Nuclear Crisis Fuels Duel at Diablo

[jpak]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704843404576250841142507266.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Japan's unfolding reactor crisis is fueling a battle over nuclear power across the Pacific, in earthquake-prone California.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the big California utility, is seeking a 20-year license extension for its two reactors at Diablo Canyon, a nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, on the state's central coast.

That application, controversial even before an earthquake and tsunami crippled Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant last month, is now shaping up as a major test of Americans' tolerance of nuclear power, especially in areas at high risk for natural disasters.

Local politicians are lining up to fight the license extension, arguing that the process should be put on hold while PG&E studies the area's earthquake risk.

<much more>

[Buzz Clik]

1. Well, okay.

I hope you like coal-fired power plants.

[kristopher]

2. Don't nuclear supporters get tired of trotting out that false choice?

Coal sucks.

Nuclear sucks.

Renewables are a viable alternative. The idea that "baseload" is anything more than an economic artifact of centralized thermal is false.

[jpak]

3. apparently not

n/t

[Nederland]

4. Its not a choice. Its a prediction.

Its not the we don't want renewables to fill the gap, we just don't think its likely. We believe this because history shows that whenever you close a nuclear plant a coal or NG plant gets built to take its place. Now, maybe we are wrong. Maybe this time will be different. Maybe renewables are a viable alternative. You've got a bunch of studies saying they are, all we are saying is that now you need to go prove it. If you and your crowd want to build a bunch of solar arrays, or wind farms or whatever you want, nuclear supports aren't going to stop you. Best of luck.

You'll need it.

[bananas]

5. Nope - California has banned new coal plants - it's a false prediction.

California has banned new coal plants and has a long-standing moratorium on new nuclear until there's a long-term waste site operating - and don't hold your breath waiting for that. At one time, "history showed" that the choices were hunting or gathering, farming could NEVER work! At one time, "history showed" that the choices were walk or ride a horse, cars or trains would NEVER work! At one time, "history showed" that the choices were cars or trains, airplanes would NEVER work! At one time, "history showed" you could NEVER put a man in space! There's an old saying - the one thing we can learn from history, is that people never learn anything from histroy. California is moving into the future with SpaceX, high-speed trains, and renewable energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_phase-out#California

California's SB 1368 created the first governmental moratorium on new coal plants in the United States. The law was signed in September 2006 by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,<31> took effect for investor-owned utilities in January 2007, and took effect for publicly owned utilities in August 2007. SB 1368 applied to long-term investments (five years or more) by California utilities, whether in-state or out-of-state. It set the standard for greenhouse gas emissions at 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, the equal to the emissions of a combined-cycle natural gas plant. This standard created a de facto moratorium on new coal, since it could not be met without carbon capture and sequestration.<32>

[Confusious]

8. They may have a moritorium, but in the meantime

They just get the power they need from the states that have coal and nuclear.

[bananas]

9. Coal imports are being phased out, and nuclear is phasing itself out.

Those nuclear plants don't last forever, and new ones are too expensive to build.

[Confusious]

12. They are still getting power from out of state

That's the point. They aren't building them, but other people are. Probably more coal.

[bananas]

13. California has now banned long-term coal contracts from out of state

and nobody's going to build a new coal plant without a long term contract.
So if they're building coal plants out of state, they're not building them for California.

edit to add: But Nevada and Arizona have excellent solar resources...

[Confusious]

14. And nuclear power

LA gets it's power from a nuclear plant outside of phoenix.

Anyways, should be interesting to see what happens, whether California can deal with the instability problems that are already plaguing Denmark, and probably other European countries as the amount of wind comes onto the grid without a buffer.

[PamW]

23. Exactly!!! - Palos Verde

LA gets it's power from a nuclear plant outside of phoenix.
=========================================

Exactly. Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power is part owner of the
Palo Verde nuclear power plant, a 3-reactor power plant that
is the largest nuclear power plant in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Southern California Edison owns 15.8%
Southern California Public Power Authority owns 5.9% ( for you "public power" fans )
Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power owns 5.7%

Once again, California does things in other States that it has prohibited
from being done directly in California.

Just another example of California hypocrisy.

