We would be better off keeping Diablo canyon open and planning the construction of new reactors throughout the state. Of course the intention of this bill is to increase costs not to decrease pollution.
I do not oppose the idea of splitting CA into 3 or even 6 states because that would mean more senators. With a majority in the senate we could get more of our federal tax dollars back to pay for badly needed infrastructure projects (that of course assumes they would work together).
I disagree with these specific divisions though. The man funding this want to make silicon valley its own state. I would prefer to make any new divisions horizontal instead of cutting out a small area and calling it state.
Of course all of this is mute because congress will not let CA split. We already voted to split once and congress said "NO".
You do not know anything about me yet you called me out as lacking imagination. You were unable to provide a single creative solution or counter to any scientific point I made. Possible because more creative people then you have been pursuing storage since the 18th century. In fact you were against me using math to even explain the problem. You are also unable to acknowledge the storage ideas I did present.
Imagination and ideas are like assholes--everyone has one and most of them stink.
Why don't you go back to your "innovation business" and leave the real problems to stronger minds?
And you did not understand it which is why I defined it.
And there you go again, just relying on multiplication instead of new approaches. Honestly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. You just can't help yourself, I guess.
Using math to describe a scientific/engineering problem is stupid, right? My audacity.
Who says it has to be batteries? Or, more precisely, who says it has to be electrical storage batteries? The point is not to bet on one technology and try to scale it, but to explore other possible solutions....The point is to be open to new ideas, instead of just scaling up current solutions on paper and concluding they won't work.
I didn't. Remember I talked about pumped-hydro. I am also in favor of hydrogen. We can produce it through electrolysis and it can be done so cheaply when energy prices are negative. I dismissed 0 alternatives. In fact I have presented more storage ideas in this conversation then you have.
this is not how innovation happens. Ask anyone in the innovation business.
Nobody who actually innovates calls it "innovation business." It is just another tech buzz word. It sounds to like you are drinking the "Kool-aid." It is like calling yourself a "genius" to make yourself feel smarter. Or telling someone they have "no imagination" to make yourself feel smarter.
you feel it necessary to prove that grid storage is impossible.
I think people who want grid level storage underestimate what it will take to get there(that is why I used math). It is important to temper ideas with scientific reality. We shouldn't bet the farm on grid storage.
First the definition of feasible is possible to do easily or conveniently which I do not think you understand.
You're just multiplying current numbers by essentially arbitrary factors
We have ~23 minutes of storage. In order to increase that to 12 hours we need to increase by 12*60/23 = 31.304 times which I rounded down to 30. In order to build storage for 100% renewable we would need to build weeks of storage because analysis of weather patterns demonstrated gaps in wind and solar generation on a continental scale (from the paper). Which would be at least 14*31 = 434 times. Increase our current storage by 31 times is going to be really hard (ie not feasible). If increasing our current storage by 31 times is really hard (ie not feasible), increasing it by 400+ times will be impossible to do in the time scale we have.
You also seem fixated on pumped hydro
96% of all current storage is pumped hydro making it important to any discussion of storage.
If a breakthrough in technology occurs, my calculus will change. In fact I would suggest research in superconducting, anodized, and self-similar batteries. We shouldn't bet the farm on a magic breakthrough occurring though.
scaling current solutions up (the so-called "math and physics") will almost always yield a seemingly insurmountable obstacle.
Not true. Scaling 4th generation nuclear is not an insurmountable obstacle. Factory built reactors can solve climate change. I prefer an all of the above approach meaning I support wind, water, sunshine, geo, and nuclear.
You've failed to account for the fact that many of those technologies can be improved further
Why is there always an assumption batteries will have exponential improvements like the microprocessor has? We have been investing in batteries since the 19th century. Flow batteries were invented in the 1880's. Lithium ion batteries were invented in the 1970's. If you are so creative why don't you build a super battery.
And if everyone had an attitude like yours, nothing would ever be invented again.
Damn you are an arrogant fuck. You are making unfounded assumption based on your inflated ego and myopic perspective. I actually have a viable solution for climate change(4th generation nuclear). How does wanting to build 4th generation reactors result in nothing ever being invented again? Talk about a strawman argument.
