Geez WSJ full fo good news lately

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Your Coming Summer of Blackouts - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-american-electric-reliability-corporation-nerc-summer-assessment-power-blackouts-green-energy-2ddc6510)

One new variable this summer is the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized Good Neighbor Plan, which requires fossil-fuel power plants in 22 states to reduce NOx emissions. NERC predicts power plants will comply by limiting hours of operation but warns they may need regulatory waivers in the event of a power crunch.

NERC - ERO Enterprise | Regional Entities (https://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/keyplayers/Pages/default.aspx)

[Stu from NYC]

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

[Stu from NYC]

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

Go read up on how new nuclear plants are going to be much safer than those that came back and tell me if you still feel the same way.

[tuccillo]

No, it doesn't work that way. Nuclear power plants cannot go supercritical and explode. They can melt down and cause a host of problems but a nuclear explosion is simply not possible. Hydrogen gas can accumulate in the enclosure and explode but that is not the same as a nuclear explosion. The fuel is not enriched enough for a supercritical nuclear reaction. Please stop making false and ridiculous statements.

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

[JMintzer]

Go read up on how new nuclear plants are going to be much safer than those that came back and tell me if you still feel the same way.

That's a big ask...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

No, it doesn't work that way. Nuclear power plants cannot go supercritical and explode. They can melt down and cause a host of problems but a nuclear explosion is simply not possible. Hydrogen gas can accumulate in the enclosure and explode but that is not the same as a nuclear explosion. The fuel is not enriched enough for a supercritical nuclear reaction. Please stop making false and ridiculous statements.

So the part about an explosion - I'm wrong. Not a nuclear explosion. Okay fine. A different type of explosion. And still radiation that can kill tens of thousands of people, animals, and lay the land near it fallow and/or uninhabitable. Nothing "ridiculous" about it. I was not "false" I was incorrect about the type of explosion that could result. I was not incorrect about the fact that there could be an explosion. OR that radiation from damage to a nuclear power plant can cause radiation to kill people, animals, and be destructive to the land around it.

As for future power plants being safer - they said that about Chernobyl, before there was a meltdown and over 4000 people died. Now we have much more stringent regulations, which means the price to build another one has risen to the point of not being affordable, without significantly raising taxes to pay for it. Meanwhile, nuclear power has mostly fallen out of favor worldwide, replaced by solar, wind, and hydroelectricity. Except in the US, where so many people would rather burn their clothing for fuel than accept the fact that renewable energy is better for everyone, and for the planet, and for the air. Or maybe they know this and just don't care.

[Stu from NYC]

So the part about an explosion - I'm wrong. Not a nuclear explosion. Okay fine. A different type of explosion. And still radiation that can kill tens of thousands of people, animals, and lay the land near it fallow and/or uninhabitable. Nothing "ridiculous" about it. I was not "false" I was incorrect about the type of explosion that could result. I was not incorrect about the fact that there could be an explosion. OR that radiation from damage to a nuclear power plant can cause radiation to kill people, animals, and be destructive to the land around it.

As for future power plants being safer - they said that about Chernobyl, before there was a meltdown and over 4000 people died. Now we have much more stringent regulations, which means the price to build another one has risen to the point of not being affordable, without significantly raising taxes to pay for it. Meanwhile, nuclear power has mostly fallen out of favor worldwide, replaced by solar, wind, and hydroelectricity. Except in the US, where so many people would rather burn their clothing for fuel than accept the fact that renewable energy is better for everyone, and for the planet, and for the air. Or maybe they know this and just don't care.

There have been some new developments in generating nuclear power that are now in the trial stage and from the lectures I have been to via a club in the villages it is much safer than in the past and in the event of a problem much easier to shut down.

Renewable agent to power everything in the planet might be coming but nowhere near yet. BTW France will shortly get almost all of its energy via nuclear.

[tuccillo]

How do you get this wrong? Chernobyl was an example of a very poor design and engineering. The flaws in the Chernobyl reactor have been well documented and it is not representative of the vast majority of reactor designs. Who exactly said Chernobyl was "safer"? Also, 4000 people did not die. About 30-40 died from the Chernobyl accident. Nobody died from the Three Mile Island accident and nobody died from the Fukushima accident. Nice try walking back your false statement. Again, please stop making false and ridiculous statements.

