# California will be nuclear free and lead the way



## QuickHitCurepon

I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.

California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables



> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”


----------



## martybegan

QuickHitCurepon said:


> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
Click to expand...


Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).


----------



## Fenton Lum

martybegan said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).
Click to expand...

 
Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.


----------



## martybegan

Fenton Lum said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
Click to expand...


or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.


----------



## Fenton Lum

martybegan said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
Click to expand...

 
Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.


----------



## martybegan

Fenton Lum said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
Click to expand...


I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.


----------



## Fenton Lum

martybegan said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
Click to expand...

 

Head on out!


----------



## HenryBHough

California hates drought but will curse the clouds when their lights go out.


----------



## martybegan

Fenton Lum said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Head on out!
Click to expand...


Why? There are plenty of competent Power Supply Engineers already, the problem is advocates run the railroad out there, not technical people. 


Try arguing base load with an environmentalist and they would think you are talking about the packed powder up in the Rockies.


----------



## Fenton Lum

martybegan said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Head on out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? There are plenty of competent Power Supply Engineers already, the problem is advocates run the railroad out there, not technical people.
> 
> 
> Try arguing base load with an environmentalist and they would think you are talking about the packed powder up in the Rockies.
Click to expand...

 
Then it looks to me like you'll be leaving it up to Californians.  Good.


----------



## martybegan

Fenton Lum said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Head on out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? There are plenty of competent Power Supply Engineers already, the problem is advocates run the railroad out there, not technical people.
> 
> 
> Try arguing base load with an environmentalist and they would think you are talking about the packed powder up in the Rockies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it looks to me like you'll be leaving it up to Californians.  Good.
Click to expand...


Why are you using the "if you want X, you have to go do it yourself" line of argument?

I like fires being fought by firefighters, I don't have to become one myself to have that viewpoint.


----------



## Fenton Lum

martybegan said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Head on out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? There are plenty of competent Power Supply Engineers already, the problem is advocates run the railroad out there, not technical people.
> 
> 
> Try arguing base load with an environmentalist and they would think you are talking about the packed powder up in the Rockies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it looks to me like you'll be leaving it up to Californians.  Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you using the "if you want X, you have to go do it yourself" line of argument?
> 
> I like fires being fought by firefighters, I don't have to become one myself to have that viewpoint.
Click to expand...

 
States rights.


----------



## martybegan

Fenton Lum said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Head on out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? There are plenty of competent Power Supply Engineers already, the problem is advocates run the railroad out there, not technical people.
> 
> 
> Try arguing base load with an environmentalist and they would think you are talking about the packed powder up in the Rockies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it looks to me like you'll be leaving it up to Californians.  Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you using the "if you want X, you have to go do it yourself" line of argument?
> 
> I like fires being fought by firefighters, I don't have to become one myself to have that viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> States rights.
Click to expand...


----------



## Old Rocks

martybegan said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
Click to expand...

Great. Now what do you propose we do about some cooling pools for spent rods in the US that are now holding more than 5 times the rods they were designed for? Or the nuke in California that was built with an active fault running right through the plant?

Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The *Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant* is a 63 MWe boiling water reactor, owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company that operated from August 1963 to July 1976 just south of Eureka, California. On Monday, January 23, 1961, Pacific Gas and Electric held a luncheon to invite the community to observe the start of the major construction of the nuclear unit.[1] Concern about previously undiscovered seismicfaults combined with more stringent requirements required after the Three Mile Island accident rendered the small plant unprofitable if restarted. It was shut down for refueling and seismic upgrades in July 1976, which dragged on due to changing requirements. PG&E announced plans to permanently shutter the plant in 1983, and it was then placed in SAFSTOR inactive status in 1988.

In 2004 Pacific Gas and Electric Company announced that three nuclear fuel rods were unaccounted for due to conflicting records of their location. The fuel rods were never accounted for, though PG&E investigators believe that they are still onsite in a storage pool. The investigation is believed to have cost one million dollars.[2]

PG&E overlooked key seismic test at Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

PG&E spotted the mistake in 2011, a year after the last replacement equipment was installed at Diablo Canyon, perched on a seaside cliff near San Luis Obispo. The utility insists that its own analysis, performed after the company found the mistake, shows the new equipment would survive an earthquake and loss of coolant after all.

“Engineering and seismic experts performed a subsequent evaluation and confirmed there is sufficient margin in the components’ design to withstand a very rare event of a combined earthquake on the Hosgri Fault and a loss of coolant accident,” said PG&E spokesman Blair Jones. He called the possibility of such an event “infinitesimally small.”






*When the Cascade Subduction Zone lets go, how safe would that plant be from the resultant tsunami?

In 2011, the Fort Peck dam in Montana was very close to a wash out. Had it gone, it would have taken out every dam on the Missouri and Mississippi downstream from it. How many nukes would have been shut down? What about the spent rod pools?

