment to infer providing fusion-generated electricity for those specific areas.

A nuclear reactor in Africa, Malaysia or SE Asia isn't going to do do Palo Alto much good. The same could probably said for Puerto Rico or Modoc County.

Personally speaking, I am somewhat apprehensive of anything nuclear. A nuclear reactor would also have to be sesmically & meteorologically safe. This is difficult to ensure as Mother Nature tends to trump human designs on a whim.

"Nice. One narrative (though, yes, Higginbotham *does* get a lot of buzz for it) and you ignore Fukushima, nuke sub mishaps, exorbitant costs for nukes, decommissioning costs, the huge risks that keep insurers from touching them, etc.."

One fact, one narrative.

We face the high probability that the planet will soon become uninhabitable if nothing is done. But nothing will be done because no proposed solution can be guaranteed perfectly free from every possible risk. Sacrifice the earth to save on insurance premiums. Ironic, no?

Like, maybe the captain of the Titanic drove straight into the iceberg because he feared complaints from his passengers about the sharp maneuvering needed to dodge it. Hmmm?

Great comments! A few misc remarks...

@Waving -- You are right, 800 or so miles/year is not a lot of driving for the US! Are you really getting only 800 miles from 150 gallons of gas?? Though even if it were 3000 miles, that’s still pretty great. The average per driver in the US is around 13,000.

@Chernobyl -- You ask “When's the last time a utility in CA said they really want to build one?” Just to be clear, new nuclear plants have been banned in California since the 70’s. (I am guessing you know that, but others may not.) I spoke to a number of people working on electric power procurement for the Mashups post, and several of them seemed downright rueful at the loss of nuclear in California. That is not surprising -- it is very difficult to manage a low-carbon portfolio to the standards required by the state. But it did surprise me how upfront they were about it. There was also a technical point noted with the nuclear plant that was recently closed in southern California (SONGS) providing a lot of “reactive power” (which essentially pushes electricity through the grid), and difficulty finding a replacement for it. Nuclear power has some nice characteristics that are hard to match with a low-carbon resource, and they miss that. Utility people tend to be conservative. We are introducing a number of newer technologies very rapidly and at scale, which I expect some of them find more unnerving than the known that is nuclear.

@Waving -- “Personally speaking, I am somewhat apprehensive of anything nuclear.” You and many, many other people. Me too! It just seems scary and risky. But what some people say is that when you look at the numbers, it is far less dangerous than coal (for example), and also (they will claim) than gas and even wind (wind?!). Here is a fairly simple one of those arguments, but there are loads more. Do we dismiss these as scientists drinking their own kool-aid? Or do we trust scientists on scientific topics? And if we can’t do that, then where are we? FWIW, I think either way we are trusting scientists, it's just either the nuclear ones or the batteries-and-other-new-power-storage-tech ones.

@Waving -- You are right, 800 or so miles/year is not a lot of driving for the US! Are you really getting only 800 miles from 150 gallons of gas?? Though even if it were 3000 miles, that's still pretty great. The average per driver in the US is around 13,000.

Good point. Went over the gas receipts and realized that we are getting about 11 miles per gallon in our old Ford 4x4. The other gas usage is for the tractor which is used semi-regularly around the property. Haven't figured out its miles per gallon gas consumption as it only goes 25-30 mph maximum speed & that would only be if it were traveling down a paved road (which we don't do). Going 30 mph in a tractor on irregular terrain would be potentially dangerous.

SONGS should never have been opened.

Google San Onofre. It is literally *ON A BEACH*. Within miles of earthquake faults. 8 million people live within 50 miles.

Look at this wiki photo of it and tell me what you think - it's a Rorschach test, it tells us a lot about a person's thoughts. Web Link

re: CA law about nuclear waste - yes. The question was specifically asked about the utilities' desire. There is none. They get it.

Open the question: when was the last nuke in the US started? 50 years ago. We all want the benefits of nukes. The costs, dangers and long term liabilities are prohibitive.

