CA energy issues

[Irrelevant]

I thought this was a pretty good article that addresses some of the issues we can expect in the future.

How an Oregon wildfire almost derailed California's power grid

Keeping the lights on is getting harder as the American West grows hotter, drier and more flammable.

www.latimes.com

 

[Carnage2011]

Good article. Generation is always one of the biggest concerns with utilities, especially with the push for green energy. Solar storage is crucial! Once that becomes reliable and the technology continues to improve the energy execs will settle in.

 

[LuketheDog]

I thought this was a pretty good article that addresses some of the issues we can expect in the future.

How an Oregon wildfire almost derailed California's power grid

Keeping the lights on is getting harder as the American West grows hotter, drier and more flammable.

www.latimes.com

So, according to the article, solar and wind didn't hold up the grid, and hydro power let them down because of climate change, but this happened:

"Gas plants kept generating, the wind kept picking up, and California’s single-largest energy source, the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, kept humming. The lights stayed on."

Maybe we're not quite ready for total reliance on renewables yet...

 

[TOGIE]

i just don't get why we can't get behind nuclear.

i'm not sure i'll ever get behind wind and solar. i still view it them both as a bigger threat to wildlife and wild places than climate change.

Public opinion on nuclear energy: Turning a corner?

www.ans.org

i'm still convinced in 150 years society will be laughing at the current push for wind and solar that will have been long abandoned for a nearly, not entirely, full nuclear grid that powers a nearly entirely electrical society, from planes to cars and home heating.

and i promise you, even by then, no one will have cleaned up those mother fu*&*ng wind turbines in wyoming

 

[ntodwild]

i just don't get why we can't get behind nuclear.

Good luck with that...... Im not apposed nor support it, I just know one thing. Our country is/has fallen off of a demographic cliff, common sense or lack there of is now in the hands of younger woke generations, generations who no longer believe in exceptionalism, god or country. Those of us who were born in the 70's or earlier are a small minority in this country now. Generations of common sense hard working, country loving Americans are slowly dying off. The, what I call the "learn the hard way generations" have taken over and boy is this country gonna "learn the hard way"!

 

[Mallardsx2]

Full investment into Natural Gas would have taken us into the future for generations. But "pipelines are evil"........

There wasn't enough govt money in that cookie jar for the politicians.....too many poor people getting rich off of natural gas for the political minds to comprehend.

Been in the NG business for 15 years. I have seen a lot and its a damn shame that we are now looking at wind/solar as a viable power option.....because it isn't and I am not just saying that because I am tied to the NG industry....

 

[MTLabrador]

Good luck with that...... Im not apposed nor support it, I just know one thing. Our country is/has fallen off of a demographic cliff, common sense or lack there of is now in the hands of younger woke generations, generations who no longer believe in exceptionalism, god or country. Those of us who were born in the 70's or earlier are a small minority in this country now. Generations of common sense hard working, country loving Americans are slowly dying off. The, what I call the "learn the hard way generations" have taken over and boy is this country gonna "learn the hard way"!

Meanwhile the “woke” younger generations are trying to figure out what to do with the mess we inherited from the older generations, but sure…

 

[Deleted member 18333]

i just don't get why we can't get behind nuclear.

Some forward movement.

Next-Gen Nuclear Plant and Jobs Are Coming to Wyoming

TerraPower's decision to build its advanced reactor in Wyoming expected to create jobs and clean energy opportunities for the state.

www.energy.gov

I am very supportive of this project coming to RS, even though I work for the mine that supplies more than half the coal currently burned at Jim Bridger. I would much rather see these at all current coal plants than more acreage tied up in wind and solar.

 

[Irrelevant]

Our country is/has fallen off of a demographic cliff, common sense or lack there of is now in the hands of younger woke generations, generations who no longer believe in exceptionalism, god or country.

I am 100% certain the same things were said in the 60's.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Alright, we got really off topic here folks...
Like I have no idea how this adds value to the topic at hand??

Good luck with that...... Im not apposed nor support it, I just know one thing. Our country is/has fallen off of a demographic cliff, common sense or lack there of is now in the hands of younger woke generations, generations who no longer believe in exceptionalism, god or country. Those of us who were born in the 70's or earlier are a small minority in this country now. Generations of common sense hard working, country loving Americans are slowly dying off. The, what I call the "learn the hard way generations" have taken over and boy is this country gonna "learn the hard way"!

Anyway... the ultimate issue related to the article is that huge power demands in CA were tough to meet because excess power in the PNW was unable to be transmitted south due to transmission line failures. It's not only the fault of renewables here, super high demands play a large part as well. Every day you know your solar power is going to drop off as the sun goes down, that's predictable. You can't predict losing a major transmission line however.