We have been assured repeatedly that nukes are fail safe. Three Mile Island and Fukashima have disabused us of that idea.*


----------



## martybegan

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great. Now what do you propose we do about some cooling pools for spent rods in the US that are now holding more than 5 times the rods they were designed for? Or the nuke in California that was built with an active fault running right through the plant?
> 
> Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The *Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant* is a 63 MWe boiling water reactor, owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company that operated from August 1963 to July 1976 just south of Eureka, California. On Monday, January 23, 1961, Pacific Gas and Electric held a luncheon to invite the community to observe the start of the major construction of the nuclear unit.[1] Concern about previously undiscovered seismicfaults combined with more stringent requirements required after the Three Mile Island accident rendered the small plant unprofitable if restarted. It was shut down for refueling and seismic upgrades in July 1976, which dragged on due to changing requirements. PG&E announced plans to permanently shutter the plant in 1983, and it was then placed in SAFSTOR inactive status in 1988.
> 
> In 2004 Pacific Gas and Electric Company announced that three nuclear fuel rods were unaccounted for due to conflicting records of their location. The fuel rods were never accounted for, though PG&E investigators believe that they are still onsite in a storage pool. The investigation is believed to have cost one million dollars.[2]
> 
> PG&E overlooked key seismic test at Diablo Canyon nuclear plant
> 
> PG&E spotted the mistake in 2011, a year after the last replacement equipment was installed at Diablo Canyon, perched on a seaside cliff near San Luis Obispo. The utility insists that its own analysis, performed after the company found the mistake, shows the new equipment would survive an earthquake and loss of coolant after all.
> 
> “Engineering and seismic experts performed a subsequent evaluation and confirmed there is sufficient margin in the components’ design to withstand a very rare event of a combined earthquake on the Hosgri Fault and a loss of coolant accident,” said PG&E spokesman Blair Jones. He called the possibility of such an event “infinitesimally small.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When the Cascade Subduction Zone lets go, how safe would that plant be from the resultant tsunami?
> 
> In 2011, the Fort Peck dam in Montana was very close to a wash out. Had it gone, it would have taken out every dam on the Missouri and Mississippi downstream from it. How many nukes would have been shut down? What about the spent rod pools?
> 
> We have been assured repeatedly that nukes are fail safe. Three Mile Island and Fukashima have disabused us of that idea.*
Click to expand...


Modern reactors are far safer and are getting better anytime. you still ignore the base load issues of increased renewable percentages to the electric grid. 

Waste can be dealt with if anticipated and accounted for. Nothing more than Engineering issues.


----------



## Old Rocks

Then why is it not being done?


----------



## martybegan

Old Rocks said:


> Then why is it not being done?



because chicken littles block every new reactor that tries to come on line.


----------



## Old Rocks

We were speaking of waste. Why is not the need for waste disposal taken care of before building the plants? 

And, besides, we don't need new nukes, we need more storage. And now we have two companies building grid scale batteries right here in the US. And the Tesla battery comes in at $250 per kw/hr. That is $100 below the break even point for grid scale batteries. 

Why Tesla Batteries Are Cheap Enough To Prevent New Power Plants


----------



## elektra

California is bankrupt. Broke, does anybody know how much money California owes? California is dying, and a big part of that is the energy policy. Replacing Nuclear power with wind and solar and batteries, will cost trillions of dollars, the entire nation will have to foot the bill.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

I remember the rolling blackouts in California, during 2001-2002, which came to be known as “Gray outs”, after then-governor Gray Davis.  To be fair to Mr. Davis, this crisis wasn't his doing; it was the result of decades of mismanagement of California's electric power supply.  Davis was the one who happened to be Governor when the crisis came to a head, and the public largely blamed him for it, leading to him being removed from office in a special recall election in 2003, with Arnold Schwarzenegger being elected as his successor.

  California isn't out of the woods as far as electric power goes.  Just a few days ago, the state issued a “flex alert”, urging Californians to avoid using too much power during the day due to a potential supply shortfall.

  I wonder who will be Governor when the loss of the Diablo Canyon plant causes a similar power crisis, and whether he will suffer the same fate as Gray Davis.


----------



## Skull Pilot

QuickHitCurepon said:


> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand that nuclear is our best option for abundant reliable emission free power

New reactors are the very definition of renewable as they can reclaim what is now considered spent fuel
Molten salt reactor will actually burn the nuclear waste we have stockpiled

funny how all you people say you're all for science and technology but one of the pinnacles of science and technology is nuclear power


----------



## Old Rocks

Did Tesla Just Kill Nuclear Power?

“At about ten ‘o’clock tonight he’s going to hold a press conference and he’s going to announce that he’s going to build industrial scale storage batteries. While the announcement is still two hours away, it appears that they’ll be able to produce these large batteries for about 2¢ per kilowatt hour. That’s an enormous breakthrough,” Gundersen said.

“So the nuclear argument that they’re the only 24-7 source is off the table now because Elon Musk has convinced me that industrial scale storage is in fact possible, and it’s here.”

And a few hours later Musk announced the launch of Tesla Energy, ”a suite of batteries for homes, businesses, and utilities fostering a clean energy ecosystem and helping wean the world off fossil fuels.” Many had anticipated the batteries—but not the price.

Tesla will sell the home battery, the Tesla Powerwall, for $3,500, a fraction of the $13,000 price observers had expected, and perhaps more importantly, a fraction of the cost of the $10,000 battery announced earlier this week by European competitors Sungevity and Sonnenbatterie.

Musk did not describe the cost of the utility-scale battery, but the prospect of a cheap new battery powered Gundersen’s economic argument as he collegially set out to demolish the nuclear claim:

The UK government just signed an agreement guaranteeing a price of 16 cents per kilowatt hour for power generated by a reactor proposed for Hinkley Point, on the coast at Somerset, England. That fresh contract represents an example, Gundersen argued, of the market price of new nuclear power.