> Sacrifice the earth to save on insurance premiums. Ironic, no?

False. This isn't sacrificing to "save" on insurance premiums. No insurance company will cover nukes due to liability. Make a list of US nukes covered by private insurance. I'll save you the time - it's zero.

> But nothing will be done because no proposed solution can be guaranteed perfectly free from every possible risk.

False dichotomy. Instead of shoveling absurd amounts of money into nukes and their inherent risks, use the money on renewables and developing required technologies (storage, etc..)

Those solutions are a *lot* closer than the dream of safe cheap nukes.

To be clear - no new nukes since the 70's is about new plants, not adding reactors. Far more reactors have been taken down due to age and costs than the two added.

Nuclear power will be requisite for extended galactic travel & transcending certain time/space barriers. It's OK for maybe a 3rd world submarine fleet but probably not adequate power for advanced space travel.

That said, it's probably OK for 3rd world electrical power requirements as well. In addition to providing job opportunities for native-born technicians, all of the poorer inhabitants will now be able to watch TV, surf the internet & operate basic home appliances in addition to having a regular & consistent lighting source.

The only issue would be to ensure that the plutonium does not fall into the wrong hands as it is a well-known fact that most 3rd world countries are unstable & plagued by social/governmental unrest. That is why most people prefer not to visit those types of places.

We mustn't condemn the use us nuclear power. It is bad for making bombs but provides many other useful applications.

Either that or go back to hand/animal driven tools & appliances.

Rather than make isotopes an enemy, let's be friends!

EDIT > It's OK for maybe a 3rd world submarine fleet but probably not adequate power for advanced space travel.

What I meant to say was that DIESEL POWER is probably OK for a 3rd world submarine fleet!

To allow them anything more would be dangerous & irresponsible.

Is nuclear fission worth exploring?

"Those solutions are a *lot* closer than the dream of safe cheap nukes."

I wish you were right.

Here's an exercise for you. Take away everything but solar and wind generation. Calculate how much energy must be stored in batteries to supply California for a week. Express your answer in kilotons TNT equivalent. Show your work.

Ever watched a high energy density battery, even a AA size one, explode? [Don't try this at home.]

@eileen: perhaps you meant to ask about 'fusion', not fission?

----

> We mustn't condemn the use us nuclear power.

"We" don't "condemn the use us nuclear power."

Nuclear power's own exorbitant cost and safety concerns condemn it. None of which you addressed.

Until addressed, nukes are a fantasy. Judging by your post including fantasy comments on galactic travel, submarine fleets, etc.. one can see you are enamored with the fantastic.

As stated, given the high costs of nuclear, we Might as well just subsidize renewables and research.

> "Those solutions are a *lot* closer than the dream of safe cheap nukes."
> I wish you were right.

Thank you. Sadly, I am. By default. Nukes are no where near ready to be cost effective and safe. By comparison, research into renewables/storage has moved forward in leaps and bounds, as prices have dropped.

Last year, Westinghouse declared chapter 11 because of the billions lost from reactor construction projects.

As stated - default.

"Nukes are no where near ready to be cost effective and safe. By comparison, research into renewables/storage has moved forward in leaps and bounds, as prices have dropped."

Any progress on getting the sun to shine at night? The wind to blow on command?

The planet is at stake and people dither over 80's-era cost effectiveness analyses. And that is how the world ended, on a balance sheet. It didn't pencil out.

BTW, what's the price of a new planet? Is saving the current one any cheaper?

How's your assignment coming along?

Here is a link to how and why the French use nuclear power ( Web Link ). It is from PBS so no one can argue that it is from a source with a conservative bias. And here is a link to the cost of nuclear vs solar ( Web Link ) which states the solar is roughly 5 times more expensive.

The French have a very good way of reclaiming and reusing the nuclear waste and for over 10 years I have proposed that the US have the French assist with building new nuclear plants. After all, they may make crap wine, but they make great nuclear power!

