Economically failing nuclear plant to receive 1.1B bailout
Economically failing nuclear plant to receive 1.1B bailout
The Biden administration has finalized approval of $1.1 billion to help keep California’s last operating nuclear power plant running.
"President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday finalized approval of $1.1 billion to help keep California’s last operating nuclear power plant running. "
Because renewable energy sources are too expensive?
I'm all for nuclear power. We need to get off gas and coal ASAP, and nuclear is a reliable baseload power source that doesn't require massive arrays of lithium or lead batteries, and doesn't fluctuate with the rainy season. Ideally, I'd like us to go to more advanced nuclear power like molten salt reactors, but even light water is appreciated. I wouldn't mind it even in my own backyard. We need reliable energy.
26how is a salt reactor better? i tought reactors were all just glorified water boilers?
4It is, but it's safer, since it's a fuel salt loop that has radioactive fuel mixed in, which is too dilute to melt down. It powers a second, independent molten salt loop that goes to a water boiler elsewhere in the system. This has a variety of benefits, and also depends on the tech. But one, it stops meltdowns. And two, if the salt loop or boilers fail, it doesn't release superheated, radioactive steam since the boiler is elsewhere in the complex.
Some can also recycle radioactive fuel that is already spent too.
Molten salt technology also has other benefits, nuclear energy aside. In solar towers with molten salt technology, it boils salts which then power a steam turbine. The salts are fucking hot, and stay hot enough to boil water for 12 hours after the sun has stopped shining. In the morning, some fuel is used to heat up the salts in prep for the sunlight. So, while it does use a bit of carbon, it provides reliable baseload energy that can serve the grid uninterrupted at night/during storms :)
Can't get the pic to link right. Here's a solar tower
6
Sounds good, just make sure the industry can do this on its own, without government subsidies. When will the industry find some way to insure itself without the US government's help? Oh, and when will become cheaper than renewables? Oh, and how about the radioactive waste? When will it take responsibility for that without government help? Oh, and when will it find a source for fuel that isn't from Russia?
-16Providing power to the US is the government's responsibility in the same way that governments funding maintenance of public roads, paying for teachers, and paying for firefighters doesn't always generate money yet is subsidized or wholly paid for by a government entity. The fact that the government doesn't have to fully pay for the nuclear plant (because its offset by the money the plant makes) makes it less that the government has to spend. If anything, I'd like the government to completely take over nuclear plants so that there's less profits for private entities. Yes nuclear is more expensive than renewables, but an already existing nuclear plant is cheaper than a new one, which is way better than fossil fuels, the real enemy. Not to mention, in how long will renewable take to make up the almost 10% of energy that the plant supplies to California? Instantly? no. It takes time, and until that time, we need all the energy generation we can get, ESPECIALLY if its not a fossil fuel based one. Radioactive waste? Definitely a problem, in a couple hundred years. Right now, all the radioactive waste the US has ever made would fill up a football field, 10 yards deep. Not really a high priority problem especially compared to the risk that global warming risks.
All in all, it feels like we shouldn't let the search for a perfect solution, impede temporary good enough solutions.
9this on its own, without government subsidies. When will the industry find some way to insure itself without the US government’s help? Oh, and when will become cheaper than renewables?
If you want to talk about subsidies, let's talk about how renewables (and even fossil fuels) get MORE subsidies than nuclear energy. Tell us, why is it okay for renewables to get so much subsidies but it's wrong when nuclear gets a fraction of that? Oh and by the way, nuclear doesn't need subsidies to compete with renewables. Wanna know how I know? Because every nuclear plant that was shutdown in the US was replaced by fossil gas, NOT renewables. Fossil fuels get the biggest subsidy which is not having to pay the health consequences of pollution and the climate consequences. But sure, let's waste time about renewables this and nuclear that while fossil fuel keep fucking us up the ass instead of just using renewables and nuclear where each make sense to decarbonize. I don't care how many good intentions you might have, your narrative holds back the energy transition, it doesn't help it in the least bit, especially when we are talking about nuclear plants that are ALREADY BUILT and operating. What do you want? have diablo canyon replaced with more fossil gas just like indian point and san onofre? Because that's what happened and that's what is going to happen again. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf
2
Numbers wise, it probably makes sense.
California is so huge and growing all the time, that while they're updating the energy grid and installing new truly sustainable energy, the electricity for two and a half million houses that one power plant provides is probably a huge help in the intermediary time.
14The grid really needs to be decentralized. Neighborhood backup batteries and solar panels would go a long way towards this.