*Tesla has announced that the grid scale batteries will cost $250 per kw/hr , that is $100 below the cost at which the storage become viable economically. That is not Tesla's estimate on the viable cost, but that of Oncor, the largest utility in Texas.*


----------



## bodecea

elektra said:


> California is bankrupt. Broke, does anybody know how much money California owes? California is dying, and a big part of that is the energy policy. Replacing Nuclear power with wind and solar and batteries, will cost trillions of dollars, the entire nation will have to foot the bill.


I see you know nothing about California.....of course, you showed that with your silly thread about CA having no drought.


----------



## bodecea

Skull Pilot said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem to understand that nuclear is our best option for abundant reliable emission free power
> 
> New reactors are the very definition of renewable as they can reclaim what is now considered spent fuel
> Molten salt reactor will actually burn the nuclear waste we have stockpiled
> 
> funny how all you people say you're all for science and technology but one of the pinnacles of science and technology is nuclear power
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with nuclear power...but they need to do it right.    It’s not just the steam generators that failed


----------



## Old Rocks

There are new technologies coming online that are far safer, and much less expensive than nuclear. And that will be what ultimetely ends nuclear.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> There are new technologies coming online that are far safer, and much less expensive than nuclear. And that will be what ultimetely ends nuclear.


That only work half the time

or that only produce less than 30% of their rated capacity

nuclear works all the time and produces nearly 90% of its rated capacity and that;s only because they intentionally run reactors slightly under maximum

most of the cost of nuclear is regulatory and new reactors do not need huge tracts of land and large water supplies to work.  Nor do they need huge and expensive concrete and steel containment domes


----------



## there4eyeM

If the danger of a technology, such as nuclear power, can be resolved through 'engineering', why would one not think that the same would apply to the present challenges of more general application of renewables? 
If you walk away from a windmill or a solar panel, leaving it to itself, what danger does it present long term? If terrorists attack a solar farm or wind power 'farm', what would happen other than the loss of the electricity?
When nukes centralize power, electrically, economically and politically, how can we decentralize and localize, and, thus, harmonize, society?
What is gained by propagandizing for big business and big government?
It is so much more interesting and innovative to develop the new technologies related to solar that the 'techies' attached to nukes seem confusing.


----------



## Skull Pilot

there4eyeM said:


> If the danger of a technology, such as nuclear power, can be resolved through 'engineering', why would one not think that the same would apply to the present challenges of more general application of renewables?
> If you walk away from a windmill or a solar panel, leaving it to itself, what danger does it present long term? If terrorists attack a solar farm or wind power 'farm', what would happen other than the loss of the electricity?
> When nukes centralize power, electrically, economically and politically, how can we decentralize and localize, and, thus, harmonize, society?
> What is gained by propagandizing for big business and big government?
> It is so much more interesting and innovative to develop the new technologies related to solar that the 'techies' attached to nukes seem confusing.



Molten salt reactors and IF reactors are self limiting and will shut themselves down if you walk away from them


----------



## there4eyeM

Skull Pilot said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the danger of a technology, such as nuclear power, can be resolved through 'engineering', why would one not think that the same would apply to the present challenges of more general application of renewables?
> If you walk away from a windmill or a solar panel, leaving it to itself, what danger does it present long term? If terrorists attack a solar farm or wind power 'farm', what would happen other than the loss of the electricity?
> When nukes centralize power, electrically, economically and politically, how can we decentralize and localize, and, thus, harmonize, society?
> What is gained by propagandizing for big business and big government?
> It is so much more interesting and innovative to develop the new technologies related to solar that the 'techies' attached to nukes seem confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Molten salt reactors and IF reactors are self limiting and will shut themselves down if you walk away from them
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the radioactive materials remain with no guarantees as to their destiny.


----------



## jon_berzerk

rolling brown outs how fun


----------



## elektra

bodecea said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is bankrupt. Broke, does anybody know how much money California owes? California is dying, and a big part of that is the energy policy. Replacing Nuclear power with wind and solar and batteries, will cost trillions of dollars, the entire nation will have to foot the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> I see you know nothing about California.....of course, you showed that with your silly thread about CA having no drought.
Click to expand...

How much does California owe? How much has California spent on Wind and Solar, seeings how you know about California, you should be able to answer quickly, with nice concise figures. I say you are all mouth and no nothing about anything. So, go ahead, show everyone how much you know and answer the questions.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bodecea said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is bankrupt. Broke, does anybody know how much money California owes? California is dying, and a big part of that is the energy policy. Replacing Nuclear power with wind and solar and batteries, will cost trillions of dollars, the entire nation will have to foot the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> I see you know nothing about California.....of course, you showed that with your silly thread about CA having no drought.
Click to expand...


  I live in California, and have lived here for nearly all of my life.  As far as I can tell, what elektra has said is spot-on.  This is a state that is being economically killed, by very bad political and economic policies, including gross mismanagement of water and energy supplies.


----------



## Old Rocks

California surpasses France as world's sixth-largest economy

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California is now the sixth-largest economy in the world, surpassing France, thanks to a robust state economy and strong U.S. dollar.