People in the US need to get over their irrational fear of nuclear energy. It has a far smaller footprint than any other method of energy production per kilowatt hour of energy produced, it is clean, renewable, much less expensive, and is not subject to the wild fluctuations of solar, wind or hydro. If the French build it ( and I'm not a huge fan of the French), they can put one in my back yard.


Jim Neal

Modesto, Ca

( Formerly Old Mountain View )

> And here is a link to the cost of nuclear vs solar

Your link is to 2013. That might as well be the Stone Age in terms of solar costs (ignoring that the pro-nuke article is highly slanted.) Solar costs have plummeted.

From the link:
“The cost of building and operating the Finnish nuclear plant over the next 20 years will be $15 billion."

Doesn't include insurance or decommissioning costs, which are prohibitive. Also waste storage, for the next thousand years. Million years?

If you are attempting to make an economic argument, use current and COMPLETE costs.

It takes almost 20 years to build a new nuclear plant, and billions upon billions of dollars. Before we see "Watt One." Dumptrucks full of cash on a lonely highway leading out to the radioactive site. Those billions invested in renewables and storage research will yield cost effective, immediate results, on a declining cost curve.

Yet again: I wish the fantasy of cost effective, safe nukes in the near term (say - 20 years?) was here. It's not. Look at the progress of wind, solar and other renewables in the last 20 years and extrapolate the curve for another 20.

Just for fun - let's look at some of the disastrous business side of nukes, from the wayback machine - Forbes, 1985 article:States:

"The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale ... only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible."

Ring up the folks at Westinghouse's reactor business and ask - how'd it work out for ya?

---

Jim: re: the article about France's nuclear waste - as I understand it, they store it in hundreds of sites around their country. What's the security and storage costs for that? How many should we keep here in NorCal? Modesto?

Would having something along the lines of a mini-nuclear reactor in each home help to reduce and/or defray energy costs?

A colleague of mine from China said that they could manufacture these small-scale reactors cost-effectively but procuring the refined plutonium would be the tricky part due to the cost & terrorism threat/potential.

@Chernobyl - Regarding your last comment, I already said that I'm fine with having a nuclear plant in my back yard, so I would be fine with the storage sites also.

I haven't seen any evidence that the cost of solar has dropped dramatically in the last 5 years. I was thinking of adding more panels to my house, but the cost today would have been as much as the original owners of my house paid for their panels 5 years ago. It's also interesting that you say an article from 6 years ago is too old, but then throw in one from 1985.


There is also the problem of how to dispose of the hundreds of millions of solar panels once they have outlived their usefulness. As far as I know, solar panels aren't biodegradable and contain toxic materials.


Regarding the cost and construction of nuclear plants, are you seriously suggesting that the French can do something that the US can't? Our economy dwarfs that of all of Europe put together. I'm pretty sure we could do it if the politicians don't create unnecessary and ridiculous problems that increase costs.

Lastly, as I have previously stated, I am NOT against solar, as I have solar on my current home. I just am not one of the people that believes that solar is the answer to everything and therefore we should all pay through the nose to subsidize it. I am arguing for a mix in which solar is a supplemental part of the solution, and in which nuclear power is included. If North Korea and Iran can have nuclear power, why can't we?





Jim Neal

Modesto, Ca


(Formerly Old Mountain View)

Nuclear is a tough topic. According to the NY Times, which interviewed all the Democratic presidential candidates on several climate-related topics, this was the most divisive policy issue. See end of this page for their positions on nuclear. Many of the biggest names did not weigh in, though.

@Jim, thanks very much for providing links, even if they were not perfect. @Chernobyl, it would be great if you could do the same. You make some claims, such as waste needing to be stored for a million years, that I’d like to understand better. I’m also curious why you believe the pricing information Jim linked to does not include decommissioning or insurance. I think it’s standard practice to include at least the cost of decommissioning, no? Here is the comparison from the (very pro-nuclear) Breakthrough Institute. Construction cost is around $8B, from what I can tell from the latest reports. Breakthrough estimates capital costs at $11B. Does that include decommissioning? I see costs of around $1B to decommission a plant. Similarly, other articles I’ve looked at on cost of nuclear include decommissioning and waste management.

