
California's Last Nuclear Power Plant to Be Shut Down - cmpolis
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/21/482997213/californias-last-nuclear-power-plant-to-be-shut-down
======
ex3ndr
In a half century there was ~4 major meltdowns in the world that affect people
lives: 1) Kyshtym disaster (57')[1] - it was old production site after WWII -
will never be again 2) Chernobyl (86') - stress-testing nuclear plant and
disabling all levels of protection - will never be again 3) Fukushima Daiichi
(11') - Obsolete block not stopped

Other disasters are not affected anyone outside of the plant, for example
Three Mile Island. And that's all! On the other side, hydro plants actually
make things much worse to a nature and already killed big rivers in siberia.
Fossil-fuel stations (67% of worldwide energy) are even worse.

Nuclear plants are still the safest for environment and the only way to bring
electricity to developing world because it can be very cheap. Take a look at
B. Gates nuclear reactor:
[http://terrapower.com/pages/technology](http://terrapower.com/pages/technology)

Building some nuclear plants will be able to feed anyone almost forever.
Unlike solar energy that you need to keep in batteries for the night. And who
say that batteries can't explode? It is looks like fear of flighting: no
reason to fear planes and much much more people die in car accidents that in
plane one. Same here - much more people die from other sources that from
nuclear plant disaster.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)
[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster)

~~~
s_q_b
Agreed.

The OECD estimates that the probability of an accident at a Gen. II or higher
reactor that results in significant casualties is approximately _one per one
million years._

All of the accidents in the history of nuclear power have caused fewer deaths
than the failure of a single hydroelectric dam. Combined these disasters
resulted in an estimated 60,000 deaths.

That number pales in comparison to the 288,000 people who die _every year_
from particulate inhalation due to fossil fuels.

~~~
Zafira
As much as I agree and support the use of nuclear power to meet our energy
requirements, I think the most obvious downside when a nuclear plant fails
also happens to help remind the public of what a nuclear failure can create.

The only two Level 7 nuclear events in the world — Chernobyl and Fukushima
Daiichi — have have rendered large swaths of land unusable for a significant
amount of time. Whether or not the exclusion zones surrounding these two areas
need to be as large as they are can be argued. However, when a hydroelectric
dam fails more people die initially, but as the cleanup happens and the
reporters fade away, the event fades into the background. With nuclear
incidents people are persistently reminded whether through apocalyptic movies
or people going into the exclusion zones to photograph the ruins that are left
behind.

~~~
Someone
_" With nuclear incidents people are persistently reminded whether through
apocalyptic movies or people going into the exclusion zones to photograph the
ruins that are left behind."_

We could make movies about dams that collapse, too and we have. I'm not even
sure there are more about nuclear accidents (nuclear war, yes, but
accidents?). Even if there are, I think the movies are a symptom of the
problem, not its cause. The invisible danger of radiation being held back by
walls of concrete just looks more dangerous to us than the visible danger of a
wall of water being held back by walls of concrete.

And Chernobyl? A nature reserve. I can see someone writing a SF story about
cultures that protect existing nature by the controlled disposal of radio-
active material.

~~~
_ph_
If the damage done by Chernobyl was limited to the restricted area around the
town, that wouldn't be so bad. But in fact, as I wrote in my other comment,
large parts of western Europe have been contaminated too. Not to the level
where one cannot live there any more, but to the level, where it makes it
dangerous to eat wild mushrooms and game (which has to be checked for
radioactivity before being considered edible). And this will be an issue for
many decades to come.

------
s_q_b
This is a bad idea.

Wind and solar are simply not enough to bridge the gap between fossil fuels
and fusion.[0] Shutting down the country's safest, cheapest, and most
consistent method of power generation would be disastrous.

[0][http://phys.org/news/2013-11-experts-nuclear-
power.html](http://phys.org/news/2013-11-experts-nuclear-power.html)

 _Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the
dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups
and politicians around the world. The letter... urges a crucial discussion on
the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change.

Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and
humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable
energy will be able to power the world within the next few decades.

That isn't realistic, the letter said.

"Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of
cheap and reliable power the world needs, and "with the planet warming and
carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn
away from any technology" that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases.
The letter signers are James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken
Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in
Australia._

~~~
toomuchtodo
Math please? There is enough wind and solar potential in the United States to
meet our energy needs several times over, even when including moving all light
vehicles to electric.

~~~
pstrateman
The storage costs are the issue.

The grid cannot realistically be more than about 20-30% solar PV without
matching storage.

Storage is expensive, like 20-30 cents/kWh expensive.

It's just not competitive with natural gas which is available for ~6
cents/kWh.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Storage is not 20-30 cents/kWh. Storage alone, provided by Solar City in
Hawaii, is 14.5 cents/kWh as of this year [1]. These costs will only continue
to decline [2].

The price of natural gas will increase again [3] (and currently, its closer to
7-10 cents/kWh, not 6); when that does, it only makes renewables more
competitive. Renewables will _never_ get more expensive than they are today;
coal will be gone in the next 3-5 years, and natural gas not far behind.

[1] [http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/19/solarcity-deploy-
tesla-e...](http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/19/solarcity-deploy-tesla-energy-
batteries-52-mwh-evening-electricity-storage-kauai-hawai%CA%BBi/)

[2] [http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/26/ev-battery-costs-
already...](http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/26/ev-battery-costs-already-
probably-cheaper-than-2020-projections/)

[3]
[https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm)

~~~
pstrateman
That's certainly an improvement from 20-30 cents/kWh.

However for solar PV with storage to replace natural gas their combined cost
is going to need to be less than 6 cents/kWh.

The combined cost of solar PV and storage is currently 20-50 cents/kWh.

Do you really see a 10x performance/cost improvement right around the corner?

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Do you really see a 10x performance/cost improvement right around the
> corner?

I see batteries under $100/kWh in <5 years.

------
matt_wulfeck
This is the last state you want to shut these reactors down in. California has
mountains of regulations that only apply to _new_ things. Many (most?)
buildings that exist today could never be built because of some violation.

Once these plants shut down they will never be reopened.

------
marcoperaza
It's amazing to me that the political groups fanning the flames of climate
change panic are the same ones holding back the development of the single best
alternative to fossil fuels that we have. Nuclear could power the world.

~~~
linkregister
It would seem to me that the ones blocking nuclear power are a small subset of
those concerned with humanity-induced climate change.

~~~
marcoperaza
A small subset? They've effectively won the policy debate. Nuclear is either
banned or being phased out in most of the West.

~~~
linkregister
Your comment didn't link the two groups; you have effectively repeated
yourself.

------
elgabogringo
Good news for frackers.

~~~
Zigurd
I'm not a market absolutist, but even after all the massive government support
nuclear got, they could not make it pay. And if anything bad happens, it kills
the profits from the next 20 plants, like the RMA from hell.

When equity startup investors (not utility bondholders) get rich off a nuclear
technology, then I'll believe it can solve some real-world problems and not
just be showpiece technology.

~~~
rando18423
I work in energy research for a large financial institution and would love to
see the data you're drawing this conclusion from.

~~~
toomuchtodo
That even with the current plants in operation for over 40 years, surely
having their capital costs paid for, they can't compete against the economics
of wind and natural gas (which is pushing current plants into early
decommissioning).

~~~
enjo
They can't compete politically with those alternatives at least.

