5817

Sorry, I should have clarified that… I’m actually aware of the oil industry fighting against nuclear. I’ve actually seen some of it in PA, with the natural gas companies pushing back against the idea of the government subsidizing nuclear plants. In my head, I guess I considered corporate lobbying groups kind of different from groups like greenpeace, but maybe there isn’t one.

I think the only reason I made a distinction in my head, was that you rarely see GOP politicians talking trash about nuclear power. Normally, pushing nuclear power has been a GOP talking point at least, which is why you have a majority of Republicans supporting it.

I fully realize that nuclear power is losing on a purely economic basis here. But I think that we need to subsidize it, because it provides us with immense carbon neutral power.

Yes, modern natural gas plants are really damn hard to beat when it comes to price… but as many here have pointed out, that’s because there’s no cost associated with their release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

5818

I didn’t highlight natural gas, and just adding more in this environment does nothing to help nuclear.

5819

I don’t think renewables can compete with natural gas on a pure cost basis, even if those renewables can beat nuclear.

The problem with renewables compared to nuclear, is that they cannot provide baseline power generation.

5820

Renewables also take up a lot more real estate than nuclear per kwh generated.

5821

Which is fine in Arizona.

Less so Rhode Island.

However renewables can also be house integrated, solar panels on roofs anyone? And like mentioned, part of the cost basis is that the ‘externalities’ of pollution are not captured in their cost.

I mean irony of ironies, those who have issue with storage of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants have got to be shitting bricks about coal plants then. I mean they produce orders of magnitude more radioactive waste. Surely storage of that is a top concern.

Or not, because people are stupid and certain lobbies spend a lot of money and effort to obfuscate the true problems. Coal mining operations spreading FUD about nuclear waste while saying shit about their own byproduct? Pure PR bullshit.

5822

Most of that just floats away into the air, so it’s fine.

5823

Natural Gas seems to think they have a fight coming up, and those people really want to make money.

I am not against nuclear power, and i am not for it. I made the mistake of believing people when they tried to force me to take a side. I realize I don’t have to. I am going to look at each policy, each approach, each proposal and simply ask, does this make sense or not with a few simple goals in mind, we have to do something to improve our situation, now, and we still need power… which options will give us both and quickly. I certainly see no reason to shutdown what we already have.

Our population is pretty much evenly split on this issue, in the USA, so if there was a time to stop making yet another R and D do or die battle-line, now is a good time for it.

5824

Uh, did you see Cory Booker?

5825

Remember that Germany has been able to run the entire country’s grid off of renewables for entire days recently. The changes have much more to do with US politics than anything else (and money, lots and lots of fossil fuel money).

5826

I tend to agree. Now cold fusion absolutely would have an application (imagine planes with unlimited loiter time, tanks that can keep on rolling, etc.), but that’s in the realm of sci-fi/fantasy.

5827

I think the difference between renewable and nuclear could be framed differently. People, myself included, point out that wind and solar are cheaper and faster to deploy. Nuclear is simply too difficult in the current regulation framework.

The regulation framework is a nearly impossible barrier to overcome, because it has been set up for great reasons, to benefit the environment (local), protect landowners and personal rights, and preserve culture and heritage. These are amazing and good regulations. Saying ‘too bad’ and plowing over a wetland, destroying an archaeological site, and demolishing 10 farmers’ houses just doesn’t happen anymore. So go with renewables.

But. The problem with renewables is that they too require a fundamental shift, towards market pricing of electricity. Electricity storage is possible but very expensive. Therefore renewables will need a pricing approach that a windy, sunny day is next to free, but a still night prices electricity to a level that actually hurts (and accommodates storage prices).

@Timex is right to point out that the nuclear option request much less day-to-day lifestyle change for most of the population (except those plowed over by the plan / nuclear waste disposal facility).

Anyway, it’s all moot because none of it happens when the long-term price of fossil fuels is not included in the up-front cost. Governments don’t build power plants, utilities do.

Carbon tax is actually the best answer to climate change (transportation, buildings, materials, power, industry). Without it, very little of the change we need will happen. Gas is still too cheap to motivate electric vehicles (for a climate agnostic buyer which most of us are), for example.

5828

So you have any source for this? That seems unlikely, based on this.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-hit-record-77-percent-german-power-easter-monday

On one particularly windy, sunny day, renewables accounted for 77% of energy, but weren’t providing that power for the entire day. It was just a momentary point, and even then, it was only 77% of their energy consumption.

5829

Don’t renewables generally take up even more land?

5830

But then we get things where people feel a substantial enough carbon tax is politically impossible. It’s very frustrating.

Here in Canada, with a very tiny carbon tax in place (where each person gets refunded the average per capita take), the conservatives argue (in the same breath) that:

  1. OMG, you are killing people at the gas pump!
  2. AND, you are raising the taxes with no end in sight!
  3. AND, the tax is too small to make a difference in behaviour,
  4. SO, we need to repeal it ASAP.
5831

Overall, I am concerned that government seems to have lost the ability to actually take large-scale action. I’m thinking how the US industrial mobilisation in 1942. If that played out today, it would be 20 years later and they would still be debating whether a war mobilisation proposal that had a negative effect on domestic automobile production was politically feasible.

5832

ON the good news side - killing Coal increases economic productivity:

5833

I remembered the headline:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-about-100-german-power-use-first-time-ever

I probably missed the “about”. However, they also had a surplus and had to export. Regardless, they are making amazing progress.

5834

Yeah, that headline is insanely bad.

It’s taking about a single moment, not a day, when renewables hit “about 85%” of the power consumption… How they went from “about 85%” to “about 100%”, i have no idea.

EDIT: Ah, I see. It was 85% from wind power. Renewables did in fact cover 100% of the load… but again, only for a moment, in essentially ideal conditions.

But they are definitely nowhere close to providing baseline power generation from renewables.

5835

I hadn’t seen that clip, thank you! I think Booker was one of the last two up and I had turned it off by then.

5836

Sure it does as long as it’s a border wall no one wants and that Congress didn’t approve.