So the part about an explosion - I'm wrong. Not a nuclear explosion. Okay fine. A different type of explosion. And still radiation that can kill tens of thousands of people, animals, and lay the land near it fallow and/or uninhabitable. Nothing "ridiculous" about it. I was not "false" I was incorrect about the type of explosion that could result. I was not incorrect about the fact that there could be an explosion. OR that radiation from damage to a nuclear power plant can cause radiation to kill people, animals, and be destructive to the land around it.

As for future power plants being safer - they said that about Chernobyl, before there was a meltdown and over 4000 people died. Now we have much more stringent regulations, which means the price to build another one has risen to the point of not being affordable, without significantly raising taxes to pay for it. Meanwhile, nuclear power has mostly fallen out of favor worldwide, replaced by solar, wind, and hydroelectricity. Except in the US, where so many people would rather burn their clothing for fuel than accept the fact that renewable energy is better for everyone, and for the planet, and for the air. Or maybe they know this and just don't care.

[toeser]

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

Politics combined with rank stupidity. There are people who think our country can be run solely with wind and solar. It cannot.

[toeser]

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

A scientist employed by Fukushima had warned management that the power plant was at risk to a tsunami and gave them a plan to shore it up to withstand such an event. Since that would cost a lot of money, the company fired him.

Don't blame the technology. Blame managers who take shortcuts to increase profits. The BP oil spill comes to mind.

[Joe C.]

No matter what type of energy we use to produce electricity, there will always be a negative side to it.
If we were to build wind farms, people would bemoan it when the wind stops blowing or slows down.
If we do solar power, they would complain when the days are cloudy and not enough electricity is being produced.
Coal is dirty but can be cleaned up.
Oil, well, there can always be a major spill somewhere.

IMHO, we should use our best resources to suit the area which is being served.
Hydroelectric is probably the best, cleanest and most efficient, but can only be used where geography lets it work.

[Worldseries27]

This is the future. The rest is details.

[ehendersonjr]

So the part about an explosion - I'm wrong. Not a nuclear explosion. Okay fine. A different type of explosion. And still radiation that can kill tens of thousands of people, animals, and lay the land near it fallow and/or uninhabitable. Nothing "ridiculous" about it. I was not "false" I was incorrect about the type of explosion that could result. I was not incorrect about the fact that there could be an explosion. OR that radiation from damage to a nuclear power plant can cause radiation to kill people, animals, and be destructive to the land around it.

As for future power plants being safer - they said that about Chernobyl, before there was a meltdown and over 4000 people died. Now we have much more stringent regulations, which means the price to build another one has risen to the point of not being affordable, without significantly raising taxes to pay for it. Meanwhile, nuclear power has mostly fallen out of favor worldwide, replaced by solar, wind, and hydroelectricity. Except in the US, where so many people would rather burn their clothing for fuel than accept the fact that renewable energy is better for everyone, and for the planet, and for the air. Or maybe they know this and just don't care.

The U.S. Navy has been operating mobile nuclear plants for decades without issue. American nuclear-powered warships have even provided power to coastal cities in times of natural calamities that interrupted normal power generation.
That said, we shouldn’t drive because we might die in a horrible accident. We shouldn’t build tall buildings because we might fall off one. And we should limit eating because of the threat of food poisoning.
Those who base their activities on fear, never accomplish anything.

[MandoMan]

Your Coming Summer of Blackouts - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-american-electric-reliability-corporation-nerc-summer-assessment-power-blackouts-green-energy-2ddc6510)

One new variable this summer is the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized Good Neighbor Plan, which requires fossil-fuel power plants in 22 states to reduce NOx emissions. NERC predicts power plants will comply by limiting hours of operation but warns they may need regulatory waivers in the event of a power crunch.

NERC - ERO Enterprise | Regional Entities (https://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/keyplayers/Pages/default.aspx)

Maybe this is a good time to install a couple solar panels that will run a couple fans and an LED light or two and recharge your iPad and phone.

[crc19188]

The common cold can kill tens of thousands of people. Just look at man made covid. Worry about what is important not what you cannot control.

