Keep Nuclear Power Plant Open, Urge 79 Scientists, Academics and Entrepreneurs
source link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/22/02/05/2342219/keep-nuclear-power-plant-open-urge-79-scientists-academics-and-entrepreneurs
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
A California newspaper covers "pleas" to the state's governor to delay the closure of a nuclear power plant:
On Thursday, Dr. Steven Chu, former U.S. Secretary of Energy under the Obama administration and a Nobel laureate, and more than 79 scientists, academics and entrepreneurs sent a letter to [California governor] Newsom urging him to find a way to keep the plant open because of the necessary carbon-free, clean electricity it provides to the state's electricity grid. Diablo Canyon currently provides about 18,000 gigawatt-hours of clean electricity annually, comprising of about 10% of the state's electricity portfolio.... The letter was sent by the nonprofit foundation Save Clean Energy, which was organized primarily to protest the closure of the nuclear power plant.... The letter details how Diablo Canyon is critical to the state's clean energy goals, which the state is legally mandated to meet, and how it seems unlikely the state will be able to meet those goals with the plant's current scheduled decommissioning beginning in November 2024, when the first of its two Nuclear Regulatory Licenses expires.... The movement to keep Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant open has recently gained new traction after a Stanford and Massachusetts Institute of Technology report released in November claimed operating the plant for 10 years beyond its expected closure would significantly help the state meet its clean energy goals. In a statement sent to The Tribune in December, a spokesperson for Newsom indicated the governor has no intention of delaying the closure of Diablo Canyon. "California has the technology to achieve California's clean energy goals without compromising our energy needs. The pathway is through diverse renewable energy sources, expanded energy storage and grid climate resiliency," Newsom spokesperson Erin Mellon wrote in an email to The Tribune. "Our retail energy providers are already in the process of procuring new energy projects to replace the energy produced by Diablo Canyon."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader gordm for sharing the link
-
Nonsense. Nuclear power not on the list of the major nitrous oxide emissions activities of man. Rather agriculture, fossil fuel burning, manufacturing (fertilizer and plastics to be specific), and waste water treatment are number one through four.
You're another self-imagined "greenie" that can't understand math and relative magnitudes.
-
-
Solar is one of the most ecologically damaging things when factoring in mining+fabrication for solar panels and for batteries. Hydro is horrible for migrating fish. Wind is horrible for migrating birds and increases the extremes of thermal gradients by making it harder for them to balance out, resulting in more severe weather on both the hot and cold ends and bigger storms when they finally overcome that higher energy differential. Tidal increases the extremes of thermal gradients much like wind, but on a more subtle yet more severe scale within the ocean. Geothermal saps energy from a finite supply that ultimately is what drives the Earth's magnetosphere and holds in the freaking atmosphere. Nuclear is by far the greenest and cleanest energy we have save perhaps for methane captured as natural gas from animal/Human waste - which is effectively scrap solar from farming operations without all the nasty chemicals in PV solar - but is at best carbon neutral; or perhaps solar-thermal, though maintenance there is rough and hard to actually quantify the impact of. If you want a green/eco-friendly energy generator nuclear is by far the simplest and most effective way to go.
-
Solar is one of the most ecologically damaging things when factoring in mining+fabrication for solar panels and for batteries. Hydro is horrible for migrating fish. Wind is horrible for migrating birds and increases the extremes of thermal gradients by making it harder for them to balance out, resulting in more severe weather on both the hot and cold ends and bigger storms when they finally overcome that higher energy differential. Tidal increases the extremes of thermal gradients much like wind, but on a more subtle yet more severe scale within the ocean. Geothermal saps energy from a finite supply that ultimately is what drives the Earth's magnetosphere and holds in the freaking atmosphere. Nuclear is by far the greenest and cleanest energy we have save perhaps for methane captured as natural gas from animal/Human waste - which is effectively scrap solar from farming operations without all the nasty chemicals in PV solar - but is at best carbon neutral; or perhaps solar-thermal, though maintenance there is rough and hard to actually quantify the impact of. If you want a green/eco-friendly energy generator nuclear is by far the simplest and most effective way to go.
There are some valid complaints in here, some ones that would be valid if the magnitudes weren't so ridiculous, and some that are simply words used in silly ways.
Please explain what you mean here: "Geothermal saps energy from a finite supply that ultimately is what drives the Earth's magnetosphere and holds in the freaking atmosphere."
If you mean that drawing energy from near-surface thermal gradients will eventually stop plate tectonics/magmatic convection... you're right! But let's compare tapping those gradients to, oh, volcanoes. Care to say what "finite supply" means here?
If you mean that we'll somehow allow solar radiation to strip away the atmosphere (which is "held in" by gravity) once the magnetosphere is reduced in strength... you're right! But let's be realistic about mechanisms and magnitudes/speeds, and the other changes incurred if the magnetosphere reduces naturally, as it has many, many times.Your objections to thermal gradients seem to be in the wrong directions and unrealistic as to magnitudes; things like capturing tidal energy and wind energy/reduce/ those gradients over length scales of km or more and are tremendously small changes to boot.
Am I reading your reasoning incorrectly? If so, please educate me.
-
They seem to be suggesting the only green energy comes from the inverse process of what stars do. Since stars perform fission, the inverse is fission.
Yout seem to agree all other forms of green energy have a much shallower upward bound. Fission seems to be the method to get the most energy from resources available. Those other forms also potentially have downsides that will impact us far before reaching the limit. Just as burning oil has severely impacted us and we will likely still find plenty more in the
-
-
"Geothermal saps energy from a finite supply that ultimately is what drives the Earth's magnetosphere and holds in the freaking atmosphere."
