Slashdot Mirror


California Will Close Its Last Nuclear Power Plant (sfchronicle.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the San Francisco Chronicle: California's last nuclear power plant -- Diablo Canyon, whose contentious birth helped shape the modern environmental movement -- will close in 2025, state utility regulators decided Thursday. The unanimous vote by the California Public Utilities Commission will likely bring an end to nuclear energy's long history in the state. State law forbids building more nuclear plants in California until the federal government creates a long-term solution for dealing with their waste, a goal that remains elusive despite decades of effort.

The decision comes even as California expands its fight against global warming. Owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Diablo Canyon is the state's largest power plant, supplying 9 percent of California's electricity while producing no greenhouse gases. "With this decision, we chart a new energy future by phasing out nuclear power here in California," said commission President Michael Picker. "We've looked hard at all the arguments, and we agree the time has come."

62 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. YAY for coal? by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do we have any rails coming in from West Virginia?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:YAY for coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      California does not have any coal fired power plants.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:YAY for coal? by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      Yet

    3. Re:YAY for coal? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      No new coal plants are under construction or planned anywhere in America.

      California energy will come from gas, wind, and solar, with a tiny contribution from geothermal.

    4. Re:YAY for coal? by dwillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      Under high pressure from CA to convert the coal plants to NG. Cali is very opposed to coal.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    5. Re:YAY for coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, California energy will come from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon.

      "The problems always easier to solve when it's given to someone else."

    6. Re:YAY for coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No new coal plants are under construction or planned anywhere in America.

      California energy will come from gas, wind, and solar, with a tiny contribution from geothermal.

      Ah, so they have seven short years to figure out how they're going to generate 9% of California's electrical demand from gas, wind, and solar, while also dealing with growth and more demand between now and 2025?

      Yeah, good luck with that shit. This touchy-feely story is about as realistic as California balancing their budget. That power plant will get shut down alright; when it melts down.

    7. Re:YAY for coal? by sycodon · · Score: 2

      WTF would any state feel, "pressure" from CA about how they generate a product CA needs?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re:YAY for coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, they get a lot power from the US's largest nuclear plant in AZ.

    9. Re:YAY for coal? by dwillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the coal plants in question produce power for CA. If CA stops buying the power the plants get shuttered as there isn't sufficient market for the plants to sell their power elsewhere. And that puts people out of jobs. Thus the pressure. Convert or close.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    10. Re:YAY for coal? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No new coal plants are under construction or planned anywhere in America.

      California energy will come from gas, wind, and solar, with a tiny contribution from geothermal.

      Heresy! Slahshdotters shall not let this go unpunished!

      For all of the bloviating about coal from it's fans and the Present Occupant, the supplies are running low, and much of what is left isn't very good. And getting to it can be pretty daunting, Spending money and effort to revive an industry that is just about played out makes no sense.

      Meanwhile here in PA, we're enjoying our wind power and natgas. I suspect the day will come when the natgas stations will serve as backup.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:YAY for coal? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And CA doesn't get the power it needs.

      I don't think you get the dynamics here of supply and demand here. CA needs the power, the other states have the power.

      A similar situation exists for cars. California sets standards for itself, and tells the manufacturers that it will not allow them to sell them in Cali if they don't meet those standards. So whenever possible, the automakers produce vehicles to the Cali standards because they don't want to have to make two versions.

      So if California gives purchase preference to NatGas produced electricity, it serves as an incentive to switch to NatGas.

      Nothing is stopping an outfit from sticking to their guns and remaining on coal. But the goal isn't coal, the goal is selling electrical power. About the only way to work that system in favor of coal is to radically reduce the selling price.

      In other words, lowering the supply price to increase the demand for it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:YAY for coal? by dwillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      And those surrounding states (or more specifically the power plants built in them to service the CA demand) need the power they produce to be purchased by CA or the plants shut down and people lose their jobs. It's not just a matter of oh let's sell it to someone else. Usually they can't just send the power elsewhere.