[cjrjck]

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

What? Sorry but that sounds so 1960. Where have you been? We are farther in time from 1960 than 1960 was from 1900. Think about the that. France for instance, generates about 70 percent of its electrical power from nuclear plants. I guess they figured it out in the last 60 plus years. As for where to put them, anywhere on the grid should work. The Hoover Dam was in the middle of nowhere at one time.

[srswans]

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

This is all false, anti-nuclear propaganda pushed by environmentalists.

Read “Apocalypse Never” by Michael Shellenberger for better info. Zion Lights on Twitter, another former environmentalists turned pro-nulcear, is also a good resource.

Germany is in the process of shutting down its 17 nuclear plants; the IPCC is predicting 1100 more deaths per year from Germany returning to fossil fuels.

Maybe these predicted blackouts will be sufficiently painful to get our politicians and government moving to build more Fourth Gen nuclear plants.

[HJBeck]

Because oil and gas companies help spread fear. Why would they want completion in their market.

[dtennent]

While the storage of waste from nuclear power plants is a concern, the waste streams from coal fired power plants is also a concern. Besides the ash that comes from coal, there is a significant amount of mercury that is release when coal is burned. In the past 15 years, efforts have been made to remove it from the exhaust gas but you still have to do something with the mercury laced material that comes from scrubbing the exhaust gases.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

While the storage of waste from nuclear power plants is a concern, the waste streams from coal fired power plants is also a concern. Besides the ash that comes from coal, there is a significant amount of mercury that is release when coal is burned. In the past 15 years, efforts have been made to remove it from the exhaust gas but you still have to do something with the mercury laced material that comes from scrubbing the exhaust gases.


True with coal ash,
FALSE with nuclear waste.

The nuclear waste at the Indian Point Power plant is stored in the parking lot.. . minute if any radioactivity being admitted, source: a former nuclear engineer who used to work at the plant, who is now retired on Long Island in Sag Harbor.

[roscoguy]

I watched an interesting documentary several years ago on the future of nuclear energy. It claimed that our current reactors are based on dated/obsolete technology and that many are still being used well after their designed lifespan. Another idea raised was that there is (or soon would be) technology that would result in a new generation of reactors that could use our current nuclear waste stockpiles as fuel. Seemed like a win/win situation, but I've never heard anything else about it since.

Just a point of clarification here: About 30-40 died from the Chernobyl accident. While is is believed that fewer than 50 people died directly from radiation exposure, sources estimate that 6000+ cancer deaths have been attributed to Chernobyl, with thousands more likely to come.

[merrymini]

Nuclear is the way to go. The most efficient and dependable. If you want to eliminate fossil fuels, a stupid idea but widely held, you do not have many alternatives. But renewables are NOT a reliable source of energy and the facts have shown that their failures (remember the Texas winter a few years ago) can cost a great many lives. They are making decisions now that will negatively affect thousands of people in the future and not a situation that can be easily remedied.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

Human biases takes about 2 generations to be lost. . about 80 -100 years. . .
Currently being lost on the current generation < 40 years old

* World War II atrocities
* Vietnam atrocities
* Hand operated tools such as
the dial telephone
hand operated drills
hand crank care windows
hand crank can openers
*Ms Pacman

32 days to former finance guy

[tuccillo]

Likely? The words "may" or "could" are more applicable. Apparently, 4000 incidents of thyroid cancer have been observed with a very low death rate. I believe the deaths attributed to Chernobyl are still less than 50. Chernobyl was an example of extreme Soviet incompetence and anyone using it as a proxy for nuclear power plants in general is guilty of fear mongering.

CHERNOBYL: THE TRUE SCALE OF THE ACCIDENT | UN Press (https://press.un.org/en/2005/dev2539.doc.htm)

The true toll of the Chernobyl disaster - BBC Future (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll)


I watched an interesting documentary several years ago on the future of nuclear energy. It claimed that our current reactors are based on dated/obsolete technology and that many are still being used well after their designed lifespan. Another idea raised was that there is (or soon would be) technology that would result in a new generation of reactors that could use our current nuclear waste stockpiles as fuel. Seemed like a win/win situation, but I've never heard anything else about it since.

Just a point of clarification here: While is is believed that fewer than 50 people died directly from radiation exposure, sources estimate that 6000+ cancer deaths have been attributed to Chernobyl, with thousands more likely to come.

[Carlsondm]

Politics combined with rank stupidity. There are people who think our country can be run solely with wind and solar. It cannot.
And who are these people who think only two means of power generation (wind and solar) will solve power needs? Please stop making wild and crazy statements without facts. There are challenges with all power generating choices. We have a lot of options to develop.

[rogerrice60]

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

It makes to much common sense for the communist WOKE crowd

[RouseysMom]

Electricity prices in Finland flipped negative — a huge oversupply of clean, hydroelectric power meant suppliers were almost giving it away - Business Insider India (https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/electricity-prices-in-finland-flipped-negative-a-huge-oversupply-of-clean-hydroelectric-power-meant-suppliers-were-almost-giving-it-away/amp_articleshow/100503603.cms)

Finland brought new reactor online. Power is so abundant is is nearly free. Let’s be like Finland.

[Wondering]

Your Coming Summer of Blackouts - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-american-electric-reliability-corporation-nerc-summer-assessment-power-blackouts-green-energy-2ddc6510)

One new variable this summer is the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized Good Neighbor Plan, which requires fossil-fuel power plants in 22 states to reduce NOx emissions. NERC predicts power plants will comply by limiting hours of operation but warns they may need regulatory waivers in the event of a power crunch.

NERC - ERO Enterprise | Regional Entities (https://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/keyplayers/Pages/default.aspx)
What's your point? I think we need to save the planet for the next generations. Do you want to eliminate the EPA so greedy big companies and industries can continue to poison us and the environment?

[rsibole]

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

The earthquake and the ensuing tsunami resulted in the death of 19,729 people (with 2559 still missing) and devastated communities up and down the country. Reactors close to the earthquake, including those operating at Fukushima Daiichi, shut down as designed. There was zero radiation leak from the Fukushima reactor and no one died except from the earthquake and tsunami events.

[Stu from NYC]

What's your point? I think we need to save the planet for the next generations. Do you want to eliminate the EPA so greedy big companies and industries can continue to poison us and the environment?

Their is a balance to be had and a more intelligent, thoughtful approach to our future energy needs is long overdue.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

What's your point? I think we need to save the planet for the next generations. Do you want to eliminate the EPA so greedy big companies and industries can continue to poison us and the environment?

no hyperbole there. . .

The save the planet movement started in the 60's and 70's and none of the predictions came remotely true. Most of this is propaganda for money by fear mongering. . . I think that the earth has been warming for thousands of years, mostly since the last ice age. . .

The thermometer with the current F/C calibration is not even 200 years old. . maybe 150 years. . quite a feat to extend the last 100 years of readings to the end of the earth.

What is not known with precision is how much is human activity and how much is natural planetary wobbling. . . remember, only 700 years ago amid the millions of years of earth history, the earth was first discovered NOT to be flat. . . and if the bulk of this is planetary wobble, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

There are many other ways to better the environment locally, but save the earth has to be a global effort, otherwise, again, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

[Stu from NYC]

no hyperbole there. . .

The save the planet movement started in the 60's and 70's and none of the predictions came remotely true. Most of this is propaganda for money by fear mongering. . . I think that the earth has been warming for thousands of years, mostly since the last ice age. . .

The thermometer with the current F/C calibration is not even 200 years old. . maybe 150 years. . quite a feat to extend the last 100 years of readings to the end of the earth.

What is not known with precision is how much is human activity and how much is natural planetary wobbling. . . remember, only 700 years ago amid the millions of years of earth history, the earth was first discovered NOT to be flat. . . and if the bulk of this is planetary wobble, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

There are many other ways to better the environment locally, but save the earth has to be a global effort, otherwise, again, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

Very true but we wait for facts lets just spend a few trillion and feel good about it.

[gldfin]

So the part about an explosion - I'm wrong. Not a nuclear explosion. Okay fine. A different type of explosion. And still radiation that can kill tens of thousands of people, animals, and lay the land near it fallow and/or uninhabitable. Nothing "ridiculous" about it. I was not "false" I was incorrect about the type of explosion that could result. I was not incorrect about the fact that there could be an explosion. OR that radiation from damage to a nuclear power plant can cause radiation to kill people, animals, and be destructive to the land around it.

As for future power plants being safer - they said that about Chernobyl, before there was a meltdown and over 4000 people died. Now we have much more stringent regulations, which means the price to build another one has risen to the point of not being affordable, without significantly raising taxes to pay for it. Meanwhile, nuclear power has mostly fallen out of favor worldwide, replaced by solar, wind, and hydroelectricity. Except in the US, where so many people would rather burn their clothing for fuel than accept the fact that renewable energy is better for everyone, and for the planet, and for the air. Or maybe they know this and just don't care.

Also, the part about close to houses is incorrect. We have a grid and with transmission lines are able to transmit power great distances.

[DDToto41]

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

It may soon. The scientists have found a way to use nuclear fission instead of nuclear fusion. They have been working on this for a long time. It may take a while for the designs and construction to begin.

[rsmurano]

Politics combined with rank stupidity. There are people who think our country can be run solely with wind and solar. It cannot.

I agree! You won’t be able to power 1/2 the country with renewable sources. I worked for utilities for over 30 years and there are so many politics/green earthers requirements for utilities to follow for generating power it’s ridiculous.
I worked for a utility that generated power from hydro which is the cleanest source you can have but it also has some of the most stringent rules they have to abide by, for example, some endangered fish prevent dams being built, Indian reservations bring up many issues, etc.. We also had natural gas, nuclear, fuel cells, and wood generating plants. All were safe but each had their protesters. Nuclear waste is a big deal. But so are EV car batteries and golf cart batteries.
Nuclear Fusion will be the best power source of power but it’s decades late.
The utility also worked on fuel cell technology which is a fantastic technology that uses clean natural gas with a by product of water, we had a little shoe box that would power 1 house. We actually converted a 10 story hotel to use fuel cells that were the size of a couple refrigerators. But now, you have people against natural gas which doesn’t make sense.
Wind farms are inefficient, solar is inefficient and requires batteries to make it a viable source and batteries have their drawbacks.
We have enough fossil fuels to last us 100’s of years with todays technology and hydro power can be increased many times over if not for the protesters.
Nuclear fusion is also very promising.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Wind farms are inefficient, solar is inefficient and requires batteries to make it a viable source and batteries have their drawbacks.
We have enough fossil fuels to last us 100’s of years with todays technology and hydro power can be increased many times over if not for the protesters.
Nuclear fusion is also very promising.

All true as another utility industry employee.

If wind and solar and batteries are unstable and not massively scaleable,
why do people think that replacing the current generation sources with unstable sources will solve our needs?

grabbing onto theoretical concepts because of the words green or free doesn't make the execution financially logical or practical or better.

[Pairadocs]

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

IMHO, I think there are still enough people who remember the horrors of 3 Mile Island, and especially the 24/7 coverage of Chernobyl, that they have an almost pathological fear of nuclear power in any form. Remember, it is a fact that when people have such fears, they persist even in the face of genuine statistics. Example, there are people who actually believe their changes of being killed are much greater in a plane than in an automobile, or in their own bathtub. Facts, statistical data, absolutely nothing would change their minds.

[tuccillo]

You mean fusion instead of fission. Don't read too much into the recent press release on some progress with fusion. This is still an area of basic research and a Q factor greater than one (for the entire fusion process including electricity generation) is still a long ways off. We are not close to having commercially available fusion power for electricity generation. Perhaps in several decades.

It may soon. The scientists have found a way to use nuclear fission instead of nuclear fusion. They have been working on this for a long time. It may take a while for the designs and construction to begin.

[Pairadocs]

This is all false, anti-nuclear propaganda pushed by environmentalists.

Read “Apocalypse Never” by Michael Shellenberger for better info. Zion Lights on Twitter, another former environmentalists turned pro-nulcear, is also a good resource.

Germany is in the process of shutting down its 17 nuclear plants; the IPCC is predicting 1100 more deaths per year from Germany returning to fossil fuels.

Maybe these predicted blackouts will be sufficiently painful to get our politicians and government moving to build more Fourth Gen nuclear plants.

To an extent, antinuclear people, as well as "environmentalists" (a term I believe is constantly misapplied as if a person who cares about the preservation of the "environment" is only a member of a particular political party, or has a certain personality or psychological profile) are just inflexible people, like in so many other areas, certainly entitled to their own opinions and concerns, but just completely closed to even analyzing any data to the contrary of the opinion they hold. Our politicians are only empty vessels we PAY to go to government and represent OUR collective wishes because we are too busy, or lack interest in representing our collective decisions. When the majority decide they WANT MORE nuclear power, I have no doubt every politician will jump on the band wagon that carries votes. Higher and higher prices and unpredictable reliability, may motivate many "objectors" to actually examine all the pros and cons associated with the medical, financial, environmental and other implications of various power sources. Personally I believe much more could be done with solar power, especially in our southern states. ALL sources have negatives as well as positives.

[Pairadocs]

no hyperbole there. . .

The save the planet movement started in the 60's and 70's and none of the predictions came remotely true. Most of this is propaganda for money by fear mongering. . . I think that the earth has been warming for thousands of years, mostly since the last ice age. . .

The thermometer with the current F/C calibration is not even 200 years old. . maybe 150 years. . quite a feat to extend the last 100 years of readings to the end of the earth.

What is not known with precision is how much is human activity and how much is natural planetary wobbling. . . remember, only 700 years ago amid the millions of years of earth history, the earth was first discovered NOT to be flat. . . and if the bulk of this is planetary wobble, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

There are many other ways to better the environment locally, but save the earth has to be a global effort, otherwise, again, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

I firmly believe that also pertains to a more in depth exploration of solar energy, just not enough "in it" for enough people !

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I firmly believe that also pertains to a more in depth exploration of solar energy, just not enough "in it" for enough people !

just be sure that there is an understanding of impacts to the current electric grid,
meaning the instability of generation with passing clouds to cause fluctuation in input to the guaranteed stability of the user. .

solar not as stable on a large scale as theoreticists would like to acknowledge,
and distributed generation (roof top) creates similar stability issue, though usable on a small scale with battery UPS smoothing for equipment usage.

[Worldseries27]

This statement by einstein says it all about predicting scientific advances and the speed of their accomplishment, especially being aided by A.I..

FOR BETTER BETTER OR WORSE, IT'S A BRAVE NEW WORLD. A.H.

[Marine1974]

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

Fossil fuel is not nuclear power .

[miadford@gmail.com]

Their news may report no radiation deaths from the disaster but that is just what their news wants you to think. My son was on a Navy ship that was just off the coast from the Fukushima area and they were administering aid. Their filtration plant on the ship went down and they were exposed to the radiated water for three days. Multiple people from his ship have died and many others have had cancer. My son has to be checked every year for the rest of his life. So due to that alone, I can’t even imagine that there were no deaths in Japan. Sorry, I know this was a rant.

[rsmurano]

The epa is a joke, they are all political these days. The Supreme Court just ruled a week ago that the epa was out of bounds in 1 of their directives and I hope the Supreme Court pursues all of their new directives.
You can’t shut down a nuclear plant for a day or 2 and then bring it back online.
Fear mongers, propagandists, and people that don’t know about how things work are trying to change something that is working pretty good. If you don’t believe me, listen to these same people trying to force EV’s onto people while they don’t know the electrical grid won’t handle the extra load, and California is forcing everybody to go the EV route at the same time telling their people not to charge their cars because the grid won’t handle it. Brilliant!

[tuccillo]

This is potentially troublesome. I have seen some calculations of how much additional electrical power would be needed if all autos (not trucks) were immediately replaced with EVs. The number is about 1T kWhs. To provide some context, this is roughly 25% of the current US annual power generations of 4T kWhs. In reality, the transition of autos to EVs may take about 20 years (or more) and that would seem to provide enough time to ramp up power generation. However, the power generation in the US has been flat at about 4T kWhs for about 15 years. We probably need a plan to ramp up power generation. Perhaps we have one?

The epa is a joke, they are all political these days. The Supreme Court just ruled a week ago that the epa was out of bounds in 1 of their directives and I hope the Supreme Court pursues all of their new directives.
You can’t shut down a nuclear plant for a day or 2 and then bring it back online.
Fear mongers, propagandists, and people that don’t know about how things work are trying to change something that is working pretty good. If you don’t believe me, listen to these same people trying to force EV’s onto people while they don’t know the electrical grid won’t handle the extra load, and California is forcing everybody to go the EV route at the same time telling their people not to charge their cars because the grid won’t handle it. Brilliant!