
Why California May Go Nuclear - Reedx
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/03/why-california-may-go-nuclear/
======
ixtli
Conservationists need to really make peace with the fact that the only way out
of climate change involves building a very, very strong nuclear energy
portfolio. This is difficult for people because it requires engaging in
politics because these things are only as safe as they are well maintained.
But actually, we do a surprisingly good job in America at keeping our nuclear
plants running rather well, and we should be investing in many, many more.

~~~
ajross
> Conservationists need to [...]

Nuclear boosters need to start showing numbers proving this point instead of
taking potshots on HN. Nuclear needs to be worthwhile on a balance sheet
before anyone is going to take it seriously. Even now, it's cheaper to build
out wind and solar. And the new technologies are rapidly getting cheaper.

Show numbers.

~~~
imgabe
Wind and solar, no matter how cheap, are never going to be reliable sources of
baseline power. They fluctuate, and something needs to keep producing power
when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

~~~
telchar
The assumption that baseline power is necessary seem like an unwarranted
assumption to me, an idea that is unquestioned because that's the way things
are done now. Maybe adequate provisioning of sufficiently uncorrelated,
variable power sources combined with some storage is enough to replace all
baseline and peak power sources. Maybe this can be done with less expense than
nuclear + peaker plants. I haven't seen any nuclear proponents defend the
necessity of the baseline power concept with an actual analysis showing that
alternatives can't work though.

~~~
imgabe
We know that having a fairly constant source of baseline power works because
that is what we are currently doing. The onus to prove that some combination
of wind solar and batteries costs less and will deliver sufficient power
across all use cases should be on the wind / solar advocates. We know nuclear
plants work because they're currently in use all over the world.

Why demand numbers from others when you can't provide any yourself?

------
dev_dull
I’ve really come around to nuclear power. I’d like to invite other HN readers
to check out the comments of acid urnNSA[1] who describes himself as “Nuclear
reactor physicist in Seattle”

> _Recall that the beauty of nuclear energy is energy density: there is 2
> million times more energy in a uranium nucleus than in any chemical 's
> electron shell. An average american can get 100% of their total primary
> energy for an entire 88 year lifetime and only use 300 grams of nuclear
> fuel. At that kind of fuel/waste footprint, it's relatively easy to have a
> low carbon footprint. And the data is in. The number is 12 gCO2-eq/kWh._”

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=acidburnNSA](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=acidburnNSA)

------
siffland
We need more support for nuclear, especially research for Thorium-based
reactors. I am all for green energy, but until that can become a reality
worldwide we need something that can generate a lot of electicity with as
little waste as possible.

------
ajross
> “But we can’t make a serious dent in slowing the warming trend in the world
> without investment in nuclear power.”

That's... not really true. Cost to build out nuclear power capacity remains
much (seriously, MUCH) higher than for solar or wind.

It's true that nuclear is carbon free, really quite safe, and very useful. You
certainly don't want to be deliberately decomissioning reactors in a world
where we're still trying to get legacy coal plants off the grid. But if you're
going to spend $100M on new capacity, I want to see numbers that say this is
actually better than buying a bunch of windmill blades.

It's a similar situation to hydro power. Dams are clean in a carbon sense but
"bad" in lots of other ecological ways. No one is pushing for new dams, even
if we all tolerate the ones that are already there.

~~~
MBCook
Windmills can’t provide steady base load power all the time. They need to be
paired with some sort of storage technology.

~~~
ajross
Then show numbers for why we need nuclear for peaking capacity instead of just
using existing gas and hydro while we wait for new technologies to arrive.

Again, the problem isn't that the alternatives are perfect or that nuclear
doesn't work, it's that _nuclear power is outrageously expensive_. And no
amount of internet argumentation or industry-driven legislation is going to
change that fact.

Make it cheaper, then come back and evangelize. In the mean time, stop getting
in the way of building out cheap green power, please.

~~~
lenkite
It's difficult to provide concrete numbers here. A lot of independent research
is needed on data. All one can point is examples.

For example, it is acknowledged by many that Germany made a mistake in
shutting down their nuclear power plants since all they have done is simply
increase their reliance on coal plants. Also, their renewables share of 36%
quoted by several folks on HN also includes biomass!

[https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-change-
green...](https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-change-green-energy-
shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/)

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06/the-
reason-renewables-cant-power-modern-civilization-is-because-they-were-never-
meant-to/#3e6e8213ea2b)

------
rconti
> As for California’s climate and environmental record, it is not nearly as
> strong as it appears. Much of the state's emissions reductions owe to a
> switch from coal to natural gas in the electricity the state imports, and
> from keeping population low by blocking new home building, a problem which
> has worsened under the governor.

Well, this is the first time I've seen it suggested that blocking new home
building is "keeping population low" (or, keeping population growth in check)
in the Golden State.

------
merpnderp
If people are terrified of global warming, going nuclear is winning the
politics on easy mode.

------
JackPoach
Highly unlikely. US is no longer able to build nuclear plans on time or within
budget. California has difficult geology and climate is highly favorable
toward other renewable sources. Why do something that's more difficult and
expensive?

------
mrweasel
Isn’t this 20 year to late? Even if you “just” want 50% of Californias
electicity to come from nuclear you’d need 4 or 5 new plant built, ideally
built yesterday. New plants will be at least 10 years away and that’s being
really optimistic.

------
simmanian
I get that nuclear is effective, but the worst case scenario for nuclear seems
vastly worse than the worst case for any other method of generating energy.
Fukushima plant has gathered 1 million tons of radioactive water they now plan
on just dumping into the ocean, and has rendered a pretty sizable area
uninhabitable. We still don't know the long term health effects of living in
areas that had been evacuated. Coupling this with all the radioactive waste we
may never know what to do with makes me personally feel that fission is a
bandaid more than a permanent solution.

------
mlacks
I really want to push for something similar in my state (Hawai’i). Where do I
start?

------
option
I am a California voter. Whom do I call/write to express my support for this?

~~~
rconti
Probably the Governor himself; the article makes it sound like he'll be the
ultimate decider (or, at least, COULD decide it on his own).

------
MichaelMoser123
I hope they dont put it in a seismically active area, Fukushima used to be in
one.

~~~
i_am_proteus
Diablo Canyon is in an area that's moderately seismically active.

It's easy to see the only lesson from Fukushima the meltdown of the Daichi
reactors, but that was due to not being designed for the tsunami (or rather,
the combination of earthquake and tsunami). The earthquake protections of
other reactors (Fukushima Daini) worked as designed.

Modern reactors are safer than older reactors.

~~~
cameldrv
The full story of Fukushima has not really been comprehensively told, at least
in English language media. I'm not really sure that new reactors would
necessarily be safer than Fukushima Daichi unit 1, because that unit had an
isolation condenser system. The IC is exactly the type of passive safety
system that is touted with new designs -- it can keep the reactor cool for a
couple of days just by turning a couple of valves, and it can operate
indefinitely if its water supply is topped off by, for example, a firetruck.
Supposedly the system automatically activated, but then was manually
deactivated by reactor personnel before the tsunami arrived to avoid shock
cooling the reactor. After the tsunami arrived, the system was not turned back
on again apparently out of confusion, but exactly what happened is still
mysterious to me.

All of that said I still think that nuclear is the safest and least
environmentally damaging method of power generation we've yet invented. Like
air travel, due to radiation's mysteriousness, it's held to a much higher
standard of safety and environmental impact than other forms of power
generation, and that has led to gross distortions in perception and regulation
that lead us to have less safety and a worse environment.

------
adventured
> Diablo generates 9% of California’s electricity and 20% of its clean,
> carbon-free electricity.

It's remarkable that one nuclear plant generates 9% of the electricity for the
entire state of California, and that they would have ever considered closing
it (unless absolutely necessary).

Build a few more of those over time and California has no power concerns for
the next 50-60 years combined with the expansion of other renewables. Even
being conservative with their current budget they could safely put a few
billion dollars per year into building new nuclear power plants.

Even better, build to surplus and begin exporting that green nuclear energy to
other states.

~~~
mdorazio
The problem is multi-fold.

1) A good size chunk of California is seismically active, which is generally a
bad idea for nuclear power plant placement.

2) Nuclear power plants require large water sources nearby for cooling. Large
chunks of California where power is actually needed are essentially deserts
without lakes or reservoirs that can be easily used for this without
environmental concerns. You could place them on the coast, but this brings its
own set of environmental problems and potential dangers.

3) Nuclear power plants are not quick to build. We're talking 5+ years to get
one up and running, even in the ridiculously optimistic estimates from
industry proponents. So you need to make the case that in 5 years when one is
running it will be better than if we had built more solar + wind + battery
over the same period of time (a solar farm can be constructed in a few months,
battery storage can be installed in weeks).

4) Nuclear waste is _not_ a solved problem, no matter what proponents tell
you. The solution right now is to just kind of keep it hanging around mostly
secured locations and hope for the best. Long-term storage proposals have
still not gone anywhere, so you're basically just hoping that nothing terrible
happens until there's political and financial will to do something about it.

5) Power requirements per capita have been mostly flat or dropping for years
in the US, and this is expected to accelerate as homeowners continue to
install their own supplemental power systems. Building more gigawatt-scale
nuclear power plants is a huge investment with a questionable ROI given this
fact.

To me, nuclear power is a solution whose time has likely already passed. It
just doesn't make much sense to install more baseload power via nuclear these
days when we have non-coal alternatives available and dropping power
requirements overall. Continued pushes for efficiency improvements, green
buildings, residential solar+battery installs, and grid-scale renewable
installs are cheaper, faster, and have less risks.

~~~
rconti
2\. Power is already shipped across the state and to neighboring states. I'm
not familiar with the capabilities to carry X amount of power between Y and Z
regions, but, in the main, this is not a major issue, unless you're speaking
of a specific limitation I'm not aware of.

5\. Power requirements per capita in CA are dropping, full stop. I don't think
homeowners installing their own supplemental power systems come into this
(much). The power generated on my roof is still power I consume, and it's
accounted for that way. Frankly, rooftop solar is a big arbitrage scheme
rather than anything like self-sufficiency. Even most home solar+battery
systems can't work in a grid disconnect scenario.

~~~
mdorazio
The article is referring to why CA might want to go nuclear, not why
neighboring states might want to do so. My points reflect that specifically.
Also, power transmission across 500+ miles to get it from a neighboring state
with nuclear-suitable sites is not insignificant (typically in the range of
1-2% per 100mi).

What data are you basing your second point off of? All the stats I've ever
seen are using electricity sales to estimate their per-capita numbers. For
example, [1]. Rooftop solar would be accounted for only as a general dip in
sales, not as a specific reduction in per-capita consumption if that makes
sense (we might be saying the same thing). This quote from [1] is relevant
here:

"Rapid growth in the adoption of small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems
in states such as Hawaii and California has contributed to the recent decline
in some states’ retail electricity sales. Small-scale solar PV systems, often
installed on residential rooftops, offset the amount of electricity that
consumers need to buy from the electric grid. In 2016, residential distributed
PV generation was equivalent to 15% of electricity consumption in the
residential sector in Hawaii, 6% in California, and 3% in Arizona."

That 6% number for CA has grown in the last 3 years as well and continues to
do so. It's a bigger offset than most people think.

[1]
[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32212](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32212)

~~~
rconti
Right, but you said "Large chunks of California where power is actually needed
are essentially deserts.."

My point was that power can be shipped, in-state, just as easily (more
easily?) than it can be shipped from out of state.

Here's a source that discusses maximum power _demand_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California)

I'm not sure to what extent solar offsets this, but it's worth noting that it
was in 2006, before solar was nearly as popular as it is now. Your source
discusses power _sales_ , where, I think you're right, rooftop generation
would be netted out.

In realtime demand, I think the only cancellation would be the realtime net of
production vs consumption. The all-time peak of around 2pm would be a time
with lots of solar generation, to your point, so solar during peak times would
cancel out some observed demand. Also it sounds like they did a lot of work to
time-shift power usage, rather than outright decrease it.

------
RickJWagner
A compelling argument for more nuclear power. I'm a believer.

------
mikeger
Nuclear is renewable? Not great, not terrible.

------
danschumann
Can we shoot the waste into space? Also, if you could slow down a nuclear
explosion, could you use for rocket fuel?

~~~
overcast
Sure, until that rocket fails, distributing nuclear waste over a large area.

~~~
danschumann
Mitigate risks while emphasising benefits. What if we could make it safe? What
if it was better than anything we could make otherwise?

~~~
eloff
Rockets have a disturbing tendency to blow up on a regular basis. Russia just
tried this experiment with a nuclear cruise missile, which blew up.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident)

------
searine
I don't think I'll ever forgive the environmental movement for turning their
back on nuclear technology.

Yes, there are safety concerns but the price of inaction was the climate. I
would take an accident or two over climate change any day.

~~~
ashleyn
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were practically PR disasters for the nuclear
industry and all within ten years.

~~~
Krasnol
It doesn't stop. Recently we had a guy hooking up his Bitcoin mining rig,
whatever happened in Russia, constant under-reporting in Europe, ...

~~~
dole
The submarine incidences frighten me enough, nevermind Skyfall.