California was the world's eighth-largest economy in 2014, Irena Asmundson, chief economist of the California Department of Finance, said in a phone interview on Friday. "California did exceptionally well in 2015."

France is the world's seventh-largest economy with a growth domestic product of $2.42 trillion (£1.69 trillion), and India is the eighth-largest with $2.09 trillion, according to the latest International Monetary Fund data.

California is home to diverse strong economies, including Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Manufacturing and agriculture have performed well despite a severe drought, Asmundson said.

The most populous U.S. state has outpaced the rest of the country on job growth, California's finance department said in its June bulletin this week. Gross state product was $2.46 trillion in 2015, with 4.1 percent of growth in real terms, it added.

U.S. gross domestic product grew by 2.4 percent in 2015. Growth slowed to 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2016.

*Looks like California is doing quite well. Of course, stiff competition for jobs, so natural born losers will continue to lose.*


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> California surpasses France as world's sixth-largest economy
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California is now the sixth-largest economy in the world, surpassing France, thanks to a robust state economy and strong U.S. dollar.
> 
> California was the world's eighth-largest economy in 2014, Irena Asmundson, chief economist of the California Department of Finance, said in a phone interview on Friday. "California did exceptionally well in 2015."
> 
> France is the world's seventh-largest economy with a growth domestic product of $2.42 trillion (£1.69 trillion), and India is the eighth-largest with $2.09 trillion, according to the latest International Monetary Fund data.
> 
> California is home to diverse strong economies, including Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Manufacturing and agriculture have performed well despite a severe drought, Asmundson said.
> 
> The most populous U.S. state has outpaced the rest of the country on job growth, California's finance department said in its June bulletin this week. Gross state product was $2.46 trillion in 2015, with 4.1 percent of growth in real terms, it added.
> 
> U.S. gross domestic product grew by 2.4 percent in 2015. Growth slowed to 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2016.
> 
> *Looks like California is doing quite well. Of course, stiff competition for jobs, so natural born losers will continue to lose.*


So you agree, california is not suffering drought.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> California surpasses France as world's sixth-largest economy
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California is now the sixth-largest economy in the world, surpassing France, thanks to a robust state economy and strong U.S. dollar.
> 
> California was the world's eighth-largest economy in 2014, Irena Asmundson, chief economist of the California Department of Finance, said in a phone interview on Friday. "California did exceptionally well in 2015."
> 
> France is the world's seventh-largest economy with a growth domestic product of $2.42 trillion (£1.69 trillion), and India is the eighth-largest with $2.09 trillion, according to the latest International Monetary Fund data.
> 
> California is home to diverse strong economies, including Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Manufacturing and agriculture have performed well despite a severe drought, Asmundson said.
> 
> The most populous U.S. state has outpaced the rest of the country on job growth, California's finance department said in its June bulletin this week. Gross state product was $2.46 trillion in 2015, with 4.1 percent of growth in real terms, it added.
> 
> U.S. gross domestic product grew by 2.4 percent in 2015. Growth slowed to 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2016.
> 
> *Looks like California is doing quite well. Of course, stiff competition for jobs, so natural born losers will continue to lose.*
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree, california is not suffering drought.
Click to expand...


Do you agree that you have not learned to read yet.


----------



## ScienceRocks

I don't like shutting down nuclear as that means a hell of a lot more coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels being used for power.


----------



## elektra

Matthew said:


> I don't like shutting down nuclear as that means a hell of a lot more coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels being used for power.


This is your best post


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> California surpasses France as world's sixth-largest economy
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California is now the sixth-largest economy in the world, surpassing France, thanks to a robust state economy and strong U.S. dollar.
> 
> California was the world's eighth-largest economy in 2014, Irena Asmundson, chief economist of the California Department of Finance, said in a phone interview on Friday. "California did exceptionally well in 2015."
> 
> France is the world's seventh-largest economy with a growth domestic product of $2.42 trillion (£1.69 trillion), and India is the eighth-largest with $2.09 trillion, according to the latest International Monetary Fund data.
> 
> California is home to diverse strong economies, including Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Manufacturing and agriculture have performed well despite a severe drought, Asmundson said.
> 
> The most populous U.S. state has outpaced the rest of the country on job growth, California's finance department said in its June bulletin this week. Gross state product was $2.46 trillion in 2015, with 4.1 percent of growth in real terms, it added.
> 
> U.S. gross domestic product grew by 2.4 percent in 2015. Growth slowed to 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2016.
> 
> *Looks like California is doing quite well. Of course, stiff competition for jobs, so natural born losers will continue to lose.*
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree, california is not suffering drought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you agree that you have not learned to read yet.
Click to expand...

You have claimed that California is suffering from drought yet you just posted that California has done better, during a supposed drought, thanks for confirming what we all know, California is not suffering drought.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

If there is a widespread power outage across an entire region, many nuclear power plants will be forced to use back-up generators. What no one I have seen has ever answered is how many generators do they have and how big are they? Do they have enough fuel to run them, during an extended and greatly prolonged power outage? I doubt their generators are anywhere near adequate enough.


----------



## ScienceRocks

It is called going backwards on any progress of lowering our co2 emissions. This is dumb.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Matthew said:


> It is called going backwards on any progress of lowering our co2 emissions. This is dumb.



If we begin to decommission all of our nuclear power plants, how would that lower co2 emissions?

Burning more natural gas would lower co2 emissions. Presently, we have an unlimited supply of natural gas.


----------



## OnePercenter

Commodities markets killed coal.


----------



## OnePercenter

jon_berzerk said:


> rolling brown outs how fun



Infrastructure problems are common in any State or city 200 miles or closer to water.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

OnePercenter said:


> Commodities markets killed coal.



In the early 80's, Manpower assigned me to work at James C. Taylor Corp., as a personal secretary to the president of the company, and I know that is just not true. Consumer demand controls that. If you want to talk about commodities, corn killed it if nothing else. There are always hoppers of cars loaded with corn criss-crossing the country. Maybe, pork bellies killed coal.


----------



## OnePercenter

QuickHitCurepon said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commodities markets killed coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the early 80's, Manpower assigned me to work at James C. Taylor Corp., as a personal secretary to the president of the company, and I know that is just not true. Consumer demand controls that. If you want to talk about commodities, corn killed it if nothing else. There are always hoppers of cars loaded with corn criss-crossing the country. Maybe, pork bellies killed coal.
Click to expand...



As an investor with a 470 million dollar Investment Portfolio, I can tell you with credible fact that natural gas is much less cost than coal.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

OnePercenter said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commodities markets killed coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the early 80's, Manpower assigned me to work at James C. Taylor Corp., as a personal secretary to the president of the company, and I know that is just not true. Consumer demand controls that. If you want to talk about commodities, corn killed it if nothing else. There are always hoppers of cars loaded with corn criss-crossing the country. Maybe, pork bellies killed coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As an investor with a 470 million dollar Investment Portfolio, I can tell you with credible fact that natural gas is much less cost than coal.
Click to expand...


Bingo!!!


----------



## OnePercenter

QuickHitCurepon said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commodities markets killed coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the early 80's, Manpower assigned me to work at James C. Taylor Corp., as a personal secretary to the president of the company, and I know that is just not true. Consumer demand controls that. If you want to talk about commodities, corn killed it if nothing else. There are always hoppers of cars loaded with corn criss-crossing the country. Maybe, pork bellies killed coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As an investor with a 470 million dollar Investment Portfolio, I can tell you with credible fact that natural gas is much less cost than coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo!!!
Click to expand...


You write what I wrote isn't true and then you say bingo when I refute your post.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

OnePercenter said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commodities markets killed coal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the early 80's, Manpower assigned me to work at James C. Taylor Corp., as a personal secretary to the president of the company, and I know that is just not true. Consumer demand controls that. If you want to talk about commodities, corn killed it if nothing else. There are always hoppers of cars loaded with corn criss-crossing the country. Maybe, pork bellies killed coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As an investor with a 470 million dollar Investment Portfolio, I can tell you with credible fact that natural gas is much less cost than coal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You write what I wrote isn't true and then you say bingo when I refute your post.
Click to expand...


I don't care. I was only debating, but when you talked about your Portfolio, it made me think, you should yell, "Bingo." It sounds like you are going to get rich.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Just being the worlds x largest economy doesnt mean you are solvent.....


----------



## Old Rocks

martybegan said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
Click to expand...

Then you should know the reasons that a fission plant west of the Cascades and Sierra's is a very bad idea. If you do not, then you have not learned anything outside of your specialty since getting your post grad degree.


----------



## Old Rocks

martybegan said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Head on out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? There are plenty of competent Power Supply Engineers already, the problem is advocates run the railroad out there, not technical people.
> 
> 
> Try arguing base load with an environmentalist and they would think you are talking about the packed powder up in the Rockies.
Click to expand...

Talk base load with a 'Conservative' and they will tell you that only coal, gas, and nukes can produce electricity. Right now, wind and solar is producing substantial amounts of power in many states. And, since that is the majority of new power, will continue to increase it's share of power in the coming years.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Head on out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? There are plenty of competent Power Supply Engineers already, the problem is advocates run the railroad out there, not technical people.
> 
> 
> Try arguing base load with an environmentalist and they would think you are talking about the packed powder up in the Rockies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk base load with a 'Conservative' and they will tell you that only coal, gas, and nukes can produce electricity. Right now, wind and solar is producing substantial amounts of power in many states. And, since that is the majority of new power, will continue to increase it's share of power in the coming years.
Click to expand...


What did Tesla say?


----------



## martybegan

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except at night, and when there is no wind (or both).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should know the reasons that a fission plant west of the Cascades and Sierra's is a very bad idea. If you do not, then you have not learned anything outside of your specialty since getting your post grad degree.
Click to expand...


You guys will always find a reason to think a Nuke plant is a bad idea. Asking someone like you about it is like asking PETA for brisket recipes.


----------



## martybegan

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Head on out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? There are plenty of competent Power Supply Engineers already, the problem is advocates run the railroad out there, not technical people.
> 
> 
> Try arguing base load with an environmentalist and they would think you are talking about the packed powder up in the Rockies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk base load with a 'Conservative' and they will tell you that only coal, gas, and nukes can produce electricity. Right now, wind and solar is producing substantial amounts of power in many states. And, since that is the majority of new power, will continue to increase it's share of power in the coming years.
Click to expand...


Talk base load with a bugs and bunny guy like you and you ignore it and keep harping intermittent power supplies, without considering the need for storage and balancing power that is needed to maintain the base load.


----------



## Old Rocks

martybegan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we'll have to work through that, you know, like getting to the moon and shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should know the reasons that a fission plant west of the Cascades and Sierra's is a very bad idea. If you do not, then you have not learned anything outside of your specialty since getting your post grad degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys will always find a reason to think a Nuke plant is a bad idea. Asking someone like you about it is like asking PETA for brisket recipes.
Click to expand...

Until the waste issue is addressed, it is a bad idea. Not only that, there is still an issue with siting. Fukushima demonstrated that. Until the people siting these plants bring in all the sciences to address the possible issues with siting, they will be sited in vulnerable locations. 

The waste issue is about more than just where it is eventually stored, but about present storage in pools with 5 times the rods in them they were designed for.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should know the reasons that a fission plant west of the Cascades and Sierra's is a very bad idea. If you do not, then you have not learned anything outside of your specialty since getting your post grad degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys will always find a reason to think a Nuke plant is a bad idea. Asking someone like you about it is like asking PETA for brisket recipes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until the waste issue is addressed, it is a bad idea. Not only that, there is still an issue with siting. Fukushima demonstrated that. Until the people siting these plants bring in all the sciences to address the possible issues with siting, they will be sited in vulnerable locations.
> 
> The waste issue is about more than just where it is eventually stored, but about present storage in pools with 5 times the rods in them they were designed for.
Click to expand...








Waste is an issue for sure, but it isn't the "oh my gosh the world is going to end" BS that you fools bleat.  Isotopes with long half lives are fundamentally not a problem.  They have long half lives because they are not emitting at a great rate.  Those isotopes with short half lives are incredibly dangerous for a few months and then they too are basically not a problem so long as they are handled properly.  Your hysteria is laughable but not productive.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> or more Fission plants can be built to handle the base load carbon free, leaving surge production and storage to renewables and short start up NG plants, you know, like a realistic plan, not the bug and bunny plan laid out by the enviro-weenie quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reckon you'd better get out there and offer your expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a Master's in ChemE, so I am more than likely far more qualified in my opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should know the reasons that a fission plant west of the Cascades and Sierra's is a very bad idea. If you do not, then you have not learned anything outside of your specialty since getting your post grad degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys will always find a reason to think a Nuke plant is a bad idea. Asking someone like you about it is like asking PETA for brisket recipes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until the waste issue is addressed, it is a bad idea. Not only that, there is still an issue with siting. Fukushima demonstrated that. Until the people siting these plants bring in all the sciences to address the possible issues with siting, they will be sited in vulnerable locations.
> 
> The waste issue is about more than just where it is eventually stored, but about present storage in pools with 5 times the rods in them they were designed for.
Click to expand...


Well that's 60 yr old technology.  Newer modular designs are completely modular and can be buried and last for 25 or 40 years. The waste issue is MORE than manageable. It's 0.7  ounces/per house/ per year. We can handle that if we can handle of GIGATONS of toxic battery recycling -- Right?


----------



## pwjohn

QuickHitCurepon said:


> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
Click to expand...


While California may not have a functioning nuke plant, they still to this day rely heavily  on nuke power in considerable quantiles, and will for decades to come. So your claim is false.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

pwjohn said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While California may not have a functioning nuke plant, they still to this day rely heavily  on nuke power in considerable quantiles, and will for decades to come. So your claim is false.
Click to expand...


The plan is to PHASE out nuclear power in a single decade, not decades like you ignorantly say. Read the quote again. It is very specific.



> Californian utility *PG&E announced a Joint Proposal* with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond _current state mandates, *while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025*.


----------



## pwjohn

QuickHitCurepon said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While California may not have a functioning nuke plant, they still to this day rely heavily  on nuke power in considerable quantiles, and will for decades to come. So your claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The plan is to PHASE out nuclear power in a single decade, not decades like you ignorantly say. Read the quote again. It is very specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Californian utility *PG&E announced a Joint Proposal* with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond _current state mandates, *while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


We'll see.


----------



## Weatherman2020

QuickHitCurepon said:


> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
Click to expand...




QuickHitCurepon said:


> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
Click to expand...

MORE OIL BURNING, YEAH!


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Why is nuclear power far more expensive than energy from coal? Because in the cost analysis, they never include such little things like disposing of the nuclear wastes, in-plant accidents, prolonged shutdowns, and the big one, a core meltdown like at Chernobyl and Fukishima.

The first time there is a region-wide power blackout, all nuke plants within that area will have to rely on generator power. I doubt nuclear plants have enough generators to last more than a week, and a serious prolonged and vast region without power would most surely cause the plants to meltdown. We are playing with ticking time bombs. If saving a few pennies on the front-end is that important to you, go ahead keep playing with them.

Here are more articles saying the same thing:

California’s Last Nuclear Power Plant to Close, Replaced With Green Energy - Good News Network

PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant

Nuclear power phase-out - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear reactors in California and New York State are on different paths



> In addition, California now is requiring its utilities to transition to 50 percent renewables, mainly solar and wind, by 2030. But unlike in New York State, there is no worry that California can replace the power from the Diablo Canyon nuclear complex with renewables.