PamW

[PamW]

20. They've gotton around that too.

So if they're building coal plants out of state, they're not building them for California.
=====================================

California just goes to somewhere that has some "clean" power, like a hydro dam.

California then says they will swap the dirty coal power in Wyoming for the clean
power of the hydro dam. That way California can say that it is using the clean hydro
power, while some other State is using the dirty coal power.

The only "problem" with that interpretation is that the transmission lines go from
California to Wyoming, and not to the hydro dam.

It's a sham deal on paper. What really counts is that there are more coal plants
being built all the time. Wyoming has a lot of coal it is offering to sell.

PamW

[XemaSab]

15. Lies! Blasphemy!

:o

[Nederland]

10. You don't get it

We don't care.

You think you can do it? Great. Have at it. Nuclear supporters won't stop you. That's what makes us different from you. You'll fight tooth and nail to shutdown an existing nuclear plant or prevent a new nuclear plant from being built, but we won't do the same to you. So, again, best of luck with your plan to save humanity.

[bananas]

11. Oh, I got it - you don't care, you've made it clear you don't care about global warming

You even started a thread a while back stating that in no uncertain terms.
The reason you support nuclear is because you've been gullible about the cost estimates etc,
and you've gullibly fallen for the right-wing conservative hate speech blaming environmentalists,
Democratic politicians, and "Hollywood liberals" for the failures of nuclear energy.

[Nederland]

18. No, you still don't get it (nt)

[PamW]

21. Totally nonresponsive.

I note that the above post is totally non-responsive to the post to which it is
responding.

The point was made that the anti-nuke self-styled "environmentalists" will do everything
in their power to shutdown the nuclear plants, while the nuclear supporters are not
shutting down renewables.

The environmentalists don't want a fair competition; they want a "rigged game". They
want the policy to be a ban on other forms of power production except they ones they
favor. That's not a competition.

I think I know why they don't want a fair competition. It's because even the environmentalists
don't believe their own hype. If they really believed that they could supply all the power
the USA needs, on demand, and at a competitive price; then they should just go ahead and
do it.

That's the difference between them and the pro-nukes. The pro-nukes really believe that
nuclear power can supply the power, on demand, and at a competitive price. So they don't
have to ban the competition.

The real indication that renewables won't "cut-it" can be seen in the attitude and actions
of the renewable supporters.

PamW

[PamW]

19. There's a way around the ban...

California has banned new coal plants
===========================================

California has banned new coal plants in California, but they haven't
banned them in other States.

That's how California gets around the ban on new coal plants. California is
busy building transmission lines to Wyoming to new power plants that will burn
Wyoming coal.

http://www.zoomchina.com.cn/new/content/view/4374/81/

It's a hypocritical way for California to use dirty coal power because the effluent
is dumped in someone else's backyard. However, when it comes to CO2 emission, the
atmosphere is everybody's backyard.

PamW

[Buzz Clik]

7. +1.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Excellent. Let's run America's economy starting right now on renewables.

Shall we start the countdown now?

[kristopher]

16. As shown in this report the transition is faster with renewables than with nuclear

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b809990c

The above single paragraph is broken apart below for ease of reading:

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[diane in sf]

17. As soon as someone states coal is the alternative to nukes you know they're an industry stooge.

[PamW]

22. No - just telling what happens in reality and not in the fantasy world

As soon as someone states coal is the alternative to nukes you know they're an industry stooge.
=============================

Not at all, because of the HISTORY. When has a power company when told it can't have
a nuclear power plant said, "Oh, I can't have a nuclear plant. I'll go out and build
a solar array or a wind farm...". Doesn't happen.

What actually does happen is that the power company builds a coal or other
fossil fuel plant when they are told they can't have the nuclear plant.

It leads to some weird looking power plants. For example, years ago Consumer's Power
of Michigan, now Consumers Energy ( I guess they "integrated" themselves ), was building
a nuclear power plant in Midland Michigan. When told that they couldn't complete the
nuclear power plant, they built fossil fuel boilers to provide steam to the same turbine
and generator that the nuclear power plant would have used.

So you get these weird looking power plants, they look like nuclear power plants with
containment buildings and all, but they have these neighboring buildings with big
smokestacks belching crap into the atmosphere.

PamW