And her emails.
ISWYDT
After 48 Years, Democrats Finally Endorse Nuclear Energy In Platform.
What took them so long? Again, they deserve a lot of blame for being so ignorant for so long.
It’s funny, my first thought on seeing this thread in the Pit, not even yet realizing that it was moved here was “paging @Sam_Stone” and look at that, the very first post after it had moved to the pit is from Sam.
Not a climate change denier/not an Elon Musk fanboi. Yet here we are.
And innthe meantime, Democratic governors in California, Illinois, Michigan and New York shut down or are shutting down perfectly good nuclear reactors. It may be really hard to build them, but it should be no-brainer to keep the ones we already built running until their service life is up, then extend them by as much as possible wothout increasing risks. Instead, they are being shut down early. Madness.
When Diablo Canyon is shut down in 2024, it will take 9% of California’s baseload electrical generation with it. They are not replacing that output, even though there are already risks of power shortages with it running.
Indian Point in New York is also responsible for 9% of their electricity. I know of no replace,ent for their lost capacity.
None of these plants are being shut down for regulatory reasons. They are not expired. They are being shut down because of operating losses while energy was so cheap. So why aren’t they being subsidized? There are all kinds of subsidies available for various greenhouse gas mitigations like electric cars and home upgrades, but we can’t keep fully green energy sources running? How stupid is that?
In the meantime, in the US solar power is running at about 23-24% of capacity over a year. In winter, more like 15% and in summer 30%. And that’s the best it can do. In Canada it’s worse.
A) Why would you page me to a climate denier thread? Have you seen me denying climate change? Cite, please.
B) What does this have to do with Elon Musk?
C) You seem to think about me a lot. I’m flattered. However, I am happily married.
Did I stuttered when I said that there has been a change? BTW that article has a bit of conservative poison by omission, because it was earlier in 2012 when:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/2146
Senate Energy & Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) has introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012, which would require electric utilities to derive increasing percentages of their supply mix from low-CO2 sources. The bill would…
eligible under the legislation include: renewables, such as wind and solar, “qualified” renewable biomass and waste-to-energy, hydropower, natural gas, and nuclear. Facilities with CO2 capture and storage, and some combined heat and power facilities, are also eligible. The bill establishes a market-based credit trading scheme, within which utilities could purchase compliance credits from other utilities.
The Act was introduced with no Republican support. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the top Republican on the Energy & Natural Resources Committee has said that she will “only get behind such a standard if it replaces federal climate regulations.” [The Hill]
Look, I’m not a right-wing conservative, but Republicans have been consistent about nuclear power for decades. They’ve been idiotic about a lot of stuff, but at least give them credit for that. (I can provide tons of stupid statements made by Democrats over the last 40 years when it comes to nuclear power.)
This is an issue that the Democrats need to put on their adult pants and say, “Oops, we were wrong.”
Done then as the Democratic senators did, I was in discussions like this before, the reality is that NIMBY is big among republicans too (I’m from Arizona, I supported even Republicans when they supported Nuclear energy, but Republican leaders dropped the ball when they had the power to set a nuclear dump here, it did not matter how red Arizona was, there was not much support to do it then or now), but then the biggest issue now is that Republicans do toss the nuclear baby with the bath water when they encounter that Nuclear power is part of the effort to deal with climate change now.
As usual, Sam puts his shittiest argument in between good sounding ones.
Who told you the shit talking point that they are not replacing that output?
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) referred replacement procurement issues related to the loss of DCPP output to a CPUC energy planning proceeding known as the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). PG&E is continuing to work with the Commission and other stakeholders to ensure that the Integrated Resource Planning process avoids an overall increase in emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) as a result of the retirement of Diablo Canyon in 2024 and 2025, as required by SB 1090.
PG&E expects to procure new clean generation and energy storage capacity resulting from the Commission’s mid-term reliability and procurement ruling (CPUC order expected this summer), which is specifically targeted at replacing Diablo Canyon’s capacity, as well as other once-through cooling units expected to retire by mid-decade.
Could you explain what they are saying? What does ‘procuring energy capacity’ mean in this instance? Importing more energy? Or building new baseload energy generation?
If they are importing it, then my point stands. They are taking away electricity generation without replacement, relying on others to provide it for them. If they are building new capacity, where is it? If it’s coming online next year when they shut down Diablo Canyon, it should be near completion already.
I looked at the list of under construction power stations, and see nothing suitable,
Not very helpful with a list from 2020. But the question was, who told you about that shit talking point?