      Utah has one Large power plant I'm familiar with that produces exclusively for the CA markets, the Intermountain Power Plant (IPP). The high voltage transmission lines from the plant run to CA and nowhere else. They were flat out told to convert it or else and the conversion is on schedule to be completed by 2025. The plant currently has two coal fired units, the plan over time is to eventually bring on two additional units, the third one was supposed to be running by now but that was halted when LA, (the planned destination for the power from the unit) voted to go coal free in 2012.

      So yes CA the buyer is able to pressure the producers because more and more of their utilities are refusing to buy power produced by coal. When the plants are built and focused on supplying the CA markets, the Transmissions lines lead to the CA markets and other power plants already meet the needs of the state where they reside, then yes CA is able to dictate to the suppliers.

      Utah gets no power from the IPP.

      Meanwhile Utah's coal industry has been forced to go looking overseas for buyers of our very clean anthracite coal.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    13. Re:YAY for coal? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      dealing with growth and more demand between now and 2025?

      Population growth in California is slowing, and electricity demand per household is falling.

    14. Re: YAY for coal? by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I missed the "not" in your message. You are right. I was confused

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    15. Re: YAY for coal? by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Your courtesy appreciated.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    16. Re:YAY for coal? by stoatwblr · · Score: 2

      As does nuclear-free Germany from France.

  2. Morons by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    California is run by morons.

    1. Re:Morons by plopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is that why it is the 6th largest economy in the world? I'll hang with the morons thank you very much.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re: Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A 3rd of this country's welfare recipients are in California.

      What?! The rest of the country too poor to afford a decent welfare system?

    3. Re: Morons by aliquis · · Score: 2

      https://data.worldbank.org/ind...

      GDP 2016 in USD
      1) USA, 18,624 billion
      2) China, 11,199 billion
      3) Japan, 4,940 billion
      4) Germany, 3,478 billion
      5) United Kingdom, 2,648 billion
      6) France, 2,465 billion
      7) India, 2,264 billion
      8) Italy, 1,859 billion
      9) Brazil, 1,796 billion
      10) Canada, 1,530
      11) Korean republic, 1,411 billion
      12) Russia, 1,283 billion

      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...
      California, 2,600 billions

      So if California was a country it would had been #6 in 2016.

    4. Re: Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say "a decent welfare system" is a fairly large warning sign things are going wrong rather than right. With a good economy, only a very small percentage of the population should ever need welfare. The goal of welfare should be to get off of welfare and be self sustaining. A healthy economy, coupled with the right laws and regulations, should promote jobs that pay sufficient to achieve and sustain financial stability. It seems California is in a downward spiral rather than leading the nation in social progression.

    5. Re: Morons by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      Unemployment rate and population don't scale with the value of a nation's currency.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    6. Re: Morons by ChatHuant · · Score: 2

      When the indigent put a drain on the government, taxes are paid for by the middle class, not the wealthy.

      But that is almost entirely the fault of Republicans, whose only constant policy goal is to reduce the tax on the rich and increase the costs (tax, social and otherwise) on everybody else. I can't fathom why you blame Democrats, who are at least trying to fix this problem (albeit not very competently).

    7. Re: Morons by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      There are people who cannot work. Welfare traditionally has been about those people; the elderly, disabled, orphans, widows (back when women didn't typically work).

      Ie, the changs in Medicaid to encourage more people to get back to work to continue to receive those benefits really won't have a big change in California, as most Medicaid recipients who can work are already working. The stereotype that the typical welfare recipient stays at home and watches Jerry Springer all day is a myth.

      And the snag with "promote jobs that pay sufficient to achieve and sustain financial stability" is amazingly difficult. There is immense political pressure to not do this; ie, don't raise minimum wage, repeal rent control, etc. Fact is, trickle doesn't doesn't happen very often. When a company's profits go up, the majority of that goes to the shareholders rather than adding jobs or increasing wages. The system is built that way legally, the shareholders call the shots and they demand maximized return on investments even if the CEO wants to spend the money elsewhere.

    8. Re: Morons by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Unemployment is a statistic to beware of. The US and many other countries do not include people who are not actively looking for work in their unemployment numbers. It also does not include people who are underemployed (engineers who are bagging groceries for example). Right now the economy in the US sucks, and you can see this with the increased number of homeless people and workers who have stagnant wages or who do not feel that their jobs are secure. And yet the official figures show that the US economy is going great, which is opposite of what the person on the street says.

  3. Guess they were not serious about climate change by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No way are they going to be able to replace all of the energy lost from that plant from renewables. It's going to come from some other state, spewing coal and sulfur... or possibly they simply will increase the brownouts, but it's OK because all of the large cash cows have learned to have their own generation facilities for anything important.

    Nuclear energy is the cheapest form above all the others, it's a shame to see the world fold this away even as they scream the Earth needs saving. You were saving it friend, and now you are letting it go.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  4. Re:Guess they were not serious about climate chang by plopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You sure about that? Germany's economy is larger than CA but using renewables they have more energy than they can use.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  5. Not really by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Natural Gas is still a lot safer and solar is cheaper. That probably wouldn't be true if American's political climate wasn't so crazy. The mad rush to privatize things that shouldn't be privatized coupled with our bad habit of looking the other way on regulation means nuclear power is risky. Government run enterprises tend to be very, very efficient unless they're being run as pork. e.g. the DMV and Post Office both do amazing things (as long as you don't live in the South, where the DMV massively underfunded). That means there really isn't much profit to be had privatizing it without cutting corners on safety and, well, look at Fukushima. A completely preventable disaster that nearly destroyed a city...

    And don't forget that we can't recycle the fuel because we're terrified some of it will get lost and turned into nukes. Not that it's ever stopped anyone from getting them (re: North Korea).

    TLDR; Get Americans to stop privatizing dangerous things and allow the waste to be recycled and we'll put nuclear back in rotation.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not really by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Natural Gas is still a lot safer

      Natural gas plants leak methane like a motherfucker. And methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. After a few decades it decomposes into water and... CO2, but in the meantime it helps wrecking havoc of climate.

      I much prefer nuclear power to natural gas. It's safer for the planet.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    2. Re:Not really by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      Nuclear fuel recycling for traditional reactors is only useful for two things, getting plutonium and wasting money. Significantly reducing waste, not so much.

      It's a once through process, the remaining waste from burning MOX is just too much of a mess ... even wasting money has a limit.

    3. Re:Not really by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Natural Gas is still a lot safer and solar is cheaper.

      Do you have citations for that? I did a quick Google search and nuclear power is the safest, by far. I also saw that solar is the cheapest source of energy with the caveat that it applies in only 60 nations, and the USA is not one of them. I'm sure it's nice in Egypt to have access to cheap solar energy but I don't live in Egypt. What are cheap energy sources in the USA? Looks like wind, natural gas, and nuclear. Prices vary across the USA but for most places one of those three will have the lowest cost. Even in California wind seems to be cheaper than solar.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Not really by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Why? Is it not true that it isn't much safer for the environment? Even if you take the spent fuel and just throw it out in the garden the result is a very localised form of pollution that does not spread anywhere compared to CO2 emissions from power plants that are showing global effect on the planet.

      Even when you consider accidents it is remarkably safe. Not only has nuclear power killed the lowest number of people of any of the generation methods (count how many people die constructing solar power for a fun evening game), even with its major 1960s era design throwback incidents it has made less of the world unlivable than a certain major hydropower incident no one likes to admit happened, not to mention has far less effect on the planet.

      Say what you want, if you want to save the thing we call the planet then you'd be all in favour of nuclear power. But what you really are proposing to do is save some uneducated irrational NIMBYs instead.

    5. Re:Not really by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "There will never be enough land to use solar at productive levels"

      This has been debunked time and time again. You could meet the entirety of the world's energy needs at current typical PV efficiencies with about 50,000 square miles of PV. Pretty much cover the northern half of Arizona with panels and call it done. Do a few more stations like that around the globe in strategic places and have unlimited power 24/7.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Not really by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, nuclear power in theory, can be perfectly safe. But in practice, it is not possible to reduce the risk level to zero. And a non-zero risk level with nuclear power means that once in some period of time, be it 50 or 100 or 200 years, there is a chance of a serious problem. With any other technology, the possible severity of a serious incident is limited by the nature of the technology, where nuclear is not as limited. It was thought the Titanic couldn't sink. it was thought the o-rings on the Challenger were sufficient. The original Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed at a time when engineers were unaware of the potential of aeroelastic flutter. It was thought that Fukushima could withstand the earthquake it was hit with and wouldn't be compounded with associated events. Risk assessment is an estimate of things that often can't be accurately quantified, and compound risks exist in all but the simplest risk calculations. Ultimately, evaluations of acceptable risk must include the magnitude of worst-case events, and not presume they can be avoided entirely.

  6. Re:Rolling blackouts by AlanObject · · Score: 3, Informative

    California -- the only US state to experience rolling blackouts due to incompetent "central planning". More to be coming soon...

    Are you referring to the market manipulation conducted by the energy traders empowered in the Bush years?

    "Burn baby burn!" I still remember that recording. It sounded like a callow frat boy getting his first lap dance. But he had reason -- hundreds of millions were sucked out of the state but the combination of a fire and rigging the electricity supply.

    Once the "free market" was brought under proper regulation we have had no rolling blackouts.

  7. Are YOU sure about that? GR 35% from renewables. by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Germany's economy is larger than CA but using renewables they have more energy than they can use.

    Nope.

    During brief times of year, that MAY be true, as with the headline you are thinking of where German power pricing was negative on Christmas day in December.

    However most of the time Germans are importing power because they shut down all nuclear plants - they are currently producing about 35% of their power from renewables

    But all that importing and expensive renewable power facilities means that Germans pay some of the highest power rates in the world. Even if on Christmas you do get a break because the office buildings are shut down...
     

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. 2 Faults... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Diablo Canyon Power Plant is in San Luis Obispo County, on the beach, and near two different faults. Given recent seismic events in California they may just be deciding it is past time the plants are removed as a major ecological hazard in the event of seismic activities or a Fukushima Daiichi grade Tsunami.

    Given that the plants are almost 50 years old and pressurized water reactors, it seems like there are a half dozen individual reasons worthy of shutting it down, and legislators have thankfully chosen to shut it down before fate takes the choice away from them. While I agree that the loss of 6 percent of the power supply in California is damaging, I think it will likely help spur future solar/wind/hydro/geo plants in California, while also offering the opportunity to consider battery backups for buffering peak loads and offering an alternative to fast ramps of power plants which often waste power and raise either emissions or maintenance costs when conducted.

    With batteries and renewables a large quantity of power can be buffered, helping to reduce the loading of power generation facilities across the state and help ensure both California's future power independence as well as avoiding voltage and current irregularities that exist today.

    Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  9. State regulators decided? by kwerle · · Score: 4, Informative

    Diablo canyon is down the road.

    I've got nothing against nuclear. I toured the plant last year or the year before. Super impressive.

    Anyway, it's my understanding that Diablo Canyon isn't being shut down by regulators so much as PG&E can't make a profit from it. Solar and Gas are too cheap for [heavily regulated] nuclear to be profitable.

    Here's the story from 18 months ago:
    http://beta.latimes.com/busine...

    News?

  10. Re:Are YOU sure about that? GR 35% from renewables by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

    The numbeds for power prices are wrong.
    I doubt anyone pays more than 25cents, on a remote north sea island, perhaps.
    I pay 18 cents, and could drop that perhaps to 18 or 14 if I was not to lazy to switch provider.
    The average is hardly above 22 cents.

    kW/h prices are hardly relevant anyway, relevant is the total amount you pay per month or the percentage of your income.
    And in that regard Germany is quite low. I pay 100Euro a month for electricity AND natural gas.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  11. Re:Are YOU sure about that? GR 35% from renewables by nierd · · Score: 5, Informative
    https://www.energy-charts.de/p...

    Looking at 2017 (expand the timeline to the year) - it sure does look like they export most of the time - with a few blips of import. Looking over other graphs I saw them import from France but on the *same* day they were exporting 10 times that amount to other countries - so end result.... a power grid working as designed to move power from one spot to another - that sometimes results in imports that wouldn't be needed if the country was in isolation?

  12. No problem by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    California can just outlaw air conditioning.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Re:He's referring to now by divide+overflow · · Score: 4, Informative

    1. No, we aren't seeing blackouts in California due to a lack of power generation facilities. California has been quite proactive in planning its energy needs. The vast majority of blackouts in California are due to wildfires and weather events.

    2. The site you reference is from the Institute for Energy Research, an organization started by Enron’s public policy analysis director. It is an advocacy organization and a fossil fuels lobbying organization. It has an agenda.

  14. Re:1975 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reprocessing spend fuel just produces more waste, roughly a factor of ten.
    Get a dams clue :)

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  15. Re:He's referring to now by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    Would that link be pointing to the "Institute for Energy Research" that appears to be a PowerPoint propaganda outlet for the big fossil fuel companies, and where there's a conspicuous lack of mention of renewables...?

    Just checking.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  16. Re:California is failing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Breitbart article has two links to the same census bureau report. The report is titled "Children of Foreign-Born Parents Generation More Likely to Be College-Educated Than Their Parents, Census Bureau Reports", and does not contain the info the Breitbart article says that it's citing. In fact, California isn't even mentioned in the report. Your other sources are not any more credible.

  17. Re:Are YOU sure about that? GR 35% from renewables by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Germany is not importing power.

    Tell it to your own energy charts which showed quite a bit of import happening over the weekend. That's the thing about having intermittent energy sources. Germany is a net energy exporter but relies heavily on imports to keep the lights on when there's no wind. You imported 25TWh Jan-Oct last year.

    Get a damn clue, moron

    Learn to internet.

  18. False "facts" by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    A 3rd of this country's welfare recipients are in California.

    That's a nice little unsupported bogus made up statistic you have there. California does spend the most on welfare overall but since they are the state with the largest population (and a high cost of living) that's hardly shocking. Per capita they are high but not wildly out of the norm - with around 4% of the population receiving some sort of assistance. California is among the least federally dependent states in the US.

    It has been losing population for the last 20 years

    You must be talking about a different California than the one on the west coast of the US. Population growth there has been steadily growing with no sign of that changing any time soon.

  19. Red states demand the most federal aid by sjbe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most of the welfare recipients are white people in red counties within CA, actually. It's weird how much you hate them.

    Most of the states that depend most heavily on federal aid are strongly red states. Most of those that depend the least on the government are blue states. Make of that what you will but I think there is some irony in there somewhere.

    1. Re:Red states demand the most federal aid by davide+marney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The red state vs. blue state comparison is flawed because there are no purely red or blue states. What there is instead are urban and rural parts of the country. Urban areas are deeply blue and rural is deeply red.

      To see the truth of this, just look at an election map by precinct for your state. Compare it to a map of urban vs. rural.

      To truly compare, you need to cut across geographical boundaries. The Pew Research Center did that by correlating political party to food stamp usage. Democrats are TWICE as likely as Republicans to have taken food stamps.

      Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

      This makes good common sense, too. Democrats in the urban core are obviously much more supportive of a large, active government, and Republicans in rural areas want smaller government.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    2. Re:Red states demand the most federal aid by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

      So do most Blue States. The difference is in ratio of rural to urban. Urban areas produce much more economic activity than rural areas regardless of which state they are in. Blue States tend to have more and/or larger urban areas, which means that they have more economic activity, which in turn means higher average incomes and higher tax receipts. Rural areas require more funding per capita for infrastructure (including hospitals and clinics), and have a higher percentage of elderly residents and residents in poverty, which means they require more funding per capita for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social safety net programs.

  20. You provide the proof by sjbe · · Score: 2

    California used to be 4th until the Democrats took over. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

    You made the claim. It's up to you to back it up with facts.

  21. Re:California is failing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

    If the Brietbart article links to the Census Bureau report, why didn't you link to the report directly? Let's click on it and see... Oh, it doesn't support the claim that 930k people left CA between the dates given in the Brietbart article!

    Wikipedia is a better source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    There are multiple sources in that data, and you can see that the population did not fall.

    Brietbart seems to have realized that it's easy for people to call bullshit on unsourced claims, so they started to throw in some sources that look authoritative but which don't actually support what they are saying. I guess their assumption is that most people won't bother to read the sources, they will just assume that they add credibility to the story.

    CA is dead last (50th out of 50) in economic freedom.

    Or put another way it has the best environmental and consumer protections.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  22. Re:More than one dangerous fault here by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    Buildings can withstand very large earthquakes without any major problems these days. Look at Japan. The problems are mostly in places that don't have regular large earthquakes, because people get complacent.

    For example, if you live in Japan you arrange your stuff so that when the house shakes it doesn't get trashed. You put your TV on isolation pads, you don't use heavy pendant lights, tall bookcases are screwed in to the wall etc. That's why they get hit with a magnitude 7 or 8 every now and again and few people are hurt, where as in other countries a magnitude 5 kills hundreds.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  23. Re:Yup, morons everywhere by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Are you talking about pre-1990 before German Reunification?

    No, he is just talking out his ass. California has never been #4. Even before unification, the West German economy was far bigger than California's, and in addition to America, Japan, UK, France, and Italy, back in 1990 there was this one other economy ahead of California as well: the Soviet Union.

  24. Re:California is failing by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

    Links to Breitbart, Blogspot, and some Libertarian "institute". Why in the fuck is this modded "Insightful"? The fucking Breitbart link doesn't even support the claim the article is making.

    This is just a massive amount of projection. California's policies under Jerry Brown have balanced the budget and moved onto a budget surplus. This has been in addition to paying down the state's debt incurred under previous administrations.

    Oh no a state with high taxes is doing extremely well! Better pull out the bullshit to make ludicrous claims otherwise! Taxes R the devil and an affront to bootstrappiness everywhere! California has no economic freedom! Regulations are like slave collars for bootstrappy independents! How dare the guv'ment tell bootstrappers they can't dump toxic waste where they please or treat workers like indentured servants!

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  25. Demographics by sjbe · · Score: 2

    The red state vs. blue state comparison is flawed because there are no purely red or blue states.

    Nobody argued to the contrary. But as long as presidential elections maintain an electoral college with a winner take all system there will remain such a thing as red states and blue states whether you like it or not and regardless of what the underlying demographics might be.

    Democrats are TWICE as likely as Republicans to have taken food stamps.

    Did you actually read the article you linked to? From your article: "But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group),"

    You complain that I'm ignoring underlying demographics and then you do the exact same thing. The gap you point to is entirely explained by the fact that it is MINORITIES (non-whites) and WOMEN who are more likely to receive assistance. These groups happen to generally vote Democrat. Again from TFA: "Beyond politics, equally large or larger gaps emerge in the participation rates of many core social and demographic groups. For example, women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps."

    1. Re:Demographics by Solandri · · Score: 2

      You complain that I'm ignoring underlying demographics and then you do the exact same thing. The gap you point to is entirely explained by the fact that it is MINORITIES (non-whites) and WOMEN who are more likely to receive assistance. These groups happen to generally vote Democrat. Again from TFA: "Beyond politics, equally large or larger gaps emerge in the participation rates of many core social and demographic groups. For example, women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps."

      That's somehwat irrelevant, as it's the votes that define the comparison ("red state" vs "blue state"), not ideology. The only interesting thing you can draw from the ideology bit is that of the 17% of people who identify as conservative and receive food stamps, only 10% vote Republican, and 5% vote Democrat. Which actually matches with the aphorism that Americans are in general fiscally conservative, socially liberal. However, food stamp recipients are still skewed heavily towards Democrats.

      Anyhow, the main reason the red state/blue state thing is flawed is because of something called Simpson's Paradox. That's where if you break up on overall data set into subgroups, the trend for every subgroup can contradict the overall trend for all subgroups combined. The best example is probably the 2000 election, where Gore won more votes than Bush. But if you divided those votes by state, Bush won more weighted states and thus won the election).* The same thing is going on here. Red states receive more Federal assistance than blue states. But blue voters receive more assistance than red voters.

      If you don't believe me, there's a simple way to disabuse yourself of the notion that red/blue state has anything to do with how individual voters break down in terms of tax contributor or recipient. Consider the following two-state example with three residents per state.

      Blue State
      Citizen 1 (R) = $200 taxes paid
      Citizen 2 (D) = $50 benefits received
      Citizen 3 (D) = $100 benefits received
      Net taxes = $200 + (-$50) + (-$100) = $50 paid

      Red State
      Citizen 1 (R) = $50 taxes paid
      Citizen 2 (R) = $100 taxes paid
      Citizen 3 (D) = $200 benefits received
      Net taxes = $50 + $100 + (-$200) = $50 received

      In this hypothetical example, every single R voter is a taxpayer, every single D voter is a welfare recipient, yet the Blue state is the net tax contributor, while the Red state is the net recipient.

      Quantitatively, what's going on is the comparison takes the tax contributions of all red voters who happen to live in blue states, and incorrectly pushes them into the blue category by attributing them to a blue state. And it takes the assistance receipts of all the blue voters who happen to live in red states, and incorrectly pushes them into the red category by attributing them to a red state. The urban centers have more wealth concentrated in the hands of Republican voters, enough to offset the greater assistance receipts by Democrat voters. But the larger number of Democrat voters pushes the state blue in elections. And that creates the paradox of blue states being net contributors while red states are net recipients, when in fact red voters are net contributors while blue voters are net recipients.

      * (I do not use the 2016 election as an example because in 2016 conservative parties in total actually won more popular votes than liberal parties. Clinton beat Trump only if you throw out all the votes for third parties. Gore also won a plurality (largest vote share but less than 50%), but combined with Nader's Green party votes

  26. Re:Not Soon Enough by Khyber · · Score: 2

    "California doesn't have big ones because it has lots of little one."

    I can tell you don't live in California, especially southern California where there are four or five major fault lines. One goes, the others tend to resonate.

    Hayward fault is due for a major slip soon, ditto Elsinore despite its reputation for being a relatively 'quiet' fault line. If they both go at roughly the same time, SoCal could be utterly fucked; depending upon where on the fault lines the quakes start, that might trigger Andreas, causing an even larger quake and possibly triggering a slip of the Newport-Inglewood fault line.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  27. Re:1975 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reprocessing spend fuel just produces more waste, roughly a factor of ten.

    I'm sorry, what?

    Taking the 'waste', stripping out the 3% that can't be re-used, then shoving the remaining 97% including the romg-ebil-plutonium back in the reactor to be burned, is increasing waste by a factor of ten?

    You're one of those Pi=3.0 folks, aren't you.

  28. Re:Rolling blackouts by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    Enron and California was a year 2000 thing, it finally fell apart in mid-2001. The big scandal was pre-Bush. Enron was a case of an unethical company choosing to use the power of Government for its own financial gains - and spread money around to lots of players on all sides to buy the influence needed to get what it wanted.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  29. Re:I'll be dead by david_thornley · · Score: 2

    Not only are aircraft accidents acute, people who travel by plane will get more radiation exposure than people who live near nuclear power plants.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes