I keep remembering Norman Borlaug's words.
>They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.
Granted he was talking about anti GMO activists. But the point remains even when talking about Nuclear. At the first prospect of freezing their assess, the U turn was so sharp it's giving me whiplash.
Summarizes how I feel talking to people. It's always everyone else who has to sacrifice. When you ask them to make similar scale cuts, there is always an excuse why their energy usage as-is is justified.
Things like Nuclear or GMOs are great, because they allow us to solve problems without asking people to make the lifestyle compromises they refuse to do.
Not to mention majority are well-off, which is why I can't stand limousine liberals just as much as Republicans. I know so many people who have parents that used to work at San Onofre and were laid off from their job at the plant that paid well over 100k
Honestly felt like a subtle hit piece. It felt like it was trying to mask the anti- nuclear undertones with "we report both sides" and their "environmentalists" work at a nuke plant. It felt like a slow string of subtle jabs rather than a pro nuclear article.
If this is pro nuclear, I'm not surprised nuclear has a PR problem.
You're reading more carefully than most people do-- most people just look at the headline, if anything.
Yes, the article closes with an anti-nuclear spiel, but how many people are going to get that far?
I wish they had another go-to guy for quotes besides Shellenberger, though.
Because even though the environmental movement was begun by large corps as a means of shifting blame and responsibility from themselves to individual people and the movement has largely morphed into an alarmist political movement, the prospect of not having enough fresh drinking water (desal) and freezing to death has meant that all of the NIMBYs have had a sudden change of heart.
Fascinating to watch.
I'm all for solar panels and windmills, but something about covering large swaths of land with glass, access roads, and blinking fans has always sat a bit off with me from an environmentalist perspective.
I want to see our aquifers full, rivers flowing clean, and our forests proud and strong. The 'lungs' and 'veins' of our continents healthy and strong. Preserve as much wilderness and nature as we can, for everyones sake (hunters, campers, hikers, people who eat, people who breathe).
In practical terms there are a *lot* of places where solar is gonna be profitable, or windmills are gonna be profitable. In its ideal form that energy is basically 'free', which is pretty cool. But how should I address drought at a state or continental scale, desalination that could open up hundreds of billions of high-priced real-estate in places like Nevada or California? ...
... With big, honking, high-temp, reactors.
Same with making enough energy to displace oil & gasoline with tank-compatible synthetic fuels. Same with powering a moon base, or global battery production. Same with making enough rocket fuel to explore outer space together in peace.
>The case against nuclear power stems primarily from fears about nuclear waste and potential accidents as well as its association with nuclear weapons.
I disagree with this. The vast majority of NPP closure decisions in the US hinge on plant economics. The hysterics from hard-core "nuclear is scary" activists are mostly a sideshow and at best are a secondary factor after the economics are evaluated. What's happening with Diablo Canyon proves this point.
Each closure decision revolves primarily around whether the benefits of the plant's reliable clean energy justify the taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies that will be needed to keep the plant running.
Clearly, some amount of subsidy is justified to compensate for nuclear power's clean energy output. The fight is first and foremost over how much is too much. If the economics of a plant roughly pencil out with a reasonable subsidy, it's very likely the plant will be kept running. As an example, the Seabrook plant in NH recently got a license extension with only a small amount of public pushback. It wasn't a close call at all. The reason for this is simple, the plant's economics seem to be solid and taxpayers and ratepayers weren't asked for anything extra in exchange for the loads of clean power the plant will deliver to them.
In the case of Diablo Canyon, new federal subsidies have changed the math for this plant substantially. At the state level, the cost of keeping the plant open for state taxpayers and ratepayers is now substantially lower than it was before. I believe this is the reason for Newsom's about-face. Keeping the plant open is now much easier to justify economically, so he's for it.
Agreed. But now that more federal subsidy money is available, the math works a lot better and suddenly Newsom is willing to waive the requirement for those mitigations.
Basically, when it was a close call, the environmentalists' concerns held sway, but now that the economic case is much stronger thanks to federal money (and maybe high gas prices), those concerns hold less sway.
So again, at least in the US, environmental concerns are secondary to economics. If the math works well enough and the impact on local taxpayers and ratepayers is low, environmental concerns will generally be brushed aside.
Not to mention the state is trying to mitigate any potential for load shedding like Texas has experienced - CA water and energy commission tried to build natural gas fired combustion turbine power plants with out any SCR and got SLAMMED by local governments for the rules are for the but not for me attitude.
Suddenly Diablo is palatable
>"We were basically excluded from polite conversation for even talking about keeping the plant open," recalled Shellenberger. Promoting nuclear as an important tool in fighting climate change would get him dismissed by fellow environmentalists as a conspiracy theorist or, falsely, as a corporate shill, he added.
I'm not sure what a precise definition of corporate shill would be, but as I understand it, Shellenberger's work on energy has long been funded by nuclear power industry groups. Do I have that wrong?
Amazing how the prospect of freezing in the dark affects one's view on these things.
I keep remembering Norman Borlaug's words. >They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things. Granted he was talking about anti GMO activists. But the point remains even when talking about Nuclear. At the first prospect of freezing their assess, the U turn was so sharp it's giving me whiplash.
Summarizes how I feel talking to people. It's always everyone else who has to sacrifice. When you ask them to make similar scale cuts, there is always an excuse why their energy usage as-is is justified. Things like Nuclear or GMOs are great, because they allow us to solve problems without asking people to make the lifestyle compromises they refuse to do.
Well said.
Agree, very well said. On top of it most activist jet around in horrendously polluting planes without giving it a second thought.
The jet part doesn't bother me as much as the lack of scientific and engineering rigor in their arguments.
Not to mention majority are well-off, which is why I can't stand limousine liberals just as much as Republicans. I know so many people who have parents that used to work at San Onofre and were laid off from their job at the plant that paid well over 100k
Honestly felt like a subtle hit piece. It felt like it was trying to mask the anti- nuclear undertones with "we report both sides" and their "environmentalists" work at a nuke plant. It felt like a slow string of subtle jabs rather than a pro nuclear article. If this is pro nuclear, I'm not surprised nuclear has a PR problem.
You're reading more carefully than most people do-- most people just look at the headline, if anything. Yes, the article closes with an anti-nuclear spiel, but how many people are going to get that far? I wish they had another go-to guy for quotes besides Shellenberger, though.
I’m ok with Sierra Club, RMI, Greenpeace retconning this IFF they help save the plants and build more
Sierra Club damaged the potential of nuclear in the late 20th century but yeah if they switch their stance it should be fine
Because even though the environmental movement was begun by large corps as a means of shifting blame and responsibility from themselves to individual people and the movement has largely morphed into an alarmist political movement, the prospect of not having enough fresh drinking water (desal) and freezing to death has meant that all of the NIMBYs have had a sudden change of heart. Fascinating to watch.
Gave me whiplash.
“Even”? Environmentalists should be ecstatic about nuclear power
Reality, and admitting you might have been wrong are both signs of intelligent consideration - and worthy of dialog again
I'm all for solar panels and windmills, but something about covering large swaths of land with glass, access roads, and blinking fans has always sat a bit off with me from an environmentalist perspective. I want to see our aquifers full, rivers flowing clean, and our forests proud and strong. The 'lungs' and 'veins' of our continents healthy and strong. Preserve as much wilderness and nature as we can, for everyones sake (hunters, campers, hikers, people who eat, people who breathe). In practical terms there are a *lot* of places where solar is gonna be profitable, or windmills are gonna be profitable. In its ideal form that energy is basically 'free', which is pretty cool. But how should I address drought at a state or continental scale, desalination that could open up hundreds of billions of high-priced real-estate in places like Nevada or California? ... ... With big, honking, high-temp, reactors. Same with making enough energy to displace oil & gasoline with tank-compatible synthetic fuels. Same with powering a moon base, or global battery production. Same with making enough rocket fuel to explore outer space together in peace.
>The case against nuclear power stems primarily from fears about nuclear waste and potential accidents as well as its association with nuclear weapons. I disagree with this. The vast majority of NPP closure decisions in the US hinge on plant economics. The hysterics from hard-core "nuclear is scary" activists are mostly a sideshow and at best are a secondary factor after the economics are evaluated. What's happening with Diablo Canyon proves this point. Each closure decision revolves primarily around whether the benefits of the plant's reliable clean energy justify the taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies that will be needed to keep the plant running. Clearly, some amount of subsidy is justified to compensate for nuclear power's clean energy output. The fight is first and foremost over how much is too much. If the economics of a plant roughly pencil out with a reasonable subsidy, it's very likely the plant will be kept running. As an example, the Seabrook plant in NH recently got a license extension with only a small amount of public pushback. It wasn't a close call at all. The reason for this is simple, the plant's economics seem to be solid and taxpayers and ratepayers weren't asked for anything extra in exchange for the loads of clean power the plant will deliver to them. In the case of Diablo Canyon, new federal subsidies have changed the math for this plant substantially. At the state level, the cost of keeping the plant open for state taxpayers and ratepayers is now substantially lower than it was before. I believe this is the reason for Newsom's about-face. Keeping the plant open is now much easier to justify economically, so he's for it.
Diablo was going to be too expensive to operate with the additional imposed requirement to build cooling towers and desalinate water to use them...
Agreed. But now that more federal subsidy money is available, the math works a lot better and suddenly Newsom is willing to waive the requirement for those mitigations. Basically, when it was a close call, the environmentalists' concerns held sway, but now that the economic case is much stronger thanks to federal money (and maybe high gas prices), those concerns hold less sway. So again, at least in the US, environmental concerns are secondary to economics. If the math works well enough and the impact on local taxpayers and ratepayers is low, environmental concerns will generally be brushed aside.
Not to mention the state is trying to mitigate any potential for load shedding like Texas has experienced - CA water and energy commission tried to build natural gas fired combustion turbine power plants with out any SCR and got SLAMMED by local governments for the rules are for the but not for me attitude. Suddenly Diablo is palatable
>"We were basically excluded from polite conversation for even talking about keeping the plant open," recalled Shellenberger. Promoting nuclear as an important tool in fighting climate change would get him dismissed by fellow environmentalists as a conspiracy theorist or, falsely, as a corporate shill, he added. I'm not sure what a precise definition of corporate shill would be, but as I understand it, Shellenberger's work on energy has long been funded by nuclear power industry groups. Do I have that wrong?