California to Phase Out Nuclear Power By 2025



> *California to Phase Out Nuclear Power By 2025*
> by Gina-Marie Cheeseman on Thursday, Jun 23rd, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say bye-bye to nuclear power in California as it will be phased out in less than a decade. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the San Francisco-based utility company, announced it will phase out its nuclear power production in California by 2025. That means the power produced at Diablo Canyon Power Plant, *the state’s lone remaining operational nuclear power plant,* will be replaced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last article is unequivocal.
> 
> TAIWAN: Opposition Urges Nuclear Phase-out By 2025 — Global Issues
> 
> PG&E plans to phase out Diablo Canyon Power Plant by 2025 - Mustang News
> 
> Plan to close Diablo Canyon: PG&E announces phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Plan to close Diablo Canyon: PG&E announces phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> By KCBX NEWSROOM _•_ JUN 21, 2016
> 
> The move to phase out nuclear power production in California by 2025 is a joint proposal released by PG&E, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California and Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Weatherman2020 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE OIL BURNING, YEAH!
Click to expand...


Would you rather breathe in dirty particles or nuclear radiation from fallout in the sky?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

pwjohn said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While California may not have a functioning nuke plant, they still to this day rely heavily  on nuke power in considerable quantiles, and will for decades to come. So your claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The plan is to PHASE out nuclear power in a single decade, not decades like you ignorantly say. Read the quote again. It is very specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Californian utility *PG&E announced a Joint Proposal* with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond _current state mandates, *while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see.
Click to expand...


By then, it will too late.


----------



## Weatherman2020

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE OIL BURNING, YEAH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you rather breathe in dirty particles or nuclear radiation from fallout in the sky?
Click to expand...

I have lived within the danger radius of a nuclear power plant for 30 years.
I'll take the clean air it provided.


----------



## Weatherman2020

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Why is nuclear power far more expensive than energy from coal? Because in the cost analysis, they never include such little things like disposing of the nuclear wastes, in-plant accidents, prolonged shutdowns, and the big one, a core meltdown like at Chernobyl and Fukishima.
> 
> The first time there is a region-wide power blackout, all nuke plants within that area will have to rely on generator power. I doubt nuclear plants have enough generators to last more than a week, and a serious prolonged and vast region without power would most surely cause the plants to meltdown. We are playing with ticking time bombs. If saving a few pennies on the front-end is that important to you, go ahead keep playing with them.
> 
> Here are more articles saying the same thing:
> 
> California’s Last Nuclear Power Plant to Close, Replaced With Green Energy - Good News Network
> 
> PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant
> 
> Nuclear power phase-out - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Nuclear reactors in California and New York State are on different paths
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, California now is requiring its utilities to transition to 50 percent renewables, mainly solar and wind, by 2030. But unlike in New York State, there is no worry that California can replace the power from the Diablo Canyon nuclear complex with renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California to Phase Out Nuclear Power By 2025
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California to Phase Out Nuclear Power By 2025*
> by Gina-Marie Cheeseman on Thursday, Jun 23rd, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say bye-bye to nuclear power in California as it will be phased out in less than a decade. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the San Francisco-based utility company, announced it will phase out its nuclear power production in California by 2025. That means the power produced at Diablo Canyon Power Plant, *the state’s lone remaining operational nuclear power plant,* will be replaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last article is unequivocal.
> 
> TAIWAN: Opposition Urges Nuclear Phase-out By 2025 — Global Issues
> 
> PG&E plans to phase out Diablo Canyon Power Plant by 2025 - Mustang News
> 
> Plan to close Diablo Canyon: PG&E announces phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Plan to close Diablo Canyon: PG&E announces phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> By KCBX NEWSROOM _•_ JUN 21, 2016
> 
> The move to phase out nuclear power production in California by 2025 is a joint proposal released by PG&E, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California and Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Nuclear is more expensive due to excessive regulation by civilization hating leftists.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Weatherman2020 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is nuclear power far more expensive than energy from coal? Because in the cost analysis, they never include such little things like disposing of the nuclear wastes, in-plant accidents, prolonged shutdowns, and the big one, a core meltdown like at Chernobyl and Fukishima.
> 
> The first time there is a region-wide power blackout, all nuke plants within that area will have to rely on generator power. I doubt nuclear plants have enough generators to last more than a week, and a serious prolonged and vast region without power would most surely cause the plants to meltdown. We are playing with ticking time bombs. If saving a few pennies on the front-end is that important to you, go ahead keep playing with them.
> 
> Here are more articles saying the same thing:
> 
> California’s Last Nuclear Power Plant to Close, Replaced With Green Energy - Good News Network
> 
> PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant
> 
> Nuclear power phase-out - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Nuclear reactors in California and New York State are on different paths
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, California now is requiring its utilities to transition to 50 percent renewables, mainly solar and wind, by 2030. But unlike in New York State, there is no worry that California can replace the power from the Diablo Canyon nuclear complex with renewables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California to Phase Out Nuclear Power By 2025
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California to Phase Out Nuclear Power By 2025*
> by Gina-Marie Cheeseman on Thursday, Jun 23rd, 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say bye-bye to nuclear power in California as it will be phased out in less than a decade. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the San Francisco-based utility company, announced it will phase out its nuclear power production in California by 2025. That means the power produced at Diablo Canyon Power Plant, *the state’s lone remaining operational nuclear power plant,* will be replaced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last article is unequivocal.
> 
> TAIWAN: Opposition Urges Nuclear Phase-out By 2025 — Global Issues
> 
> PG&E plans to phase out Diablo Canyon Power Plant by 2025 - Mustang News
> 
> Plan to close Diablo Canyon: PG&E announces phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Plan to close Diablo Canyon: PG&E announces phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> By KCBX NEWSROOM _•_ JUN 21, 2016
> 
> The move to phase out nuclear power production in California by 2025 is a joint proposal released by PG&E, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California and Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuclear is more expensive due to excessive regulation by civilization hating leftists.
Click to expand...