It is very clear that different parts of the world have different approaches to nuclear. I found a pretty helpful article from the University of Pennsylvania on what is driving that. I get the sense that nuclear is failing in the US at least in part because gas is so cheap, and because of public opposition. Interestingly, this article talks about Japan, and the resurgence of nuclear there.

@curmudgeon is right that we need some kind of flexible power to handle the intermittency of solar and wind. For the people opposing nuclear power, what are you recommending for flexible power? We can’t rely on sufficient hydro. Is hydrogen less worrisome than nuclear? Large scale batteries? Or maybe you’re not sure, but nothing can be worse than nuclear?

@eileen -- Good question. Apparently no one has yet created a fusion reactor that generates more energy than it uses. We won’t have even a “few minutes’ worth” of net energy from a fusion reactor until the 30’s.

> Also waste storage, for the next thousand years. Million years?
> such as waste needing to be stored for a million years

Was being hyperbolic with the million. Technically, plutonium-244 has a half-life of 80.8 million years; it is used in spacecraft and some other applications, not commercial power generation. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years.

And neither of us want to be around when it has decayed only 'half'. ;-)

Power plant waste is shorter, measured in the low 'thousands'. Technically, plutonium-244 has a half-life of 80.8 million years; it is used in spacecraft and some other applications, not commercial power generation. Again, half-life.



> Just for fun - let's look at some of the disastrous business side of nukes, from the wayback machine - Forbes, 1985 article:
> It's also interesting that you say an article from 6 years ago is too old, but then throw in one from 1985.

Again, note the 'fun' comment - it was meant to show that commercial nuclear has been a losing proposition since inception.



> I haven't seen any evidence that the cost of solar has dropped dramatically in the last 5 years.

Web Link One can google and find info all over, though I agree, so much of it is consumer focused, trying to sell systems at the retail level. One of the top links that came up for me is PV-mag and an article on monthly panel spot pricing from about 2011. Notre current pricing and scroll (all the way) down the page of monthly charts. Looks like prices have dropped 2/3rds over that period.

Web Link Solar Tribune, so one can imagine they are 'pro', of course, but some nice charts for pricing over the last decade.

Nice update on wind Web Link Oklahoma has more generation than CA. Wow.



> I'm also curious why you believe the pricing information Jim linked to does not include decommissioning or insurance.

As I stated, no private, for-profit insurance company, iirc, has ever insured a US nuke.



> Breakthrough Institute, German renewables and the Finnish Olkiluoto plant

IIRC, Finland has canceled a fourth reactor at Olkiluoto. (link removed, google it)

Also: the German costs listed in some of the charts are based on 2001-2010 costs. See charts above for the massive drop in panel costs since 2001, etc.. That said, frankly, Finland is a different kettle o' fish. Nukes may be right for them given their geography, etc..

Given they had cost overruns, canceled it, BreakTrough is decidely pro-nuclear, I feel that $8 billion number is wildly optimistic.



So... y'all have had good comments and questions. Been fun. I learned a lot. Thank you for that. What I haven't learned is why, (other than "gosh, wouldn't it be great to have these mega-sources of 'clean' power") is why we should drop $10 Billion Plus into a nuke plants in Modesto, that won't produce a watt until 2030. And will be ever so costly for it's life span.

So here's a little thought: a Manhattan-style project, half a trillion bucks, back of the napkin

Nukes: builds about 35 nuke plants around the country, maybe generating in 2030, 2035 (always takes longer with nukes, planning, siting, etc.. Also reviving the dormant industry - Westinghouse, etc..)

For that $500B, what can we get in renewable/storage research, installation and generation? Before the first jolt from a nuke?

