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

Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

thenewlede.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

#41

Post by reducesuffering »

zardo wrote: post #6

> “Radioactive pollutants build up in the cooling water,” said Judson. “In order for the plant to continue functioning properly, they have to discharge them. Some of it is vented out of the smokestack and some of it is released into the water.” Is there any truth to that? That is not how I thought a nuclear power plant worked.

said by "Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), a group that advocates for sustainable energy without nuclear power"

Awesome. Articles are quoting English majors on the nuances of nuclear danger...

https://www.linkedin.com/in/timothy-judson-85aa4014/

"Specialties: Organizational and Campaign Strategy, Policy Research and Analysis, Strategic Messaging and Communications, Field Organizing, Campaign Logistics, Government Relations, Grassroots Organizational Development"

Re: Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

#42

Post by elil17 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #7
manp2 wrote: post #2

question, why aren't we building more nuclear power plant like china? isn't gen 4 reactor safer?

Once there was a remote mountaintop monastery, nestled high in the clouds above a deep gorge. To reach the monastery, visitors were required to ride in a basket pulled up from the top. One day, halfway up the cliff, a tourist frowned at the condition of the rope. He asked his guide, "How often do they replace this rope, anyway?" The monk answered "Why, as soon as the old one breaks, of course."

> Once there was a remote mountaintop monastery, nestled high in the clouds above a deep gorge. To reach the monastery, visitors were required to ride in a basket pulled up from the top. One day, halfway up the cliff, a tourist frowned at the condition of the rope. He asked his guide, "How often do they replace this rope, anyway?" The monk answered "We have a large team of monks who continuously monitor the rope using advanced technology. We actually invented the field of reliability analysis to help us keep this rope safe. If we notice anything wrong with the rope, we immediately repair it. The rope is guarded by heavily armed guards to make sure no one sabotages it."

FTFY

Re: Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

#43

Post by ianburrell »

adventured wrote: post #15
timmg wrote: post #9

I really can't square this idea that "global warming will end civilization" if we don't reduce CO2 with not using nuclear power. (Even worse, shutting down existing, working plants.)

It doesn't square, it's extraordinarily irrational. With a trillion dollars the US could build 40-60 new domestic nuclear power plants (we have 54 currently). We can afford it (witness stimulus programs, or the Ukraine v Russia war). What we can't afford is to not do it and to watch our nuclear power base vanish. And we should be going further than that. We should be leveraging the global reserve currency and trade a…

We could spend a trillion dollars on 50 nuclear reactors and increase the nuclear percentage to 30% (there are actually 92 nuclear reactors in US).

Or we could spend a trillion dollars on 1TW of solar (400GW actual power). Or a mix of solar and wind, or solar and batteries for the off-peak usage. That is enough to wipe out coal. Enough to bankrupt nuclear power plants.

Two trillion is probably enough to decarbonize electricity except for natural gas peaker plants that need for bad days.

Re: Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

#44

Post by HankB99 »

cesarb wrote: post #16
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #3

“Clean” energy. Gas fired plants are clean: they only produce CO2 and H20. Nuclear is “dirty”: they produce no CO2, but relatively small amounts of highly toxic waste. Bonus for “clean” “biomass” plants that actually produce hazard gases from burning tires!

> Gas fired plants are clean: they only produce CO2 and H20. AFAIK, that can only be the case if you combust the gas with pure oxygen; air also has a lot of nitrogen, so combusting with air will always lead to some oxides of nitrogen appearing in the output. > Nuclear is “dirty”: they produce no CO2, but relatively small amounts of highly toxic waste. It depends on your point of view. That highly toxic waste is compl…

> AFAIK, ... combusting with air will always lead to some oxides of nitrogen appearing in the output.

I was curious so I did a search. I know this is a problem with internal combustion engines which operate under higher pressure (not sure about temperature.) There were a lot of hits for "do gas turbines produce nox", many of which were about dealing with the problem.

Re: Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

#45

Post by MrPatan »

timmg wrote: post #9

I really can't square this idea that "global warming will end civilization" if we don't reduce CO2 with not using nuclear power. (Even worse, shutting down existing, working plants.)

I can, the moment I realized it's not about any technical problem, about energy or about the environment. It's about sin, penitence, redemption, guilt, shame, lack of self-awareness and too much free time.

There's always been people with those kind of needs and impulses, and they had non-civilization-destroying outlets to safely discharge them. Now we don't. Ah well, it will work out or it won't, one way or another Darwin will collect.

Re: Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

#46

Post by irae »

Year over year we see the same discussion: one side say we can’t get to environmental goals without a lot more nuclear. The other side says renewables will be enough if we just [insert trending unproven excuse].

Anyone watching it closely can tell the pro nuclear argument is being proven right over and over and renewables are aways “a few years away”. Why continue insisting on the same error over and over again, with the proof in front of their eyes?

The major mistake was made 10 years ago by not building better and modern nuclear plants to replace Diablo and increase capacity. If this continues we’ll likely see the US entering an energy crises or going back to burning fossil fuels in a few years.

Re: Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

#47

Post by Moldoteck »

taylodl wrote: post #34
adventured wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't square, it's extraordinarily irrational. With a trillion dollars the US could build 40-60 new domestic nuclear power plants (we have 54 currently). We can afford it (witness stimulus programs, or the Ukraine v Russia war). What we can't afford is to not do it and to watch our nuclear power base vanish. And we should be going further than that. We should be leveraging the global reserve currency and trade a…

So you're volunteering to put the nuclear power station in your backyard? Because that's the problem - lots of people say they support nuclear power until you try to build a nuclear power station anywhere close to them. Which brings up another problem, you need to build a nuclear power station near a water source such as a lake, or a river, which, interestingly enough, are the same kinds of places where people want t…

Yep, no problem?

Re: Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

#48

Post by ZeroGravitas »

timmg wrote: post #9

I really can't square this idea that "global warming will end civilization" if we don't reduce CO2 with not using nuclear power. (Even worse, shutting down existing, working plants.)

Maybe it's all the Republican and floating voters in California who've been told repeatedly by their trusted tribe members that climate change isn't a real problem that have moved onto the next thing on their list.

Re: Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

#49

Post by PopAlongKid »

>But Peter Bird, a geologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, doesn’t trust the PG&E report’s findings. [...] "I believe it’s biased,” said Bird.

>“The worst situation you can have is a thrust fault that would be directly under the plant at a shallow depth,” [...]. “In my best professional judgement, I would expect that there probably is a major thrust fault right along the coast, right next to the plant.”

While he believes PG&E's assessment is "biased", he has no problem with using "professional judgement" to "expect" there is "probably" the worst case scenario here. That is just as biased. I mean, why would the "worst case" exist at precisely this one location along the 850-mile California coast? And unlike Fukushima, Diablo Canyon is sufficiently elevated to not be affected by 13-meter tsunami waves.

Re: Critical hearing looms in battle over California’s last nuclear power plant

#50

Post by nradov »

theptip wrote: post #28
timmg wrote: post #9

I really can't square this idea that "global warming will end civilization" if we don't reduce CO2 with not using nuclear power. (Even worse, shutting down existing, working plants.)

Even if we don’t think global warming ends civilization, keeping existing plants running requires a lot of mental gymnastics to oppose. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to oppose new nuclear on cost grounds; solar/wind are really cheap now. But lots of people seem to oversimplify to “nuclear bad”.

I don't understand why people keep claiming that solar and wind are "cheap". That is only true at limited times on the spot market. The cost goes way up once you include enough storage and long-range transmission to maintain grid stability. It's like claiming that owning a car is cheap, without counting the cost of auto insurance.
Post reply on HN