California will be nuclear free and lead the way

[QuickHitCurepon]

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]

rolling brown outs how fun

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

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Bingo!!!

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

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.

Bingo!!!

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

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

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.

Bingo!!!

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

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]

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).

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

Head on out!

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.

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]

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.

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

Head on out!

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.

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.

What did Tesla say?

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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

Head on out!

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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, beyondcurrent 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.”

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]

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, beyondcurrent 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.”

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.

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]

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, beyondcurrent 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.”

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.

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.

We'll see.