I'm optimistic, based on the cost curves and tremendous amount of already ongoing research, that by 2030/35, renewables are the answer.

I just wish we invested more, earlier, and didn't cede so much of it to China. But that's mostly political.




Note: wouldn't post "* You have too many URLs in your comment" so I deleted some links.

> That said, frankly, Finland is a different kettle o' fish.

After all, they rake their forests.

;-)

Again - been fun. Take care...

"Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years."

What's the half-life of a heat-dead planet? Has Venus cooled any since I last looked?

News flash, baby. We got bookoo tons of that Pu stuff hanging around right now already today. Where were you and your numbers when they began making it 75 years ago?

The solutions for the future Pu are the same solutions for the present Pu: Burn it in reactors for carbon-free energy, or stow it underground.

Curmudgeon: not sure the pro-renewable guy was making a big thing about radioactivity, was just answering a question from the blogger "...Also waste storage, for the next thousand years. Million years?"

What I haven't seen is a response to the prohibitive cost and delays with nuclear matched against the declining cost of renewables.

Here's a list of canceled nuclear plants in the US, from wiki. Formatting is awful (thanks, Embarcadero - when are you putting in a real commenting system?!?)



Name[n 1] Unit State Contract Construction Project
year start close

Allens Creek 1 Texas 1973 - 9/1/1982
Allens Creek 2 Texas 1973 - 9/1/1976
Atlantic 1 New Jersey 1972 - 12/1/1978
(offshore)
Atlantic 2 New Jersey 1972 - 12/1/1978
(offshore)
Atlantic 3 New Jersey 1973 - 12/1/1978
(offshore)
Atlantic 4 New Jersey 1973 - 12/1/1978
(offshore)
Bailly 1 Indiana 1967 1/1/1974 8/1/1981
(converted to coal)
Barton 1 Alabama 1972 - 11/1/1977
Barton 2 Alabama 1972 - 11/1/1977
Barton 3 Alabama 1974 - 11/1/1975
Barton 4 Alabama 1974 - 11/1/1975
Bell Bend 1 Pennsylvania - - -
Bell Station 1 New York 1967 - 1972
Bellefonte 1 Alabama 1970 9/1/1974 1/1/1988
Bellefonte 2 Alabama 1970 9/1/1974 1/1/1988
Bellefonte 3 Alabama - - -
Bellefonte 4 Alabama - - -
Black Fox 1 Oklahoma 1973 7/1/1978 2/1/1982
Black Fox 2 Oklahoma 1973 7/1/1978 2/1/1982
Blue Hills (formerly Sunken Log) 1 Texas 1973 - 8/1/1978
Blue Hills (formerly Sunken Log) 2 Texas 1974 - 8/1/1978
Bodega Bay 1 California - 1958 1964
Callaway 2 Missouri 1973 10/1/1975 10/1/1981
Callaway 2 Missouri 2008 - -
Calvert Cliffs 3 Maryland - - 6/8/2015
Carroll County 1 Illinois 1978 - 12/1/1988
Carroll County 2 Illinois 1978 - 12/1/1988
Central Iowa 1 Iowa - - 9/1/1975
Cherokee 1 South Carolina 1973 6/1/1976 4/1/1983
Cherokee 2 South Carolina 1973 6/1/1976 11/1/1982