4I feel like I watched a YouTube video about some guy who was working on commercializing personal home thorium power plants because they were totally safe but produced more power than you would ever need?
We should be moving in that direction, just security wise.
0
"...probably a huge help..."
No, not much actually.
According to California Energy Commission 2021 data (https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation), nuclear accounted for only 9.3% of total generated for the state. Solar and wind each beat that. All we have to do is reduce usage by 10% and we can finally decommission a facility that's producing deadly radiation waste - that sits near a fault line.-8Five years of production of a guaranteed ten percent of your power already being used while you transfer energy grid tech is pretty significant and a much simpler hurdle than reducing ten percent of your power across the grid.
15Given that the average Californian household uses around 7200kWh a year a single facility providing 9% of the state's energy needs or 2.89 million homes isn't that bad...
For a 1.2 billion dollars investment, that is about 415 dollars per household to keep it running for 5 years more.
Not saying that new nuclear generators are the best way since we have better alternatives, but you can't knock the benefits that nuclear energy has given us. If we were to reduce energy use by 10% today wouldn't we want to burn that much less natural gas and that little share of coal first if we cared about health impact? This buys us more time to have renewables displace the most harmful of generation methods.
9Last operating nuclear power plant.
Which means this one plant provies 9.3% of the state's power generation. It's entirely reasonable to think that cutting that power generation without having other sources to replace it with would be a "bad idea," especially considering how Enron royally fucked California by playing games with power.
7
How many solar panels and backup batteries would that buy? At $20k per home, that’s 50000 homes that could have their own power system.
According to a couple of articles, a nuclear plant like this can power 500000 homes. So not too shabby of an investment?
11Not only that, the nuclear plant will be producing power at its stated capacity 80% of the time or more, only coming offline for maintenance and refueling. Those solar panels will only produce its stated capacity 30% of the time of so.
6And those 50,000 systems would be operational for 20+ years. That kind of investment would bolster the solar industry and further raise public awareness of the beauty of having their own system.
In contrast that money now is going to support poor, short-term profit, decisions by large corporations. After ~2030 we'll still be in the same mess we currently are: power companies begging for handouts to decommission the plant and then leaving the US government to watch over the waste in perpetuity.
That is the definition of a shabby investment.
-10If it was any other kind of non-renewable I'd agree with you but nuclear produces far less pollution and it's reliable so as long as it produces the power there really shouldn't be a problem. Everyone needs energy and the less that's made through fossil fuels the better.
3
IIRC, Diablo Canyon, as a base load, was also created to lift a whole bunch of water backwards across the Sierra Nevada mountains to send south towards Los Angeles. In its absence, moving water around the state could become increasingly challenging.
9Because renewable energy sources are too expensive?
Nuclear power is the best option available and I'm confused why you're confused about that.
89.3% might not seem like a lot to some people, but it becomes paramount when other sources of energy like fossil fuels become scarce, during events like natural disaster, boycott, embargo, and war. keeping 9.3% up and running, and available is enormous.
8If you want to talk about subsidies, let's talk about how fossil fuels and renewables get MORE subsidies than nuclear energy. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf
7Now do cumulative subsidies over the last 80 years. Nuclear had its shot and failed.
1Please read my other comment here https://feddit.nl/comment/6219531 But the TLDR of where I'm going is: This subsidy is barely leveling up the playing field between fossil fuels and nuclear. Even if we do a cumulative comparison between the two, fossil fuels had got much more, order of magnitude even. Not a single nuclear plant that was shut down in the US was replaced by renewables. They were all replaced by new fossil gas or energy imports generated by coal.
1
I remember reading the change of heart by the environmental activist / journalist George Monbiot[0] some years ago when he described in public why the fukushima disaster changed his opinion on nuclear power[1]
It's old but worth a read and is the reason why I still think that although the industry might be run by cunts (name one that isn't) nuclear power isn't a bad option in/of itself
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot#Nuclear_energy
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima6Haven't seen a nuclear power plant that isn't basically paid for by the taxpayers and the people that need to buy that energy even more.
Remember, only actually renewable energy is good.
2Nuclear is an important stop gap in the process of replacing fossil fuels.
Trouble is, we're now so short of time that there's probably little benefit from making loads of new nuclear plants as they take too long to build.
27A top gap cant take 10 years to build, its faster, more efficient and more economically to just go straight to renewables 100% shure, already standing ones don't need to be shut down, but we shouldn't focus on making new ones and decommission those that get too old (seriously looking at France here)
3