Okay, so what facilities are opening? You called me a liar for saying they were shutting it down with no apparent replacement, then you call it a ‘shit talking point’, so you must know of a replacement. Where is it? All I can find is a new solar plant in 2024-2025, which doesn’t help.
So give us the name of the facility, and I’ll retract the comment if it replaces the baseload capacity of Diablo Canyon.
It was probably the questions of how to deal with the waste, and of the concern for safety in general. I’d bet.
No, it was political.
The political aspect to energy policy rides with Republicans and fossil fuels and those who elect the Republicans. Opposition to nuclear energy is based, right or wrong, on genuine concern.
The real idiots say what you’re describing. But what I hear more than anything is something a bit less. conspiratorial. They just question how we can separate the fossil fuel use impact from some sort of “natural” climate change that they believe could be going on. There’s always an element of “it was hotter in the distant past, how do we know that’s not happening again?”
Deep down though, I think they don’t want to face up to the lifestyle impact that going predominantly electric with nuclear & natural gas would entail; electric cars, and so forth. So they spout this sort of line, and don’t think any deeper (i.e. if it were natural, don’t you think the worlds’ earth scientists and astronomers would know? )
And I think the messaging on climate change hasn’t been exactly conducive either; there’s been a lot of commentary that’s technically correct, but not helpful, about how you can’t look at individual weather events and say “Yep, this is global warming” when it’s unusually hot outside or “Nope, no global warming” when it’s colder than usual. The deniers took that to heart and basically use it to deny because this heat wave we’re in right now could be a “fluctuation”, and they like to point out that it’s been hotter in the past.
Again, if they bothered to look or think a bit deeper, they’d realize that the frequency of this stuff and its magnitude have gone up almost exactly with the concentration of CO2 and the subsequent rise in temperature over time.
Fundamentally they don’t want to believe, so they’re making up just-so definitions to prevent it.
You can be remarkably dense, or at least fake it. I wouldn’t literally page you to this thread; the thread itself would. You’d be on this thread like flies on shit. You’d be on this thread like white on rice. Just by thread title alone you’d be paged here to be a ‘not a climate denier’ just like you’re ‘not an Elmo fanboi’. And lo, here you are, post #1 after it moves to the pit.
Capiche?
Nope, you miss the point, you told us you were certain, the only way you are going now is to imply hard that what California and PG&E are saying is a lie. It is your job to show that you were correct, based on the report, you just relied on bullshit conspiracies…
As usual. Like when you did go on and on about Climate gate, it did not matter that the evidence showed that pumping up doubts about the climate records was not justified, just because the right wing bloggers did tell you what to think about the climate scientists “conspiracy” did not make it so, it was an underwhelming argument.
BTW the plan for Diablo canyon, AFAIK is that one reactor is set to shut down in 2024 and the second in 2025. So what PG&E said there matches what is expected.
Again, yours were arguments from ignorance.
This is ridiculous. I HAVE looked for new power generation to replace Diablo Canyon, and I can’t find it. So you called me a liar, and I asked you to show me where the new power generation is.
Now you’re going off on some irrelevant sophist tangent. And you are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say I was ‘certain’, I just stated a fact that they are removing that plant without replacing its generation. REFUTE IT! Hell, maybe you are right and my Google-Fu let me down. So now is your opportunity. Get to it, or admit that you called me a liar with no actual evidence.
Judging by the bullshit argument you just concocted, I’m guessing you can’t. So you’re now trying to claim that I may not be exactly wrong, but I was SO SURE, and that’s just inappropriate, or something. To be honest, I’m not sure what you are trying to claim.
This isn’t hard: Either they are building new power plants to replace Diablo Canyon, or they aren’t. It’s a boolean choice. I told you I can’t find any replacement power generation. You, on the other hand, have called me names, put forth stupid reasons for attacking me, and tried to change the argument.
And I did not say that PG&E were lying. That’s a lie. There, I called you a liar, because you actually lied and put words in my mouth that I didn’t say, twice. They weren’t lying, because they said they ‘procured’ energy replacements. I said it sounds like they are just going to import more energy, and asked you to clarify. You didn’t. I asked you to point me to the new generation ytou called me a liar for saying didn’t exist. You couldn’t.
So in short, you are full of shit, and your last message was a steaming pile of hot garbage. I know you can do better. Maybe next time don’t jump to assumptions based on your mood affiliation.
By the way, how am I supposed to show I’m correct? By searching and not finding something again? How many failed searches for new California baseload energy do I have to search for, before I can disprove a negative?
Oon the contrary, I stated a fact, and you called me a liar. Seems to me like the burden of proof is on the person making such a horrible accusation. So get to it., or retract it.