Yes, add it to the long list of cost, accountants do not include in the operating costs for a nuke plant. They will eventually have relocate each and evey barrel of nuclear waste. Who is going to pay for it. I will tell you. The original company that maintained the nuke plant. The have always known this and should have starting adding in those costs from the instant plans were drawn up for the old nuker plants.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Weatherman2020 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE OIL BURNING, YEAH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you rather breathe in dirty particles or nuclear radiation from fallout in the sky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived within the danger radius of a nuclear power plant for 30 years.
> I'll take the clean air it provided.
Click to expand...


And if there is an accident, you will jump out of your shoes and run for the hills or the nearest large body of water. God, I would love to see that.


----------



## Weatherman2020

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE OIL BURNING, YEAH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you rather breathe in dirty particles or nuclear radiation from fallout in the sky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived within the danger radius of a nuclear power plant for 30 years.
> I'll take the clean air it provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if there is an accident, you will jump out of your shoes and run for the hills or the nearest large body of water. God, I would love to see that.
Click to expand...

More people have died in Ted Kennedys car than in American nuclear power plant.


----------



## Weatherman2020

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MORE OIL BURNING, YEAH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you rather breathe in dirty particles or nuclear radiation from fallout in the sky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived within the danger radius of a nuclear power plant for 30 years.
> I'll take the clean air it provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if there is an accident, you will jump out of your shoes and run for the hills or the nearest large body of water. God, I would love to see that.
Click to expand...

If this was a nuclear plant you'd be howling.

This Mojave Desert solar plant kills 6,000 birds a year. Here's why that won't change any time soon


----------



## pwjohn

QuickHitCurepon said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While California may not have a functioning nuke plant, they still to this day rely heavily  on nuke power in considerable quantiles, and will for decades to come. So your claim is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The plan is to PHASE out nuclear power in a single decade, not decades like you ignorantly say. Read the quote again. It is very specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Californian utility *PG&E announced a Joint Proposal* with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond _current state mandates, *while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By then, it will too late.
Click to expand...


I'm not opposed to California moving away from nuke power. And more power to em if they succeed


----------



## Bob Blaylock

pwjohn said:


> I'm not opposed to California moving away from nuke power. And more power to em if they succeed



  Except that this will result in *less power* being available, in a state that has already experienced severe power shortages, and in which one governor was removed from office mid-term primarily because voters blamed him for a series of “Gray-outs” resulting from such a shortage.


----------



## westwall

Bob Blaylock said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not opposed to California moving away from nuke power. And more power to em if they succeed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that this will result in *less power* being available, in a state that has already experienced severe power shortages, and in which one governor was removed from office mid-term primarily because voters blamed him for a series of “Gray-outs” resulting from such a shortage.
Click to expand...








Oh heck.  Let them learn the hard way.  There's nothing better than an object lesson in failure.  Let them fail and then the rest of the country will understand what happens when lunatics are allowed to run the asylum.


----------



## pwjohn

they want to get off the nuke tit. The op says that will happen within a decade while I suggested a longer time frame. 

Either way, unless industry is on board with the idea of getting off nuke power, it'll never happen.


----------



## Two Thumbs

QuickHitCurepon said:


> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> 
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables*
> June 22nd, 2016
> _By_ Joshua S. Hill
> 
> California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has announced it will go nuclear free as it replaces the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors with renewable energy.
> 
> Californian utility PG&E announced a Joint Proposal with labor and leading environmental organizations this week that intends to increase investment in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage, _beyond_current state mandates, while at the same time phasing out nuclear power in California by 2025. Specifically, PG&E announced that it intends to replace the two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon with “a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage.” ...
> 
> The Joint Proposal also includes a commitment from PG&E to a 55% renewable energy target in 2031, a legitimately “unprecedented voluntary commitment by a major US energy company.”
Click to expand...

I'm astounded that people still believe the lies about nuclear power and the insane level of fear that it creates to cause people to think that renewables can compete.


there's just so little to fear, and when you start to make comparisons, it's pure ignorance to not support nuclear.


----------



## docmauser1

QuickHitCurepon said:


> I hope that the rest of the country comes to its senses and realize like California that renewables are a far better solution than nuclear.
> California Goes Nuclear Free As Diablo Canyon Closes In Favor Of Renewables


The People's Republik of Caliphornia rulez!


----------



## docmauser1

Old Rocks said:


> We were speaking of waste. Why is not the need for waste disposal taken care of before building the plants? And, besides, we don't need new nukes, we need more storage. And now we have two companies building grid scale batteries right here in the US. And the Tesla battery comes in at $250 per kw/hr. That is $100 below the break even point for grid scale batteries.


And what's that other country you'll ship the batteries to to pollute it? Oh, besides "grid scale" "tesla" batteries sound promising, indeed. Guess, servicing a nukular bomb is safer.


----------

