this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
36 points (75.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5237 readers
464 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
The grid really needs to be decentralized. Neighborhood backup batteries and solar panels would go a long way towards this.
I 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.
"...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.
Five 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.
Given 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.
If it's such a good investment, why aren't the power companies making it? Why does the US government have to pour money into their profit-making venture?
Because public opinion is against nuclear plants because people think that the current generation of plants have the same safety issues as gen 1 and 2 did.
Thats why they dont make enough money? Weird reason when everyone still needs to buy your product either way..
Everyone hates war, but munition manufacturer are rubbing their hands because they know you need their stuff anyways.
Nuclear supporters always seem to be saying the new systems are different. But the same problems remain. The world needs to realize that nuclear power is a lie made up for short-term profit.
The new systems are drastically different, and can even run on spent fuel from older generations.
Because their bottom line is profits only, and they can produce the power cheaper with carbon spewing natural gas turbines.
The good investment is having a massive generator of carbon-free energy, even if it loses money otherwise.
It's about the term of investment, since these massive projects take decades and most private investment can't afford to think that far in the long term.
If it was all about profit-making, coal, oil and gas get you way better return on investment than renewables (25% compared to 5-6%), even if in the long term it is harmful (increased healthcare spending treating cancer and environmental damage), and an unsustainable model.
As for why the US government needs to pay the private sector to do a job it could just do itself? Well that's for Americans to answer, but what I see is a lot of waving hands around nebulous "efficiencies".
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.