Cherokee 3 South Carolina 1973 6/1/1976 11/1/1982
Clinch River 1 Tennessee 1973 - 11/1/1983
Clinton 2 Illinois 1973 10/1/1975 10/1/1983
Columbia (WNP-1/WPPSS-1) 1 Washington 1972 8/1/1975 1/1/1983
Columbia (WNP-4/WPPSS-4) 4 Washington 1974 8/1/1975 1/1/1982
Comanche Peak 3 Texas - - 11/7/2013
Comanche Peak 4 Texas - - 11/7/2013
Crystal River 4 Florida 1971 - 7/1/1972
Davis Besse 2 Ohio 1973 - 1/1/1980
Davis Besse 3 Ohio 1973 - 1/1/1980
Douglas Point (US) 1 Maryland 1972 - 5/1/1980
Douglas Point (US) 2 Maryland 1972 - 1/1/1978
Erie 1 Ohio 1976 - 1/1/1980
Erie 2 Ohio 1976 - 1/1/1980
Floating 1 Florida - - 1/1/1979
Floating 2 Florida - - 1/1/1979
Forked River 1 New Jersey 1969 8/1/1973 11/1/1980
Fort Calhoun 2 Nebraska 1972 - 2/1/1977
Fulton 1 Pennsylvania 1971 - 3/1/1976
Fulton 2 Pennsylvania 1971 - 3/1/1976
Galena 1 Alaska 2008 - -
Grand Gulf 2 Mississippi 1972 5/1/1974 12/1/1990
Grand Gulf 3 Mississippi 1973 - 2/9/2015
Greene County 1 New Jersey 1974 - 4/1/1979
Greenwood 2 Michigan 1972 - 3/1/1980
Greenwood 3 Michigan 1972 - 3/1/1980
Hartsville A1 Tennessee 1972 4/1/1976 8/1/1984
Hartsville A2 Tennessee 1972 4/1/1976 8/1/1984
Hartsville B1 Tennessee 1972 4/1/1976 8/1/1982
Hartsville B2 Tennessee 1972 4/1/1976 8/1/1982
Haven 1 Wisconsin 1973 - 2/1/1980
Haven 2 Wisconsin 1974 - 5/1/1978
Hope Creek 2 New Jersey 1969 3/1/1976 12/1/1981
Jamesport 1 Long Island, New York 1973 - 1/1/1980
Jamesport 2 Long Island, New York 1974 - 1/1/1980
Levy County 1 Florida 2008 - 8/1/2013
Levy County 2 Florida 2008 - 8/1/2013
Malibu 1 California 1963 - 1972
Marble Hill 1 Indiana 1973 7/1/1977 1/1/1984
Marble Hill 2 Indiana 1973 7/1/1977 1/1/1984
Mayport 1 Florida 1969 - -
Mayport 2 Florida 1969 - -
Midland 1 Michigan 1968 3/1/1973 7/1/1986
Midland 2 Michigan 1968 3/1/1973 7/1/1986
Montague 1 Massachusetts 1974 - 12/1/1980
Montague 2 Massachusetts 1974 - 12/1/1980
New England (NEP) 1 Rhode Island 1974 - 1/1/1980
New England (NEP) 2 Rhode Island 1974 - 1/1/1980
New Haven 1 New Jersey 1977 - 1/1/1980
New Haven 2 New Jersey 1977 - 1/1/1980
Newbold Island 1 New Jersey - - -
(relocated to Hope Creek)
Newbold Island 2 New Jersey - - -
(relocated to Hope Creek)
Nine Mile Point 3 New York 2008 - 11/25/2013
North Anna 3 Virginia 1971 6/1/1971 11/1/1982
North Anna 4 Virginia 1971 12/1/1971 11/1/1980
North Coast (formerly Aguirre/Isolte) 1 Puerto Rico 1970 - 12/1/1978
North Coast (formerly Aguirre/Isolte) 2 Puerto Rico 1973 - -
NYSE&G 1 New York 1977 - 1980
NYSE&G 2 New York 1977 - 1980
Orange/Orlando 1 Florida 1974 - 12/1/1975
Orange/Orlando 2 Florida 1974 - 12/1/1975
Palo Verde 4 Arizona 1977 - 7/1/1979
Palo Verde 5 Arizona 1977 - 7/1/1979
Pebble Springs 1 Oregon 1973 - 9/1/1982
Pebble Springs 2 Oregon 1974 - 9/1/1982
Perkins 1 North Carolina 1973 - 2/1/1982