At the end of the day I also believe that Nuclear is the solution to our energy problems. As cities expand and people move west, the power demand is going to keep increasing.


If you're interested in nuclear energy, there are a couple new technologies that are going through regulatory approval right now that have real promise. One is able to use previously spent fuel rods from the current reactor designs, essentially "solving" the nuclear waste issue. (not totally solving the problem, but a huge step in the right direction).


From a stability standpoint, large generation, like nuclear, is great for the grid. It is able to stabilize the system and has the ability to better ride through swings in demand by ramping up and down energy production without having to use peak shaving plants.




From a personal standpoint, I believe that everyone would be wise to have at least a portable generator for their house that is able to handle the essential loads in the event of power failure. No matter how strong of a grid you have in your area, weather can knock out power for days or weeks in the event of a severe storm. Being able to ride through those events with minimal issue is huge. Now is the time to plan for these events, because once it happens its already too late, generators will be sold out in hours...

 

[homers]

Need a country wide system of new generation nuclear for the baseline (green), retire the gas and coal and then increase other renewables.

 

[hank4elk]

I was for nukes back in the 60's for a minute. But,They have NEVER figured out what to do with the toxic waste. Lots of pipe dream plans that have never panned out. Hanford is still rotting away with no solution,besides bury it in NM, now. I'll wind up with Diablos nuke waste 300 mi from me,instead of 10.

Switching to NG & methane with known scrubber technology in place would help in mean time.
Never found out what happened to tech for the waste there. One time there was a viable plan for breaking it down to water & carbon that could be used.

Battery storage or storage of power with wind & solar is still an issue. The sight blight is obvious.

Recycled hydro was once talked about. Wind & currant turbines along coast was once talked about. Water piped from east to the west,talked about.
Hydrogen. Same.

Stopping the mass use of plastics would be a huge step in the right direction.
Viable biomass? Hemp?

The use of elecronics has not slowed down. Use for stupid gadgets has increased 100x. My personal use of electricity is about half what it was 15 years ago.

I'm an old fart. I hope you folks figure it out.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I was for nukes back in the 60's for a minute. But,They have NEVER figured out what to do with the toxic waste. Lots of pipe dream plans that have never panned out. Hanford is still rotting away with no solution,besides bury it in NM, now. I'll wind up with Diablos nuke waste 300 mi from me,instead of 10.

Switching to NG & methane with known scrubber technology in place would help in mean time.
Never found out what happened to tech for the waste there. One time there was a viable plan for breaking it down to water & carbon that could be used.

Battery storage or storage of power with wind & solar is still an issue. The sight blight is obvious.

Recycled hydro was once talked about. Wind & currant turbines along coast was once talked about. Water piped from east to the west,talked about.
Hydrogen. Same.

Stopping the mass use of plastics would be a huge step in the right direction.
Viable biomass? Hemp?

The use of elecronics has not slowed down. Use for stupid gadgets has increased 100x. My personal use of electricity is about half what it was 15 years ago.

I'm an old fart. I hope you folks figure it out.

Part of the issue with nuclear is the approach the US took post WWII, we chose the “American Way” and opted for a ton of waste + fuel for munitions. France chose a closed loop approach. 70% of France’s power comes from Nuclear, they, and I believe, are the worlds largest exporter of electricity. Something like 12% of France’s electricity is dirrived from recycled fuel, in the US Hyrdo/wind/solar combined make up about 12% of our portfolio.

There are obviously huge issues with Nuclear, there is no free lunch in generating electricity, but I think a lot of the issues and hang ups that your generation has with nuclear are due to the industry being dominated by the military industrial complex.

I’m not a fan of business as usual reactors either.

 

[hank4elk]

Part of the issue with nuclear is the approach the US took post WWII, we chose the “American Way” and opted for a ton of waste + fuel for munitions. France chose a closed loop approach. 70% of France’s power comes from Nuclear, they, and I believe, are the worlds largest exporter of electricity. Something like 12% of France’s electricity is dirrived from recycled fuel, in the US Hyrdo/wind/solar combined make up about 12% of our portfolio.

There are obviously huge issues with Nuclear, there is no free lunch in generating electricity, but I think a lot of the issues and hang ups that your generation has with nuclear are due to the industry being dominated by the military industrial complex.

I’m not a fan of business as usual reactors either.

For sure.
Don't know how I never got dosed on those early ships. Don't know how I don't have lead or mercury poisoning either.

Our mistakes will show.
Like thousands of barrels of waste off SoCal & the bayarea. I stopped eating fish from there more than once or twice a year many years ago.