Where did I say I was opposed to other options?
You seemed to want a 100% renewable grid which would mean you opposed nuclear energy. Why else would you be mad when I said 80% is non feasible(ie really hard) and 100% is impossible in current time scales?
To be honest nothing you have presented has been imaginative or original. You are arguing for a non-viable dream. You have not provide a creative solution to climate change. I did provide a solution, and it is a workable viable option.
Except we have built a ton of power storage, and it will only last 23 minutes. It is not feasible to increase that by 30x for 80% and it would be near impossible to increase that by ~300x for a 100% renewable grid. If we could have built hours of storage we would have done it decades ago. Remember feasible means possible to do easily or conveniently. Any estimate for this much pumped-hydro would be in the trillions. Limiting factors include geography, cost, NIMBY's, materials, etc.
It is okay if you call me unimaginative, I am not. A five minute conversation with me would reveal how creative I actually am. I also work in tech, specifically education technology.
96% of current storage is pumped hydro and in many parts of the country(California) it is illegal to add more hydro. Pumped hydro is cheaper then batteries or other electrical storage solutions(thermal, flywheel, etc). How do you plan to expand that 30x in time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 30x is just for 12 hours of storage which is 80% renewable. In order to get to 100% renewable we would need to increase it at least 300x times. Even if that is possible it would still take a century to construct, and we do not have that much time. I am also not okay using peaking natural gas. I want a 100% clean grid with cheap and abundant energy.
I have a better solution to climate change and clean energy, and it is 4th generation nuclear. I do not know why that is hard for you to understand. They can be factory built, are meltdown proof, and can recycle spent fuel(waste). NuScale is building their prototypes in Idaho, and Terrapower is building their prototype in China. Why do you oppose better options for solving climate change? Shouldn't we pursue an all of the above strategy for solving climate change?
I said 12 hours is not feasible. It isn't. If 12 hours is not feasible, neither is 100% renewable. In fact the best solution would be using next generation nuclear see NuScale.
Personally I actively make the world a better place. More then you do.
The limiting factor is my hardly my imagination. You are a douche. I am arguing math and physics and your response is calling me a dolt. You inflate electric cars (which I was always in favor of with) with grid level storage even though they are 2 separate things. Grow up.
I mentioned pumped hydro. In fact pumped hydro accounts for 96% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, with a total installed nameplate capacity of over 168 GW. It is unlikely will be able to double our pumped hydro storage let alone increase it ~30 times for 12 hours of storage. Solar thermal has not functioned as well as people hoped. The capacity factor of solar thermal is poor. Ivanpah had a 20.5% capacity factor in 2016. I am also not convinced flywheels can store 1000's of GWh's. I also think you are underestimate the material costs of such systems.
Yeah we can get to 80% renewable with 150-200% times solar and wind capacity, HVDC and 12 hours of storage. It will be expensive and difficult. In California if you count all of our pumped hydro storage and if you include every battery in every phone and car we have about 23 minutes of storage. 12 hours of storage will be hard to achieve.
Also due to continental weather patterns we would need weeks of storage to get to 100% renewable. 12 hours is not feasible and 14 times that will be near impossible.
have none of you nuclear fanbois heard of mesothelioma?
Of course I have, but what does that have to due with nuclear energy? And do not say Fukushima caused mesothelioma because it did not. 0 people died from the plant.
Nuclear power will never be cost competitive with wind or solar
Stop me when solar and wind can work 24/7, or when storage is cheaper then Nuclear. Luckily for humanity NuScale is more then vapor ware.
First Fukushima killed 0 people, and Chernobyl was less then 60 according the World Health Organization.
nuclear power is completely unjustifiable based on cost alone.
You should research 4th generation reactors especially Small Modular Reactors. NuScale reactors are being built in Idaho right now for a Utah power company. These can be factory built and shipped by truck anywhere. The economics of scale will reduce the costs just like they did for solar and wind.
How will rising sea levels kill millions?... However, increased temperatures increase storm frequency and intensity and these may lead to much larger storm surges. This is what may kill millions.
I think you answered your own question.
Do you really think reducing CO2 output will be enough?
No I do not. 30 year ago it could have been enough, but there is too much CO2/Methane/etc in the atmosphere already. We are going to have to cut greenhouse gasses significantly, and we will have to build fortifications at every costal city. Even that will not be enough.
Rising sea levels will submerge cities and kill millions. I wonder how many people have to die before left wingers in SF allow us to solve climate change? Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear energy.
Constructing a space elevator would make it significantly cheaper to reach space. There are a lot of technical problems that we have to solve first such as how to mass produce carbon nanotubes in space, but the benefits would be enormous.
The two companies I respect the most are NuScale whose new reactor has been certified by the NRC as being passively safe(ie meltdown proof). These reactors can be factory built and shipped on truck. The second is Bill Gates' company TerraPower who are building their first reactor in China.
These companies along with 50+ others will save the world and reduce energy poverty
I think the fossil fuel industry has spent billions of dollars convincing people to be afraid of nuclear power. It has been a very successful multi decade effort. Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth were founded and funded by the fossil fuel industry. Groups such as the Sierra Club (which was initially in favor of nuclear) have taken money from the fossil fuel industry to protest nuclear.
The US has had 4th generation reactors since the 1980's (See Experimental Breeder Reactor II). Unfortunately the Clinton administration such down all R&D as a favor to the natural gas industry. Now we cannot even test 4th generation reactors. Who want to buy an untested reactor?
Climate change is real and nuclear power is the only option we have to mitigate it. There is no viable path forward that does not include the expansion of new nuclear reactors. So stop opposing the development of 4th generation reactors you fossil fuel lackeys.
Slashdot Mirror
We would be better off keeping Diablo canyon open and planning the construction of new reactors throughout the state. Of course the intention of this bill is to increase costs not to decrease pollution.
Thanks for the correction. I have using mute for year now.
I do not oppose the idea of splitting CA into 3 or even 6 states because that would mean more senators. With a majority in the senate we could get more of our federal tax dollars back to pay for badly needed infrastructure projects (that of course assumes they would work together).
I disagree with these specific divisions though. The man funding this want to make silicon valley its own state. I would prefer to make any new divisions horizontal instead of cutting out a small area and calling it state.
Of course all of this is mute because congress will not let CA split. We already voted to split once and congress said "NO".
You do not know anything about me yet you called me out as lacking imagination. You were unable to provide a single creative solution or counter to any scientific point I made. Possible because more creative people then you have been pursuing storage since the 18th century. In fact you were against me using math to even explain the problem. You are also unable to acknowledge the storage ideas I did present.
Imagination and ideas are like assholes--everyone has one and most of them stink.
Why don't you go back to your "innovation business" and leave the real problems to stronger minds?
Nothing you presented demonstrated a drop of creative problem solving. Honestly you are just butt-hurt because you lost the argument.
Maligning it with math
Feasible was your word, not mine.
And you did not understand it which is why I defined it.
And there you go again, just relying on multiplication instead of new approaches. Honestly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. You just can't help yourself, I guess.
Using math to describe a scientific/engineering problem is stupid, right? My audacity.
Who says it has to be batteries? Or, more precisely, who says it has to be electrical storage batteries? The point is not to bet on one technology and try to scale it, but to explore other possible solutions....The point is to be open to new ideas, instead of just scaling up current solutions on paper and concluding they won't work.
I didn't. Remember I talked about pumped-hydro. I am also in favor of hydrogen. We can produce it through electrolysis and it can be done so cheaply when energy prices are negative. I dismissed 0 alternatives. In fact I have presented more storage ideas in this conversation then you have.
this is not how innovation happens. Ask anyone in the innovation business.
Nobody who actually innovates calls it "innovation business." It is just another tech buzz word. It sounds to like you are drinking the "Kool-aid." It is like calling yourself a "genius" to make yourself feel smarter. Or telling someone they have "no imagination" to make yourself feel smarter.
you feel it necessary to prove that grid storage is impossible.
I think people who want grid level storage underestimate what it will take to get there(that is why I used math). It is important to temper ideas with scientific reality. We shouldn't bet the farm on grid storage.
You're just multiplying current numbers by essentially arbitrary factors
We have ~23 minutes of storage. In order to increase that to 12 hours we need to increase by 12*60/23 = 31.304 times which I rounded down to 30. In order to build storage for 100% renewable we would need to build weeks of storage because analysis of weather patterns demonstrated gaps in wind and solar generation on a continental scale (from the paper). Which would be at least 14*31 = 434 times. Increase our current storage by 31 times is going to be really hard (ie not feasible). If increasing our current storage by 31 times is really hard (ie not feasible), increasing it by 400+ times will be impossible to do in the time scale we have.
You also seem fixated on pumped hydro
96% of all current storage is pumped hydro making it important to any discussion of storage.
If a breakthrough in technology occurs, my calculus will change. In fact I would suggest research in superconducting, anodized, and self-similar batteries. We shouldn't bet the farm on a magic breakthrough occurring though.
scaling current solutions up (the so-called "math and physics") will almost always yield a seemingly insurmountable obstacle.
Not true. Scaling 4th generation nuclear is not an insurmountable obstacle. Factory built reactors can solve climate change. I prefer an all of the above approach meaning I support wind, water, sunshine, geo, and nuclear.
You've failed to account for the fact that many of those technologies can be improved further
Why is there always an assumption batteries will have exponential improvements like the microprocessor has? We have been investing in batteries since the 19th century. Flow batteries were invented in the 1880's. Lithium ion batteries were invented in the 1970's. If you are so creative why don't you build a super battery.
And if everyone had an attitude like yours, nothing would ever be invented again.
Damn you are an arrogant fuck. You are making unfounded assumption based on your inflated ego and myopic perspective. I actually have a viable solution for climate change(4th generation nuclear). How does wanting to build 4th generation reactors result in nothing ever being invented again? Talk about a strawman argument.
Where did I say I was opposed to other options?
You seemed to want a 100% renewable grid which would mean you opposed nuclear energy. Why else would you be mad when I said 80% is non feasible(ie really hard) and 100% is impossible in current time scales?
To be honest nothing you have presented has been imaginative or original. You are arguing for a non-viable dream. You have not provide a creative solution to climate change. I did provide a solution, and it is a workable viable option.
Apple also announced ClassKit api in order to integrate educational software into schools.
we haven't built a ton of power storage
Except we have built a ton of power storage, and it will only last 23 minutes. It is not feasible to increase that by 30x for 80% and it would be near impossible to increase that by ~300x for a 100% renewable grid. If we could have built hours of storage we would have done it decades ago. Remember feasible means possible to do easily or conveniently. Any estimate for this much pumped-hydro would be in the trillions. Limiting factors include geography, cost, NIMBY's, materials, etc.
It is okay if you call me unimaginative, I am not. A five minute conversation with me would reveal how creative I actually am. I also work in tech, specifically education technology.
96% of current storage is pumped hydro and in many parts of the country(California) it is illegal to add more hydro. Pumped hydro is cheaper then batteries or other electrical storage solutions(thermal, flywheel, etc). How do you plan to expand that 30x in time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 30x is just for 12 hours of storage which is 80% renewable. In order to get to 100% renewable we would need to increase it at least 300x times. Even if that is possible it would still take a century to construct, and we do not have that much time. I am also not okay using peaking natural gas. I want a 100% clean grid with cheap and abundant energy.
I have a better solution to climate change and clean energy, and it is 4th generation nuclear. I do not know why that is hard for you to understand. They can be factory built, are meltdown proof, and can recycle spent fuel(waste). NuScale is building their prototypes in Idaho, and Terrapower is building their prototype in China. Why do you oppose better options for solving climate change? Shouldn't we pursue an all of the above strategy for solving climate change?
I said 12 hours is not feasible. It isn't. If 12 hours is not feasible, neither is 100% renewable. In fact the best solution would be using next generation nuclear see NuScale. Personally I actively make the world a better place. More then you do.
The limiting factor is my hardly my imagination. You are a douche. I am arguing math and physics and your response is calling me a dolt. You inflate electric cars (which I was always in favor of with) with grid level storage even though they are 2 separate things. Grow up.
I mentioned pumped hydro. In fact pumped hydro accounts for 96% of all active tracked storage installations worldwide, with a total installed nameplate capacity of over 168 GW. It is unlikely will be able to double our pumped hydro storage let alone increase it ~30 times for 12 hours of storage. Solar thermal has not functioned as well as people hoped. The capacity factor of solar thermal is poor. Ivanpah had a 20.5% capacity factor in 2016. I am also not convinced flywheels can store 1000's of GWh's. I also think you are underestimate the material costs of such systems.
Yeah we can get to 80% renewable with 150-200% times solar and wind capacity, HVDC and 12 hours of storage. It will be expensive and difficult. In California if you count all of our pumped hydro storage and if you include every battery in every phone and car we have about 23 minutes of storage. 12 hours of storage will be hard to achieve.
Also due to continental weather patterns we would need weeks of storage to get to 100% renewable. 12 hours is not feasible and 14 times that will be near impossible.
every single butterfingers who drops a canister of nuclear waste can be counted as a failure of nuclear energy.
I do not think you know what nuclear waste is. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EUvvIzH2W6g Waste is a red herring. It has harmed 0 people worldwide.
have none of you nuclear fanbois heard of mesothelioma?
Of course I have, but what does that have to due with nuclear energy? And do not say Fukushima caused mesothelioma because it did not. 0 people died from the plant.
Nuclear power will never be cost competitive with wind or solar
Stop me when solar and wind can work 24/7, or when storage is cheaper then Nuclear. Luckily for humanity NuScale is more then vapor ware.
False on its face, given that the number of deaths from solar or wind technology is zero, as opposed to Chernobyl or Fukushima.
No it is not. Wikipedia agrees with me!!! So my statement was True on its face .
as opposed to Chernobyl or Fukushima.
First Fukushima killed 0 people, and Chernobyl was less then 60 according the World Health Organization.
nuclear power is completely unjustifiable based on cost alone.
You should research 4th generation reactors especially Small Modular Reactors. NuScale reactors are being built in Idaho right now for a Utah power company. These can be factory built and shipped by truck anywhere. The economics of scale will reduce the costs just like they did for solar and wind.
My solution is nuclear energy which is the safest form of power.
How will rising sea levels kill millions? ... However, increased temperatures increase storm frequency and intensity and these may lead to much larger storm surges. This is what may kill millions.
I think you answered your own question.
Do you really think reducing CO2 output will be enough?
No I do not. 30 year ago it could have been enough, but there is too much CO2/Methane/etc in the atmosphere already. We are going to have to cut greenhouse gasses significantly, and we will have to build fortifications at every costal city. Even that will not be enough.
Rising sea levels will submerge cities and kill millions. I wonder how many people have to die before left wingers in SF allow us to solve climate change? Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear energy.
Seriously video games and movies have been shown to decrease violent tendencies in young men because they are an outlet for youthful aggression.
Constructing a space elevator would make it significantly cheaper to reach space. There are a lot of technical problems that we have to solve first such as how to mass produce carbon nanotubes in space, but the benefits would be enormous.
The two companies I respect the most are NuScale whose new reactor has been certified by the NRC as being passively safe(ie meltdown proof). These reactors can be factory built and shipped on truck. The second is Bill Gates' company TerraPower who are building their first reactor in China.
These companies along with 50+ others will save the world and reduce energy poverty
I think the fossil fuel industry has spent billions of dollars convincing people to be afraid of nuclear power. It has been a very successful multi decade effort. Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth were founded and funded by the fossil fuel industry. Groups such as the Sierra Club (which was initially in favor of nuclear) have taken money from the fossil fuel industry to protest nuclear.
The US has had 4th generation reactors since the 1980's (See Experimental Breeder Reactor II). Unfortunately the Clinton administration such down all R&D as a favor to the natural gas industry. Now we cannot even test 4th generation reactors. Who want to buy an untested reactor?
Climate change is real and nuclear power is the only option we have to mitigate it. There is no viable path forward that does not include the expansion of new nuclear reactors. So stop opposing the development of 4th generation reactors you fossil fuel lackeys.