Perkins 2 North Carolina 1973 - 2/1/1982
Perkins 3 North Carolina 1973 - 2/1/1982
Perry 2 Ohio 1974 10/1/1974 4/1/1984
Perryman 1 Maryland 1972 - 11/1/1972
Perryman 2 Maryland 1972 - 11/1/1972
Phipps Bend 1 Tennessee 1974 10/1/1977 8/1/1982
Phipps Bend 2 Tennessee 1974 10/1/1977 8/1/1982
Pilgrim 2 Massachusetts 1972 - 9/1/1981
Pilgrim 3 Massachusetts - - 7/1/1974
Quanicassee 1 Michigan 1972 - 1974
Quanicassee 2 Michigan 1972 - 1974
Ravenswood 1 New York 1962 - 1/6/1964
Ravenswood 2 New York 1962 - 1/6/1964
River Bend 2 Louisiana 1973 8/1/1975 1/1/1984
River Bend 3 Louisiana - - 12/4/2015
San Joaquin Nuclear Project 1 California 1973 - 3/31/1978
San Joaquin Nuclear Project 2 California 1973 - 3/31/1978
San Joaquin Nuclear Project 3 California 1973 - 3/31/1978
San Joaquin Nuclear Project 4 California 1973 - 3/31/1978
Satsop (WNP-3/WPPSS-3) 3 Washington 1973 4/1/1977 1/1/1983
Satsop (WNP-5/WPPSS-5) 5 Washington 1974 4/1/1977 1/1/1982
Seabrook 2 New Hampshire 1972 7/1/1976 1/1/1988
Sears Isle 1 Maine 1974 - 1977
Shearon Harris 2 North Carolina 1971 1/1/1978 1983-12-01 (2013)
Shearon Harris 3 North Carolina 1971 1/1/1978 1983-12-01 (2013)
Shearon Harris 4 North Carolina 1971 1/1/1978 12/1/1983
Shearon Harris 2 North Carolina - - 5/2/2013
Shearon Harris 3 North Carolina - - 5/2/2013
Skagit-Hanford 1 Washington 1973 - 8/1/1983
Skagit-Hanford 2 Washington 1974 - 8/1/1983
Somerset 1 New York 1974 - 5/1/1977
Somerset 2 New York 1974 - 5/1/1977
South Dade 1 Florida 1975 - 5/1/1977
South Dade 2 Florida 1975 - 5/1/1977
South River 1 North Carolina 1973 - 1/1/1979
South River 2 North Carolina 1973 - 1/1/1979
South River 3 North Carolina 1973 - 12/1/1974
Stanislaus 1 California 1971 - 1979
Stanislaus 2 California 1971 - 1979
Sterling 1 New York 1973 - 1/1/1980
Summit 1 Delaware 1971 - 11/1/1975
Summit 2 Delaware 1971 - 11/1/1975
Sundesert 1 California 1975 - 5/1/1978
Sundesert 2 California 1975 - 5/1/1978
Surry 3 Virginia 1972 1/1/1974 3/1/1977
Surry 4 Virginia 1972 1/1/1974 3/1/1977
Tyrone 1 Wisconsin 1973 - 7/1/1979
Tyrone 2 Wisconsin 1973 - 12/1/1975
V.C. Summer 2 South Carolina 2008 3/9/2013 7/31/2017
V.C. Summer 3 South Carolina 2008 3/9/2013 7/31/2017
Vandalia (Iowa) 1 Iowa 1976 - 2/1/1982
Verplanck 1 New York 1968 - 1975
(formerly Indian Point-4)
Verplanck 2 New York 1968 - 1975
(formerly Indian Point-5)
Victoria County Station 1 Texas 2008 - 8/28/2012
Victoria County Station 2 Texas 2008 - 8/28/2012
Vidal 1 California 1972 - 1974
Vidal 2 California 1972 - 1974
Vogtle 3 Georgia 1973 - 1974
Vogtle 4 Georgia 1973 - 1974
Yellow Creek 1 Mississippi 1974 2/1/1978 8/30/1984
Yellow Creek 2 Mississippi 1974 2/1/1978 8/30/1984
Zimmer 2 Ohio 1974 - 1/1/1984
Zimmer 1 Ohio 1969 10/1/1972 1/1/1984
(converted to coal)

