Well-intentioned but stupid environmentalists: California will shut down last nuclear plant by 2025.
They should be replacing fossil fuel plants, not nuclear ones.
“The deal will replace the plant’s production with solar and other forms of energy that don’t emit climate-changing greenhouse gases.”
Don’t worry, they’ve got it all under control
Oh, this is a first. I had never met a nuclear company stockholder.
Nice to make your acquaintance, Deeg.
You’re assuming the only reason why someone would support nuclear power is if they have financial incentive?
Well, I’m an optimist.
Funny how the utilities themselves conclude nuke plants aren’t worth the hassle and decide to shut them down but sneakily make it sound like the hippy protesters did it.
I don’t have huge problems with nuclear power, but nuclear power plants plus seismic activity does give me pause.
Arkansas Nuclear I and II supply 60% of the state’s electrical usage. I am amazed. Their licenses expire in 2034 and 2038. I should think that it would be difficult to obtain 1800 MW from solar. An engineer at North Little Rock’s hydro generator on the Arkansas river told me they store water overnight just to make coffee, toast and hot water for the morning.
Fort Calhoun in Nebraska is going out of business too. Well, actually it isn’t going to be decontaminated for 60 years. Funny they didn’t mention what the customers were on the hook for back when the brochure said “unlimited energy too cheap to meter!”
I support nuclear for a financial incentive. The cost of electricity, the cost of transportation, the costs of food are all dependent on the cost of energy. The price of energy will not go down if we stay on fossil fuels, and will go up if we try to replace them with “renewable”. You don’t have to own stock in a nuclear company to have a very strong financial incentive to support it.
The way nuclear is currently implemented, it doesn’t help out costs much, but we haven’t done any serious research into better designs in several decades, there are many ways of reducing the costs substantially. Google LFTR for a good example of a technology that has quite a bit of promise that we abandoned for political rather than engineering reasons.
I also support nuclear because, if done right, it is also much more environmentally safe than fossil fuels, and cleaner than most renewables as well.
China will have cheap power soon (as they are aggressively pursuing nuclear technology, especially LFTR), maybe they will let us buy it from them.
Prepare to be even more amazed. More than 50% of the electric power in the province of Ontario (population 14 million vs. Arkansas 3 million) comes from nuclear (most of the rest comes from hydro, and increasingly from wind and solar). OPG’s Pickering and Darlington nuclear plants have a total capacity of 6600 MW and Bruce Nuclear alone has a capacity of 6272 MW; its 8 CANDU reactors make it currently the largest nuclear power facility in the world.
P.S.- Nothing has exploded yet. 
From the rather sparse linked article it sounds to me as if the environmental groups that have been yammering for years to close it down basically bought off the power company, who probably were tired of the endless hassle, as you put it. I’d say the ‘hippy protesters’ definitely had an impact on why this was done, yeah.
As for the OP:
That battle was lost long ago. Look at how many new nuclear power plants are being built today…and how many, even with the supposed incentives of the Obama administration are even being proposed (and which, I’ll be shocked are actually built and used for anything like their projected life cycle).
They have been fighting about this for over a decade now, so it’s not like this is a new thing. They are going to get their way. I’m sure it will work out for them perfectly…unlimited solar and wind is within their grasps, and I’m certain they will be able to provide all their power needs at only moderate costs now that they have Big Nuclear™ out of the way. It’s a brave new world I’m sure…
(Don’t mind those summer brownouts…they have been happening for a while now, probably because of the evil nuclear emanations…)
Not going to happen. The reality is that once solar and wind are put in, it will be natural gas plants that provide the bulk of the power. Even hydro is on the wane, as dams reach their end of lives and are decommissioned and new ones can’t be built because of more stringent environmental regulations.
Nuclear isn’t a silver bullet, and in some places it doesn’t make sense. But it’s pretty senseless to completely ignore it and basically let it die either. A real mix is what we need, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, and, of course, fossil fuel. Nuclear is the only one that COULD make a real, substantial impact on the fossil fuel side of the equation, but it’s a done deal, so best to just move on. In the US, nuclear will continue to decline as a percentage of our overall mix, while solar and wind will never, ever be able to scale up to take a really big bite out of fossil fuel. So, we will hopefully just go with cleaner fossil fuels plants…natural gas instead of coal. C’est la vie…
Well, AFAIK one thing the ones that disparage clean energy that is not nuclear do miss is that solar and other alternatives actually help overcome brownouts and blackouts.
And yes I’m still in favor of nuclear power but good luck in convincing all in the USA to follow the system that allowed nuclear power to grow in France, convincing the American people to respect their scientists more than their lawyers, sharing profits or getting cheap energy from the locally supported nuclear plant* sounds socialistic. But it does a lot in reducing NIMBY.
*IIRC that support also came because the people knew about the deal they would get from the electricity generated.
This month’s Scientific American has a sidebar article on Uranium from seawater; seems people are doing research that may (?) make this economically practical.
I’m not a shareholder in any energy company…and I favor the building of new nuclear power plants in California. I was proud to receive a part of my household power from the plant at San Onofre (famous for the twin mammary domes.)
Personally, I’m not impressed with nuclear power.
As long as we have nuclear power plants, we will have nuclear accidents. Anyone who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves IMHO.
There’s also no good way to deal with nuclear waste.
But then, fossil fuels aren’t all that great either. You can at least make the argument that nuke plants keep all of their pollution in one spot. Not so with fossil fuel plants.
So-called green energy sources don’t really help that much. Many of them aren’t quite as green as some folks think (hydroelectric dams wreak havoc on the environment, for example), and most of them don’t produce anywhere near enough power.
What we really need to do is… um… er… well, hell, I don’t have an answer for that. Every option we have sucks in some way or another.
Nuke plants ain’t the answer. They are just a different problem.
The problem is that nuclear power has low energy returns and quantity:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786
but the same for oil are dropping, which means various sources of energy will eventually dominate.
You do realize that the Peak Oil™ rag you linked to hasn’t even been updated in years, right? I mean, it’s hard to believe that at this point anyone is still even following that ridiculous site. 
Just remember that fusion will never be more than 20 years away.
I hope to live long enough to see fusion…
Either we get fusion, or I have a long, long life. It’s a winner either way…
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. I’m just disappointed that as we’re supposedly getting more environmentally aware we’re moving farther away from nuclear power. I’m a fairly ardent environmentalist but right now the left-wing environmental groups are really pissing me off.
France gets 75% of its electrical power from NP (per Wiki). How awesome would it be if we had that? Especially with electric cars coming on the horizon, we’d be making some serious inroads on our carbon production.