7 ms·

When was the last nuclear plant built in California? Edit: downvoting someone you disagree with is not cool. Go outside, touch some grass.

krasin 2y ago
California is a bad example for nuclear, as it's the perfect spot for solar. On the opposite, Finland lacks sun, but enjoys their new reactor (even though, since it's another one-off project, it's over budget).
- throwaway5959 2y ago
  I don’t live in Finland. In fact, Finland’s population is half that of Michigan’s, so I’m sure they’d be fine with solar and wind as well. They already get a quarter of their power from hydro.
  - krasin 2y ago
    > I’m sure they’d be fine with solar Sorry, your confidence betrays you here. Please, look up the altitude of Helsinki. In January they get 6 hours of sunlight per day and it's almost universally cloudy winter-time. Nuclear & wind are better options for Finland and they pursue both ([1], [2], [3]) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
    - throwaway5959 2y ago
      Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”.
      - krasin 2y ago
        > Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”. Because wind works for Finland and it's a good idea for them to invest in it (and they do). But putting solar & Finland together is nonsense.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      The Nordic countries are literally the only places in the world where solar isn't the best option by 2030: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-energy-reading-list/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-ener...
      - kbenson 2y ago
        "Best" is relative to how you're measuring, and cheapest doesn't mean that's where you want to put all your investment. The cheapest option that can work for some small about of the time can be best by one measurement and not by another. There are other problems with solar that make it beneficial to offset with other energy sources. For example, lack of ability to generate any energy for 50% of the year, and reduced efficiency depending on weather. Wind has its own problems as well, but are map to somewhat different circumstances than solar, so is a good supplement for some of the power. Nuclear has its own problems as well, but unlike wind and solar, many of those aren't inherent to the source, but to how we've developed methods to harness it and deal with produced byproduct (waste). I suspect a first principles approach to nuclear energy might eventually be a very useful source of energy. I think it would be beneficial if we still kept some nuclear around to keep developing it towards a better source. It does well to offset some of the requirements of other systems, which are limited by time, geography or climate.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - asadotzler 2y ago
      latitude not altitude. And Finland absolutely could provide energy to its entire population with renewables excluding nuclear. They haven't and that's their choice, but you cannot claim with any legitimacy that it's not possible because of latitude.
      - krasin 2y ago
        > latitude not altitude. thanks! > And Finland absolutely could provide energy to its entire population with renewables excluding nuclear. They haven't and that's their choice, but you cannot claim with any legitimacy that it's not possible because of latitude. That was not my claim. I would appreciate if you re-read my comments in this thread.
tbrownaw 2y ago
Yeah, sure, lets take a technology where the main challenge is obstructionism by NIMBYs who bought in to too much FUD, and judge it by a state notorious for enabling NIMBYism.

krasin 2y ago

California is a bad example for nuclear, as it's the perfect spot for solar. On the opposite, Finland lacks sun, but enjoys their new reactor (even though, since it's another one-off project, it's over budget).

throwaway5959 2y ago
I don’t live in Finland. In fact, Finland’s population is half that of Michigan’s, so I’m sure they’d be fine with solar and wind as well. They already get a quarter of their power from hydro.
- krasin 2y ago
  > I’m sure they’d be fine with solar Sorry, your confidence betrays you here. Please, look up the altitude of Helsinki. In January they get 6 hours of sunlight per day and it's almost universally cloudy winter-time. Nuclear & wind are better options for Finland and they pursue both ([1], [2], [3]) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - throwaway5959 2y ago
    Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”.
    - krasin 2y ago
      > Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”. Because wind works for Finland and it's a good idea for them to invest in it (and they do). But putting solar & Finland together is nonsense.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    The Nordic countries are literally the only places in the world where solar isn't the best option by 2030: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-energy-reading-list/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-ener...
    - kbenson 2y ago
      "Best" is relative to how you're measuring, and cheapest doesn't mean that's where you want to put all your investment. The cheapest option that can work for some small about of the time can be best by one measurement and not by another. There are other problems with solar that make it beneficial to offset with other energy sources. For example, lack of ability to generate any energy for 50% of the year, and reduced efficiency depending on weather. Wind has its own problems as well, but are map to somewhat different circumstances than solar, so is a good supplement for some of the power. Nuclear has its own problems as well, but unlike wind and solar, many of those aren't inherent to the source, but to how we've developed methods to harness it and deal with produced byproduct (waste). I suspect a first principles approach to nuclear energy might eventually be a very useful source of energy. I think it would be beneficial if we still kept some nuclear around to keep developing it towards a better source. It does well to offset some of the requirements of other systems, which are limited by time, geography or climate.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    latitude not altitude. And Finland absolutely could provide energy to its entire population with renewables excluding nuclear. They haven't and that's their choice, but you cannot claim with any legitimacy that it's not possible because of latitude.
    - krasin 2y ago
      > latitude not altitude. thanks! > And Finland absolutely could provide energy to its entire population with renewables excluding nuclear. They haven't and that's their choice, but you cannot claim with any legitimacy that it's not possible because of latitude. That was not my claim. I would appreciate if you re-read my comments in this thread.

tbrownaw 2y ago

Yeah, sure, lets take a technology where the main challenge is obstructionism by NIMBYs who bought in to too much FUD, and judge it by a state notorious for enabling NIMBYism.