Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California to consider keeping last nuclear plant open

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: California to consider keeping last nuclear plant open

#11

Post by janef0421 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #6
PopAlongKid wrote: post #4

>Concerns about Diablo Canyon were revived in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, a reactor that was vulnerable due to its location on the coast. That's hardly a valid concern. " The elevation of the Fukushima site is approximately 20 feet [6m] above sea level, while Diablo Canyon sits on a bluff 85 feet [26m] above sea level. " [Wikipedia] Furthermore, people seem to ignore one of the very favorable attributes of Di…

If your peak is during the day, then you probably want solar, then you can use that to fill the pumped storage for the evenings.

Nuclear paired with pumped hydro is very flexible, being able to handle peaks at any time. It's also very reliable, since the vast majority of outages are scheduled, and the plant's output can be increased or decreased to ensure there is enough surplus to store enough energy to meet expected peak demand. It also uses much less land and material resources, and results in less waste, substantially reducing damage to the environment.

Re: California to consider keeping last nuclear plant open

#12

Post by Manuel_D »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #6
PopAlongKid wrote: post #4

>Concerns about Diablo Canyon were revived in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, a reactor that was vulnerable due to its location on the coast. That's hardly a valid concern. " The elevation of the Fukushima site is approximately 20 feet [6m] above sea level, while Diablo Canyon sits on a bluff 85 feet [26m] above sea level. " [Wikipedia] Furthermore, people seem to ignore one of the very favorable attributes of Di…

If your peak is during the day, then you probably want solar, then you can use that to fill the pumped storage for the evenings.

Unfortunately, peak electricity demand is in the evening right as the sun sets.

Re: California to consider keeping last nuclear plant open

#14

Post by HeavenBanned »

bergenty wrote: post #9
HeavenBanned wrote: post #3

Gavin Newsom is presidential material!

I don’t know you if you’re being sarcastic but definitely +1 this sincerely. He’s by far the candidate I like the most on the left.

I can see how it can be read sarcastically (now, in hindsight, I'm rubbing my temples), but beleive me I think he's the best the Left has.

Re: California to consider keeping last nuclear plant open

#15

Post by kyboren »

bergenty wrote: post #9
HeavenBanned wrote: post #3

Gavin Newsom is presidential material!

I don’t know you if you’re being sarcastic but definitely +1 this sincerely. He’s by far the candidate I like the most on the left.

Newsom would make a bad President and a terrible candidate. He's a classic corrupt corporate Democrat patsy[1] who holds power in a one-party state. Furthermore, that one-party state is California, which fact alone is enough to turn off a sizeable chunk of the national electorate. His very visibly corrupt French Laundry escapade would be replayed endlessly and undoubtedly to great effect. Finally, and most importantly, his insulation from the national political mood and current and heretofore political imperative to appeal to the California electorate leaves him woefully unprepared to effectively contest a national election. DeSantis or Youngkin would crush him like a bug.

Like Kamala Harris, he would make more sense as a VP nominee (although he would similarly be a bad choice overall). His politics and California provenance would be an albatross around any Presidential candidate's neck, but access to the lucrative California establishment Democrat donor network might outweigh the electoral deadweight.

[1]: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-31/question...

> Kinney is well known around the state Capitol as a strategist, ghostwriter of Newsom’s speeches and unofficial fixer summoned to help loosen the governor from political jams. His dual roles as an advisor to Newsom and a lobbyist paid by companies to influence the governor and his staff have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest for the administration.

Re: California to consider keeping last nuclear plant open

#16

Post by Pigalowda »

kyboren wrote: post #15
bergenty wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know you if you’re being sarcastic but definitely +1 this sincerely. He’s by far the candidate I like the most on the left.

Newsom would make a bad President and a terrible candidate. He's a classic corrupt corporate Democrat patsy[1] who holds power in a one-party state. Furthermore, that one-party state is California , which fact alone is enough to turn off a sizeable chunk of the national electorate. His very visibly corrupt French Laundry escapade would be replayed endlessly and undoubtedly to great effect. Finally, and most important…

California would only ever vote D, he’s not useful as a VP. I do agree though, i think Desantis would beat him unless the National mood has really changed after Roe. We’ll see in November

Re: California to consider keeping last nuclear plant open

#17

Post by selimthegrim »

HeavenBanned wrote: post #14
bergenty wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know you if you’re being sarcastic but definitely +1 this sincerely. He’s by far the candidate I like the most on the left.

I can see how it can be read sarcastically (now, in hindsight, I'm rubbing my temples), but beleive me I think he's the best the Left has.

Why not Jerry Brown since we’re in a gerontocracy atm

Re: California to consider keeping last nuclear plant open

#19

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Manuel_D wrote: post #12
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your peak is during the day, then you probably want solar, then you can use that to fill the pumped storage for the evenings.

Unfortunately, peak electricity demand is in the evening right as the sun sets.

This isn't true. The peak demand that remains after solar has lowered the actual peak, is in the evening.

And that's when you use hydro and batteries.

Here's the historical yearly peaks: https://www.caiso.com/documents/californiaisopeakloadhistory...

Note, in recent years this ignores home based solar, which also reduce the grid seen demand during the day, but the new peak is still before sunset.

The local grid refers to this post solar/wind demand as 'net demand peak':

> Net demand is the total electricity demand minus utility-scale solar and wind generation at a given time, and the net demand peak (the “net peak” for short) typically occurs later in the evening than the total demand peak.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-insights/peek-...

> Initially, net demand peaked around the same time as total demand. Wind, which tends to pick up in the evenings, was responsible for most of the renewable generation. In 2013, solar began to eclipse wind. By 2016, the average timing of the net demand peak shifted from before 5:00 p.m. to around 7:30 p.m., where it has remained. (The total demand peak has also moved later in the evening to a lesser extent, driven by customer-owned solar.) Grid operators can’t turn to solar after the sun sets to meet the resulting net peak.

Luckily California has big plans for offshore wind, but that'll take about a decade. In the meantime solar and demand management is probably still the low hanging fruit.

Re: California to consider keeping last nuclear plant open

#20

Post by ZeroGravitas »

janef0421 wrote: post #11
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your peak is during the day, then you probably want solar, then you can use that to fill the pumped storage for the evenings.

Nuclear paired with pumped hydro is very flexible, being able to handle peaks at any time. It's also very reliable, since the vast majority of outages are scheduled, and the plant's output can be increased or decreased to ensure there is enough surplus to store enough energy to meet expected peak demand. It also uses much less land and material resources, and results in less waste, substantially reducing damage to th…

Most of this is false, if you're trying to imply solar plus hydro is worse than nuclear and hydro. Taking them in order:

Demand is higher during the day. solar matches this better than the flat production of nuclear, so less storage per watt of production is needed for cheap solar energy when used to pump hydro storage, and even non pumped hydro can be varied to complement solar production and demand needs (within certain limits). And seasonally hydro and solar complement each other.

The land usage of pumped hydro isn't great, but since that's the same between both we'll ignore it for now.

Since the solar can be placed on top of the hydro dam water, or on the top of buildings, or used to shelter crops, the land use can and should be negative.

I very much doubt nuclear takes less material resources, but I don't have any good numbers for that off hand. Generally, cost is a reasonable proxy for energy and material input though (in the absence of large externalities) and solar costs less.

Again, hydro isn't super good for the environment, substiantially worse than nuclear and solar, but if you're going to build it to help nuclear deal with it's unhelpful power supply timing then you might as well use it for cheap solar.

Post reply on HN