+2 Funny
"green/eco-friendly energy generator nuclear is by far the simplest"
-3 Dumb-
From This article on the source of earths inner heat [livescience.com]
With the combined usage of the world at just shy of 18 trillion watts, that means the radioactive decay that has analogous fuel reserves to the fusion in our sun could meet world energy needs at today’s rates forever (in human lifespans) free with no pollution created as part of the use and no change inward or to the magnetosphere whatsoever. Given the surface temperature of the earth stays the same (and some low temp accessable reservoir like lo
-
-
interesting trivia about Geothermal.
Almost all that heat comes from the decay of Uranium, Thorium, and other radioactive elements in the Earths crust. The residual heat from the Earths formation is really a very small portion of it. Mars doesn't have the same levels of radioactive elements in it's crust the Earth does, one of the reasons why it's the mess it is today.
So geothermal is still nuclear energy just the nuke part is well hidden from the public.
glad someone pointed out what an eco mess solar cell
-
Solar cells should be well understood now in terms of ecological damage until a real biochemical solution is achieved. People love them in sense of "it's green" though...
Your point though is profoundly interested. If one could manage this well, one could utilize pumping nuclear waste into the mantle simply to later harness the geothermal energy but likely without some natural "flow" the proposition would've a loss simply with regards to pushing this waste into the core/mantle?
-
Na.
Estimates are 16-20TW out of a 44TW total flux.
That's 36%-45%.
-
-
SHUT THE FUCK UP. You haven't got a fucking clue about how much heat energy there is down there. There is more than we could use if our species lasts another 100,000 years.
-
-
The wind bird problem is solved by painting one of the blades black.
-
-
Perhaps you will read next time. I wrote "Nitric Acid," not "Nitrous oxide. Most nuclear fuel production uses nitric-acid as feedstock.
-
You seem to be ignorant of chemistry. The concern with nitric acid production and use is the nitrous oxides formed from either the production of the acid or use of them. For production, catalysts are now used to make the tail gases produce yet more nitric acid, instead of wastefully releasing the oxides.
Then we have the issue of production by use of nitric acid.
The amount used by nuclear power industry is totally negligible compared to the monstrous qualities used in other industries I mentioned, it does
-
-
-
Yep. Nuclear is crazy dirty. Just that this pollution will poison our children when leaking.
And also, it simply costs 3x as much as renewables.
It is simply economically obsolete, get rid of that dinosaur.-
Incremental MWh for nuclear life extension is cheaper than replacement solar MWh, without even adding in batteries.
Diablo Canyon needs to be closed in the not-too-distant future, but maybe another 5 years of operation would make sense.
-
even life extension does not make economic sense any more.
Too expensive.-
Life extension in this case is simply not retiring early. Total burdened cost plus profit for Diablo Canyon is $70/MWh; the accelerated retirement actually increases that. Solar plus battery to replace is $210/MWh-- 3x the installed PV capacity plus battery.
-
Yeah. Without the disposal costs of fuel and insurance.
Try calculating those in, and you're 3-4x higher than solar.-
Incrementally for another 2-5 years even that isn’t a big number. That is the issue at hand. Building a new plant is a completely different story, but running this one as long as practical makes sense. The real disposal cost is the plant itself, which is unavoidable; spent fuel isn’t that big in comparison, especially for just a few more years.
-
-
-
-
Diablo Canyon needs to close ASAP: It's a dangerous design (BWR) and it's on a fault line. But its capacity should be replaced (or more) immediately with nuclear plants that don't have either of those flaws.
People who tout solar's cost compared to nuclear forget: 1) the nuclear cost includes getting past an legislated resistance process, 2) solar is still actively subsidized, such claims indicate it's not necessary, and 3) the cost of solar or wind never seems to include the carbon producing grid backup to
-
-
Renewables are not cheaper than Nuclear and don't provide baseload power without batteries or some kind of storage. If they shut down this plant all that production will be replaced with NG and diesel. This is already happening in California around the world. Check Germany, their CO2 levels went up.
-
So I checked. CO2 levels in Germany went up last year a bit because the economy went up again and wind was relatively low. Still, use of renewables has been continuously increasing and CO2 emissions continuously decreasing in Germany over the years even after shutdown of most nuclear plants.
-
Uecker's post may have been a bit long winded for what was needed.
I'll summarize for you.
You're a liar.
-
-
-
With a press release from a website that is less six months old, with no physical address or list of principles. Perhaps I can setup a website, pay a few hungry post docs to sign a letter, and get my press release on/. Maybe I can advocate for lead to be added back to gas
For the record nuclear and gas fired plants are going to be part of the solution as we build up wind and solar. Both wind and solar have proven themselves, while nuclear has had 50 years and still comes in late and over budget. Both sho
-
In China nuclear plants come in on time and under budget. Everywhere else nuclear is being filibustered by sad clowns who have created the climate crisis by preventing safe clean nuclear energy. There is no nuclear waste problem. The “waste” is just recycled into more nuclear plants because it is worth trillions. The world will die unless we stop the big lie about atomic power. Follow the science!
-
Lies keep pockets lined... but hear China is just full of proganda... dui bu dui?
-
Let's just point out that in China if the Nuclear plant DOESN"T come in on time and on budget you will never hear about it.
So funnily enough ALL nuclear plants come in on time and on budget.
Any press release or news out of China should be considered propaganda first and foremost.
-
A command economy can do things that a free market cannot. A decision can be made that a certain product is what consumers want, and that product can be foisted on them as the only choice. China has made a command decision that vitrification and burial is the way to store waste. I happen to agree with them that this is the case. But in the US the free market of ideas means we have to get buying on traffic routes and locations. We canâ(TM)t just say that we will put these people at higher risk and if yo
-
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK