Bait And Switch: The Governor's Executive Order To Destroy California's Green Economy

An alternative point of view (0.00 / 0)

What about nuclear power isn't renewable again?

Can we stop fighting against good solutions?  The nuclear power protests in the 70s and 80s that stopped the NRC from continuing to license new plants has been the worst thing to happen for environmentally conscious energy sources and has been solely responsible for the construction of many new dirty power plants.

If people would stop fighting nuclear power we could have our grid on 50% renewable sources by 2020 and could be getting clean fresh water either through steam reclamation or by running desal during plant downtimes.  (The biggest cost of desal is energy usually, since you generally don't offline nuclear plants when grid demand goes down as offlining and onlining a nuclear core on a daily basis is a bad way to manage a nuclear power plant, you put that power into desal basically for free.)  Japan, a country that knows a hell of a lot better why nuclear technologies can be dangerous than we do, does this.  We should be leading on this renewable power source that also makes desal easier, instead we're bickering and pretending erecting ugly wind towers or blanketing beautiful desert environments with pricey solar panels are okay.  Apparently since desert isn't beautiful enough it's perfectly okay to spoil it?  I don't understand the logic here.  All of the proposed alternatives involve the massive destruction of open space.

I don't like the governor doing this the way he's going about it any more than you do, but I find it completely irresponsible that Calitics could still be arguing against an amazing source of renewable energy.

And yes, I'd prefer fusion to fission, but since we haven't funded ITER and we've been neglecting to fund fusion research for the last 40 years we can hardly bitch too loudly that the energy crisis has come and it's not ready yet now can we?  Fission will transition us to fusion eventually and allow us a clean grid in a reasonably cost-effective (bonus!) way in the meantime.

---

by: djcapelis @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:02:12 PM UTC

I oppose nuclear power because it's corporate welfare (0.00 / 0)

for all the talk that solar and wind energy are too expensive and require government kickbacks, new nuclear power generation costs three times as much as current US electricity rates, and nuclear plant construction relies on massive government subsidies.  No nuclear power plant has ever come in on budget.  It's a terrible, terrible business risk for a struggling state economy, and would require transfers of wealth the likes of which we haven't seen in some time.

What's irresponsible is denying the extreme costs of nuclear (also, as if nuclear reactors are somehow prettier or any different than windmills?) to the state treasury.  Is it a price worth paying?  Not given the presence of strong alternatives.

---

by: David Dayen @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:12:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So then oppose corporate welfare, not nuclear power. (0.00 / 0)

Honestly I don't care if nuclear power is more expensive.  It we have to destroy less land with it then it's worth the price and I'm willing to see my tax dollars go to help us get that power.

If you're worried about the corporate welfare aspects then let's just go ahead and take the energy system public again.  I have no problem with the state being the agency that directly runs our nuclear plants.  I'd actually be more comfortable with that than seeing them run by private companies.  Nuclear power is so heavily regulated that the staff might as well be governmental employees anyways.  Though I'd hate to see what hair-brained furloughing plans would do to a nuclear plant, now that I think of it... :\

That said, I'm not entirely convinced nuclear power has to be more expensive than other forms and I think there are elements of nuclear power expenditures that aren't essential.  Obviously our containment standards are world-class and useful and I wouldn't suggest sacrificing those, but a lot of nuclear power cost is coming from good intentioned legislation and regulations that hamper it.  I think a good team of nuclear scientists could come up with some suggestions to lower the cost.  The 4th generation reactors and the pebble bed reactors (the pebble beds are actually quite expensive but can save on transmission costs) are an interesting development.  The progressive communities should be welcoming nuclear advancement with open arms, not fighting it tooth and nail.

I respect your arguments against the current system of handouts for nuclear power, but I think the problem there isn't nuclear power but how we're currently dealing with its cost.

> also, as if nuclear reactors are somehow prettier or any
> different than windmills?

Prettier?  Absolutely not!  But we have to destroy many fewer square miles of pristine environment with nuclear than with wind or solar per megawatt hour.

10 nuclear power plants on the scale of San Onofre would be all that would be needed to serve the power needs of the entire state.  (Assuming no offlining, which is unrelastic, in reality we'd probably want a dozen.  I also think we'd want to build more reactors than San Onofre has per site, but whatever scale works best economically is fine with me...)

How much desert would you have to ruin to power with solar to serve daytime power needs only and not provide a water source to the coast regions at night?  How many hills would you have to blanket with wind turbines?

> Not given the presence of strong alternatives.

Such as?

If there's better alternatives I'm all ears.  But now we're debating between renewable energy sources.  I think it's not absurd to put nuclear power on the list of renewable sources.

However if you can tell me about an alternative renewable source that costs less than nuclear (which may cost more than what we have now, but still is pretty cheap for a renewable) that doesn't destroy hilariously large swaths of open space and doesn't only power the grid when the weather forecast is favorable, I'll happily start arguing for that instead of nuclear power!  If it can generate water like nuclear can during grid lowpoints too, that'd be groovy.

---

by: djcapelis @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:35:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Get back to me (0.00 / 0)

Once we've resolved the rather important issue of what to do with all the nuclear waste. In case you hadn't noticed, the Yucca Mountain project is on life support.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:40:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yucca Mountain is a distraction (0.00 / 0)

It turns out there isn't that much of it and we can just keep it on site just like we do now.  It apparently isn't the large issue everyone assumes.  Again, we only have to deal with this until we shape up and invest in fusion research properly.

By the time it's a problem fusion will be around and we seriously could just launch the stuff into space from Mojave spaceport.

I'm not thrilled about the "launch it into space" solution, but you have to admit, it's not the worst idea.  Given the recent resurgence of effort in cheap space travel which is quite serious, we'll have cheap space freight runs high enough to put this stuff into orbit at relatively inexpensive prices soon enough.  It won't be as cheap as regular space travel because of craft containment issues, but it's not the absurd suggestion it used to be when NASA was the only agency that could put things in space.

There's other alternatives, but the reality is that there just isn't that much waste to deal with and it's not going to be a problem for a few more decades so we really do have awhile to chose the option that makes everyone happy and then just build a modest storage facility which will eventually be deprecated by nuclear fusion anyways.

Other countries use plenty of nuclear power and are building new plants.  I don't think either you or David can pretend that there are unsolvable issues in nuclear.

---

by: djcapelis @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:50:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a side side note (0.00 / 0)

As a quick aside, you should know my tone is argumentative simply because that's how I discuss things.  I do the same with my peers on technical matters as well, so please don't be offended.

---

by: djcapelis @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:53:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

um, seriously? (5.00 / 1)

What about nuclear power isn't renewable again?

the fact that it isn't renewable. the fuel is finite, the ore has to be mined from the ground using diesel-burning machinery, often abroad. david has explained the financial angle of it, but how does one get off calling something that isn't renewable renewable.

it is true that it doesn't directly emit carbon (although indirectly via making the fuel it's more complex), but renewable is a different thing entirely.

---

by: wu ming @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 00:02:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing's truely renewable (0.00 / 0)

As opposed to the construction materials for wind turbines and solar panels, which grow on trees, I presume?

In the long run nothing's renewable.  Are you going to use that to declare anything you don't like non-renewable now?

---

by: djcapelis @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 00:16:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the fuel is not renewable (0.00 / 0)

i mean, seriously, why not just call coal renewable, if we're just using it as a branding term?

nuclear plans require a steady supply of finite, non-renewable fuel which must be mined, processed, and shipped using fossil fuel. it is not renewable in any meaningful sense of the word. your argument for nuclear is basically related to its spatial footprint, which has zero to do with the concept of renewability.

wind blows, for free, day after day. the sun shines, for free, day after day. i'm less clear on why people don't put hydro in the category of renewable with them; i would, FWIW, even though i see other problems with that source of generating power.

advocate for nukes if you believe they're a good choice, but let's be honest about the words we use.  

---

by: wu ming @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 01:37:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right on the semantics, but you miss the point (0.00 / 0)

Solar panel production (and since they wear out this has to continue) also requires an steady supply of non-renewable materials that must be mined, processed and shipped using fossil fuel.  (Also what?  No.  There's nothing that requires things be mined and shipped using fossil fuels.  I hope we don't intend to settle with the idea that everything that ever gets shipped must do so using fossil fuels... that's not going to work... we certainly use fossil fuels for those things today, I hope we don't continue that in the future.)  Can we really call solar panels a form of renewable energy?  Your definition is mighty narrow.

I agree with you that semantically the definition of renewable is not the best fit with nuclear fission.  I would really really prefer we'd be here talking about implementing nuclear fusion, which is about as renewable as the sun, but we haven't done the research to make fusion viable, so that's not going to work yet.  I hope we wouldn't use fission for more than a century or so before we'd replace all fission plants with fusion plants and be on renewable (or more close to your definition of renewable) power.

Unfortunately it's a term we're using to mean something other than actually renewable.  For the most part no one cares about renewable as much as they do "green" which is an equally unsatisfying term that simply tends to be a proxy for "we'd like to stop killing people with pollution please."  You're right, I should have been more careful with my words, but the intent of AB32 is to create a clean grid that can continue to function in the future and nuclear energy does just that.

At the beginning we'll use fission, which has enough fuel around to run any plants we decide to build for quite awhile, (more that the lifetime of the plant) and then we'll be able to transition to fusion which has plentiful fuel sources some of which can be synthesized in a lab.

I think the important qualities we're looking for here are:
1) Non-polluting
2) Sustainable over a long period of time

Nuclear power, in my mind, meets both of those requirements.  I agree with you that "renewable" is not the best word to use.

I also agree the open space argument is an environmental one that has little to do with renewability.  IMO though, if we can save land it's worth bending some semantic definitions that aren't doing us any good and don't get to the point of what we really care about in creating a clean grid anyways.  I like nature, I'm in favor of having more of it.  I assume you are too so I don't think we actually disagree that much.

---

by: djcapelis @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 04:33:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

so using the correct definition of words is "semantics." got it. (0.00 / 0)

have fun arguing in your alice in wonderland world.

---

by: wu ming @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 06:16:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What? (0.00 / 0)

Since we're going to use the correct definition of the word:
Semantics - noun - the study of language meaning.

Which very much does not mean:
Semantics - noun - a useless argument that has no relation to anything

I said that, according to the literal meaning of the word, you're pretty much correct, though I debated that anything really met the definition given that things like wind and sunshine might well be renewable enough, wind power and solar power aren't because of non-renewable components.

Then I went on to propose that the more sensible objectives were looking for energy sources that:
1) Are clean.
2) Can be sustained over a long term.

These are the things people actually mean to talk about when they say "renewable" even if, like me and unlike you, they got and get the semantics incorrect.

Exactly how this suddenly places me into an alice in wonderland world or denigrates your view I'm left to wonder.

---

by: djcapelis @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 06:55:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Without debating (too much) the merits of nuclear power... (0.00 / 0)

one argument that may lose steam is that re: green jobs leaving California.  Boxer is adding a nuclear title to ACES in the hopes of attracting certain pro-nuke Republicans (e.g., Alexander and McCain).  I surmise that she'll include nuclear power as part of the RES.  So once the RES is national, no one will need to threaten to move green jobs from state to state.  Of course, this requires that ACES actually pass the Senate, a different story....

---

by: RLMiller @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 20:07:43 PM UTC

most politicians that use the word green are full of it (0.00 / 0)

"Green" is just a fashionable thing right now, a way to brand products and charge more money for them. Whether they actually do anything or not is irrelevant - people need to feel better and there are too many liars, like Newsom and Schwarzenegger, who love to talk about all things green and get lots of accolades from the liberals, but when it comes to making hard decisions, they're full of crap and are usually lying.

--
www.gregdewar.com

---

by: gregdewar.com @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 20:12:11 PM UTC

Okay.... (0.00 / 0)

...let's stipulate that nuclear waste is no more dangerous than say...sawdust. Sawdust actually has a MSDS for it and it's not a benign substance but let's just say that the Nuke Nuts are right about that....

Who's going to provide the insurance for this wonderful new batch of projects. The real reason that no new plant has been built in the U.S. is that our stalwart insurance companies want no part of underwriting a 'Three Mile Island' event. So.....

That leaves us taxpayers to foot the bill. Sorry pal but even the U.S. Senate ain't that stupid.

Get back to us 'treehuggers' when you grow a brain. Or...we can store all the spent rods at your house.

---

by: A.Citizen @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 01:03:01 AM UTC

A "Nuke Nut" bothers to respond to your inflamatory post (0.00 / 0)

Let's stipulate that you're not actually malicious and just having a bad day.  Let's further stipulate you're actually interested in a debate and talking about these issues instead of just throwing up a senseless screed that re-enforces your existing opinion of nuclear power and vilifies anyone who argues for it as being hostile to the environmental movement.  (Really, what the hell is up with that?  I've probably hugged a hell of a lot more trees than you have, so simmer down and actually try and make sense or insult someone else.  Don't assume I'm some idiot just because we disagree.  I'm so thrilled you categorized me as a "Nuke Nut" that's such a cute name.  Very helpful in furthering the debate too.)

Anyways... the point I was able to extract from your poorly worded post:
----------------------------

Point: Three Mile Island was horrible and it should never happen again.

Response: Yeah it sucked.  Again, I'm for next gen nuclear and fusion technologies that are much safer and less radioactive, but since we haven't been researching those like we should we can't really do that, now can we?  Further, nuclear power plants are run a hell of a lot better since then.  A Three Mile Island is extremely unlikely to repeat itself, though, admittedly, not impossible, but the nuclear plants that have been running in this country for decades since have all been fine and they're the old more dangerous kind...

And let's be completely frank.  Three Mile Island was bad because it was never supposed to happen, not because too many people died.  It cost about a billion dollars, which adjusted for inflation is a lot more now, but not entirely out of the range of the cost of doing business.  The Kettleman Hills compressor station killed a hell of a lot more people than Three Mile Island and I don't see anyone standing outside of PG&E's compressor stations with signs.  Coal power plants kill a lot of people too.  A lot of coal plants are still running today because of fears over nuclear power.

These incidents haven't crippled other countries (except Russia which had terrible safety standards and really really were warned that not implementing those precautions would cause exactly the situation they found themselves in) which are happily building new nuclear plants to produce clean power today.  Do you really think Japan, France and the UK are pursuing nuclear power and getting clean power grids and fresh water faster and easier than we are because they're stupider than we are?

---

by: djcapelis @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:54:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]