
Ohio passes energy bill that bails out nuclear and coal plants, guts renewables - chdaniel
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/7/27/8910804/ohio-gop-nuclear-coal-plants-renewables-efficiency-hb6
======
piokoch
While I agree with most points, I don't understand bashing bailout for nuclear
energy plants. Putting them into the same basket with coal-based energy plants
is rather unfair. Nuclear energy is the only practical and CO neutral way of
energy production that we have now, right now. We can dream about fully
renewable energy, but we are simply not there yet, but global warming is
happening now. I think a lot of "pro eco" people missing this, unfortunately.

~~~
pjc50
Existing nuclear plants should be kept running for as long as it is safe to do
so, but building new ones is a fraught, expensive, and slow process. Hinkley
Point C was commissioned in 2008 and is _simply not there yet_. Meanwhile the
UK has de-coaled almost entirely, mostly by replacing with a wind power/CCGT
mix, and the whole-country emissions are down by 40% since 1990.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-
environment-47121399](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47121399)

Then there's the other issue: weapons proliferation. Look down
[https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-
impacts/sc...](https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-
impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html) : country #8 is Iran, which
the US is very against expanding nuclear, and #10 is Saudi Arabia, which
should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons either.

~~~
lisper
Dealing with climate change is going to be a fraught, expensive, and slow
process no matter how you approach it. Nuclear technology has advanced and
improved since the last plant was built in the U.S. If we don't reduce carbon
emissions dramatically, the resulting catastrophe is going to make Fukushima
-- and even Chernobyl -- look mild by comparison.

And who are we to say who can and cannot have nuclear weapons? The United
States' claim to the moral high ground is pretty shaky nowadays, particularly
with regards to Saudi Arabia. Saudi (and Iran too) is what it is in no small
measure because of our meddling in their politics. If we don't like the
results, well, you reap what you sow.

~~~
mbostleman
I often wonder too about the "nuclear is too expensive and complex" objection
that is brought up so often. Any solution to climate change is likely going to
be the most expensive and complex effort in human history to date. No doubt
every option is going to be hard, but how is nuclear harder than anything
else?

I've also heard a number of people lament that nuclear is really the best
choice from many angles, but solar and wind are winning, so let's just throw
out nuclear and run with the winner.

I'm not comfortable with either of these conclusions. If nuclear is the right
thing to do, let's do it. And while we're at it, let's switch to Thorium also
to address the weaponization issue. Yes it will be super expensive, yes we are
on the wide end of the uncertaintity cone at the moment, but it's climate
change so let's get moving.

~~~
manicdee
Flash, I love you, but we only have fifteen minutes to save the world!

The major problem with nuclear is the up front cost and lead time. The up
front cost includes the carbon pollution created by the mountains of concrete
required for the facility, so any carbon savings will come at some distant
point down the track when the plant has not only been built and commissioned
but has been in operation for a decade or more.

The lead time in construction means that it could be two years or twenty years
before the plant you start building today will be operational. Simply getting
a sufficient supply of the right quality of concrete will be one of the
fundamental hurdles to overcome.

The “thorium” cycle isn’t even commercialised yet so there is no option to
switch to it. How long until commercial plant is available? Nobody knows.

Wind, solar, and storage are the relatively cheap, well known and abundant
tools we have right now. There is no time to waste.

~~~
mbostleman
Understood, but citing costs without also including the resulting benefit or
without comparing to other options (like solar), doesn't really answer any
questions. I wouldn't be concerned if the cost is 2x if the output is 10x.

I worked for a solar manufacturer for almost 10 years. I had my blood tested
regularly to monitor Cadmium. What is going to be the cost of dealing with all
the Cadmium in the 50,000 two foot by four foot modules that we made daily?
That's right, daily. Not annually. And we were one manufacturer.

What about the acreage that is consumed and the resulting environmental damage
that comes from trying to capture the extremely diffused energy source and
then convert a small fraction of it in to energy only to lose a third of it in
transmission by the time it gets to power plant?

And cost of development - hasn't taken about 50 years to achieve only about
15% efficiency (assuming economically practical technology).

My point is it doesn't seem like solar is quite as cheap, simple, clean, and
safe as it's made out to be while at the same time it seems to get harder and
harder to squeeze out more efficiency. It seems to me that nuclear has almost
the opposite dynamic.

~~~
manicdee
The cost of nuclear is two or three times higher than coal for the same
output, with capital costs amortised over the 50 year life of the plant.

The cadmium you worked with was either a result of handling dopants in a wafer
manufacturing plant, or dust from finishing cells in a panel assembly plant.
There is insignificant exposure between assembly and disposal, and even then
disposal can include reclamation of materials so that we don’t have panels
filling garbage dumps for the rest of eternity.

Do you worry this much about the chemicals used to manufacture your plates or
cutlery?

As for transmission losses, the same applies for every energy source that
isn’t collocates with point of consumption.

Solar is as comparatively clean cheap and simple as it has been claimed to be
because the options are so incredibly dirty and destructive.

------
vorpalhex
From my reading of this, it sounds more like that the last bill was very
optimistic, and those targets are not going to be met so they've been revised.

In addition, it sounds like those plants are still used. It would be great to
say "screw them" if some percent of the state wants to give up on having air
conditioning and refrigeration - that would really help the climate for sure.

I am concerned that the renewable standard isn't set to be maintained after
2026, was that meant to be followed up in a separate bill which will set
additional standards?

------
adonnjohn
I can't wait for the news to spin how saving the planet isn't fiscally
responsible.

~~~
Krasnol
How do you save the planet throwing money at coal?

~~~
29_29
How do you save the planet by ignoring the fact that this bill strongly
supports 2 nuclear power plants - the only technology we have today that
produces abundant energy carbon free?

~~~
slenk
Because its gutting the energy and efficiency standards, making it less likely
that power utilities will seek alternate means of electric generation if they
are getting backed by the government for coal.

In the long run better energy and efficiency standards will do more for the
planet than two nuclear plants

And the only people supporting the bill were the beneficiaries of the bill.
God bless our broken government

------
bkohlmann
I’m a huge fan of nuclear.

That said, this is a great example of what may happen in the midst of a
widespread, government push for it. Industry will extract as many concessions
as possible to meet a “market” and “climate” need. They know they hold the
cards and will maximize their return.

And this gets to a lot of challenges related to climate policy. It’s not so
much that folks disbelieve in climate science (although some do). It’s that
there are real costs to doing something about it which have deep financial and
policy implications. That’s the crux of pushback.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Would there be grounds by which it could be legally challenged?

------
kiriliponi
I googled "Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder", this is the first video that
came up :
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urKKzGybKb0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urKKzGybKb0)

~~~
mieseratte
What information am I supposed to be taking in from this, other than that he
loves guns and hates TV news? What bearing does this have on TFA?

------
29_29
This is dangerously fake opinion piece.

To reiterate another persons point:

"Nuclear energy is the only practical and CO neutral way of energy production
that we have now"