 

[BigHornRam]

Honest discussion about nuclear energy and its potential for long term expensive and hazardous disaster recovery needs to take place before I would sign off on it.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

The plant owner, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), envisions roughly 30 more years of work to retrieve undamaged fuel, remove resolidified melted fuel debris, disassemble the reactors, and dispose of contaminated cooling water. The fuel debris and contaminated water pose especially thorny problems that could threaten that timetable. The government puts the cost of decommissioning the four reactors at 8 trillion yen ($76 billion); but the Japan Center for Economic Research, a think tank, estimates the bill could be much more.

 

[TOGIE]

fukushima couldn't have been a more perfect storm of an unfortunate sequence of events following a massive natural disastor

i agree, we need to really do serious due diligence if we want nuclear to be the future.

but i think we can all agree putting nuclear reactors on the geologic ring of fire in tsunami zones was not exactly the brightest move

 

[Nameless Range]

I'm ignorant, and so I am probably a good case study on why folks can't just "get behind" nuclear. I am told that the nuclear accidents of yesteryear are outliers, and were due to old technologies, and those types of meltdowns just can't happen using new technology. Is it true? I don't know. But I do know this. Nuclear gives folks pause because when things go wrong, they go wrong for millenia. Because radiation is f*$!*ing terrifying.

For me personally to feel alright about nuclear, I would need to know that those plants are resilient to catastrophic events that may occur every few thousand years or more. We saw what an earthquake/tsunami did to Fukishima. If a nuclear power plant were to be built in Clancy, Montana, I would want a guarantee that an earthquake, a wildfire, a microburst, and even an asteroid impact, would not cause Clancy, Montana to be an uninhabitable wasteland for the next 20,000 years, as other nuclear meltdown sites are destined to be. One could argue that something like an asteroid impact is so unlikely, but when the consequences are measured in millenia and are so absolute I want assurance against events that are only plausible on timescales measured in millenia.

I haven't looked into nuclear deeply, and as was said above, there is no such thing as a free lunch. But the whole "Guys, guys guys, that was old tech, it will be different this time", is an industrial tale as old as time, and rhymes with tragedies of yesteryear, and looks and quacks like the hubris duck.

To be clear, I am not arguing for any form of power generation, nor am I arguing against nuclear. These are just the offhanded thoughts of a mapmaker who had corned beef hash for breakfast.

 

[homers]

Nuclear power technology has come a long way in addressing both safety and waste. Don't think that the reactors of today and try to compare them to the 60's-90's. Gen IV eat their own waste and Fukushima and other close calls can't happen with the newer designs.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Nuclear power technology has come a long way in addressing both safety and waste. Don't think that the reactors of today and try to compare them to the 60's-90's. Gen IV eat their own waste and Fukushima and other close calls can't happen with the newer designs.

I wish I could share this continuing ed presentation I attended, but I can't since I don't own it... Here is a real quick highlight about what you're mentioning:

 

[4ohSick]

I'm ignorant, and so I am probably a good case study on why folks can't just "get behind" nuclear. I am told that the nuclear accidents of yesteryear are outliers, and were due to old technologies, and those types of meltdowns just can't happen using new technology. Is it true? I don't know. But I do know this. Nuclear gives folks pause because when things go wrong, they go wrong for millenia. Because radiation is f*$!*ing terrifying.

For me personally to feel alright about nuclear, I would need to know that those plants are resilient to catastrophic events that may occur every few thousand years or more. We saw what an earthquake/tsunami did to Fukishima. If a nuclear power plant were to be built in Clancy, Montana, I would want a guarantee that an earthquake, a wildfire, a microburst, and even an asteroid impact, would not cause Clancy, Montana to be an uninhabitable wasteland for the next 20,000 years, as other nuclear meltdown sites are destined to be. One could argue that something like an asteroid impact is so unlikely, but when the consequences are measured in millenia and are so absolute I want assurance against events that are only plausible on timescales measured in millenia.

I haven't looked into nuclear deeply, and as was said above, there is no such thing as a free lunch. But the whole "Guys, guys guys, that was old tech, it will be different this time", is an industrial tale as old as time, and rhymes with tragedies of yesteryear, and looks and quacks like the hubris duck.

To be clear, I am not arguing for any form of power generation, nor am I arguing against nuclear. These are just the offhanded thoughts of a mapmaker who had corned beef hash for breakfast.

Fukushima wasn't just bad tech, it was negligent design. The reactors responded correctly to the earthquake by inserting the control rods and stopping the fission reaction. However, that cut the generation of power, which necessitated emergency generators, which were in the basement. Next to the ocean. Concerns had been raised about tsunami risk by the IAEA, but weren't addressed.

As far as the asteroid scenario, I think any reactor (even the old tech) could handle one burning up in the atmosphere and the accompanying sonic boom. In an actual impact, there are so many variables to account for that it's just not possible to design for them. But living in Clancy, I'd rather be in the center of the crater next to the melted down nuclear plant than on the other side of the world in "nuclear winter" from the dust cloud.