That list represents a lot of resources that never generated power. Invest that into today's renewable and we'd see a lot of low maintenance cost, clean power, with essentially no decommissioning at the end of 30 years, storage, etc..

One doesn't need a brigade of cops to patrol the perimeter of wind turbines against moos-lem ter-rhists. Or supremacists, etc..

"What I haven't seen is a response to the prohibitive cost and delays with nuclear matched against the declining cost of renewables."

Here it is, from above.

>The planet is at stake and people dither over 80's-era cost effectiveness analyses. And that is how the world ended, on a balance sheet. It didn't pencil out.

>BTW, what's the price of a new planet? Is saving the current one any cheaper?

You cannot solve extraordinary problems with ordinary thinking.


"Also waste storage, for the next thousand years. Million years?"

Like I pointed out in the post you quoted from, we got tons and tons of that stuff lying around today as NIMBYs kick the can down the calendar for the coming generations. The solution for that waste is the solution for any additional waste. (Don't you read the postings you quote from?)

Wow - the pro-renewable guy and I aren't making a big thing about the eon-long toxic waste. You keep coming back to it. The pro guy raises good questions about the cost and availability.

As the other poster said - what are you going to do during the 10-15 years it would take to ramp up nuclear? Wait?

Good discussion! I will add a few more things to think about. At some point I’ll do a full blog post, but I need to learn a lot more first.

Nuclear technology has risks, as does most power technology. How should we compare nuclear risk to hydrogen risk? Or battery risk? Or carbon capture risk? Or that of other possible carbon-free storage technologies deployed at scale? (Solar and wind and hydro must be augmented with something more flexible.) Related: is there value in simplicity? (I am guessing nuclear is more complex to understand and operate than many other options.)

What is our fallback if (for example) solar generation drops significantly (e.g., due to solar radiation management), which many say will happen, in some form, this century? Do we want to be in the position of fighting against solar engineering, if it is desperately needed, because we don't have the appropriate power infrastructure?

The price and timeframe of new nuclear plants in the US, particularly when compared with natural gas, are problematic. Nuclear plant development is cheaper and faster in other countries at least in part because they take a more standardized approach to developing reactors. Smaller ones are also coming. How much of the price and delay are inherent, versus a result of how we do it today? Do we care?

Insurance is getting very problematic. Look at recent news about wildfire liability. What about flood insurance? The state is going to have to jump in across the board as our environment changes faster than we can keep up with it. Whether or not there is private insurance for nuclear plants may be beside the point, if it’s something we want to invest in.

The Union of Concerned Scientists says, when talking about solar engineering: “A precautionary approach to grave climate risks is one in which society invests in developing a careful understanding of all possible climate response options, including ones that themselves pose substantial risks and uncertainties.” This is a polite way of making Curmudgeon’s same point. Are we sure enough about nuclear at this point, relative to other options, to rule it out?

When was the last nuclear plant built in under 15 years?

We could build a couple nukes in the middle of nowhere. But build 30? Interesting notion.

12 billion over ten years for each would also buy a lot of wind turbines. Generating a lot, a lot quicker. Or put a lot of panels on rooftops locally, where the power is needed. Or solar plants off in the distance. Maybe more hydro.

We need a balance.

Nuclear has been around, and they've learned a lot since all those plants listed were cancelled. That said..

Renewables are clearly in the hockey stick phase of research, discovery, value, etc. Storage appears to be have enough investment that we will see storage in that hockey stick/Moore's phase soon enough. Certainly in any 15 year window.

Don't eff with SRM. That is cra-cra on the face of it.