You must log in or register to comment.

HammerfestNORD t1_j1qytb3 wrote

Aaaahhh, yes. Why build clean energy when we're already going to kill off most of the human race much sooner than later.


icebeat t1_j1r5ljt wrote

So we can leave a nice and clean planet for the next alien race


HammerfestNORD t1_j1r7j1b wrote

Indeed. We all know how the aliens managed during The War of the Worlds.


Jpf123 t1_j1tibsx wrote

The Dolphins or Parrots will be appreciative.


Unique-Public-8594 t1_j1r3yjh wrote

And we can pollute more with fracking or create tons of toxic waste with nuclear. /s


Afitz93 t1_j1r9xfx wrote

I think you’ve been extremely misled on the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power. Of all available options, it is the single answer for responsible, efficient green energy production. There is no well-powered, environmentally friendly future without nuclear power.


LaurenDreamsInColor t1_j1rtbuk wrote

"the single" answer? I've got a nice little home in Manomet I'd like to sell you. It's near the water. LOL


Afitz93 t1_j1sc758 wrote

Yes. While renewables are great supplemental energy sources, they’re high in manufacturing and maintenance cost and require maintenance that, when comparing overall output to maintenance costs, will cost significantly more than a nuclear plant in its lifespan.

Then there’s of course the environmental effects from the manufacturing process for things like solar panels and wind turbines - also shipping from all around the world, contributing to greenhouse gasses.

Then, there’s the required space to get enough power for the masses - especially in the marine environment, where we’re already arguing how lobster pots are bad for whales - imagine what a few hundred metal towers climbing from the ocean floor off the coast of Maine could do.

Then, you have to factor in power storage, since these sources don’t provide reliable, consistent energy. Current battery technology still relies on rare materials, mined in poor countries with questionable-at-best worker protections. And to provide the sheer amount of energy we currently use, that is A LOT of batteries. Yes, the technology is improving. And yes, nuclear also relies on rare materials mined from the earth, but in much lesser numbers.

All in all, per square foot, nuclear is going to be the safest, most efficient, most reliable, and most environmentally friendly energy source for the future. The sooner we start improving and adding to our nuclear energy infrastructure, the sooner we can kick our dependency on fossil fuels and other environmentally insensitive energy projects.


Icy-Conclusion-3500 t1_j1ueul0 wrote

Reverse hydro power is an interest battery idea. You build reservoirs and pump water uphill using extra power from wind and solar. When needed you let it flow back through the turbines into the lower reservoir. Power storage without a need for metallic batteries.

I’m all in on nuclear though. It’s the bridge to our green future. Buys us time to figure this all out.


Afitz93 t1_j1us092 wrote

That’s quite the interesting idea… as long as the water is available lol


femtoinfluencer t1_j1uvo1t wrote

This argument would be improved by pointing out that current reactor designs are inherently WAAAY safer than a lot of the existing reactors still in operation, and similarly much much safer than reactor designs in the public eye like Fukushima and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.


Nobel6skull t1_j1r73w0 wrote

Nuclear waste is a solved problem. We need more nuclear power.


Unique-Public-8594 t1_j1r99uj wrote

The waste from nuclear power plants remains radioactive for thousands of years though. Do we really want more of that? I’d say no. Not when wind, solar, and hydro are better options.


SheeEttin t1_j1rq2dr wrote

No, but no energy production has zero environmental impact.

Nuclear power's biggest environmental impact is actually building the plants and warming local water sources when they're used for cooking. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to turn 97% of it back into fuel. The remainder can be safely stored in a facility like Yucca Mountain.


NoMoLerking t1_j1rn1hi wrote

Only nuclear offers low-carbon base load power. There’s literally no other option.


femtoinfluencer t1_j1uvb3w wrote

For what it's worth, a large portion of the "radioactive for thousands of years" problem is solvable, and there are a couple ways to solve it.

The problem is that comprehensively solving it and having a system in place for it being solved is not done yet, because either you need to build enough plants that burn the waste (plus systems for transporting it etc) or you need to switch to something like thorium as fuel, which generates much less / less toxic waste in the first place. Either of those things is doable, but they take A LOT of work.


Goose31 t1_j1rezy2 wrote

Any power and climate solution that doesn't include nuclear is non serious.


Cobrawine66 t1_j1rqc8l wrote

Any solution that doesn't involve decreasing our usage isn't serious.


Goose31 t1_j1rqkck wrote

Decreasing energy usage with an ever increasing population? Good luck.


Cobrawine66 t1_j1rrr6l wrote

I didn't say it was going to happen. But that's what's needed.


warlocc_ t1_j1soy6c wrote

You know those movies with the barrels leaking and making giant ants are fake, right?


Icy-Conclusion-3500 t1_j1ueire wrote

Nuclear fears were largely spread by the fossil fuel industry.


Unique-Public-8594 t1_j1ufegl wrote

Ok I see my opinion is thoroughly unpopular, but here’s my thought process anyway: pro-nuclear messaging maybe spread by the pro fossil fuel folks, I hadn’t considered that but, yes, that makes sense. I hear you. I’m not advocating for fossil fuels.

I had been thinking it is being spread by the anti wind-solar-hydro and by the pro-nuclear-anti-environment lobbyists. I’m pro hydro, solar, and wind.

My concern about radioactive waste is that we have a long history of thinking things are totally ok, until they’re not (for example: DDT, coal, mega doses of radiation to children, fracking, plastics, ozone - probably more). We were told these were all completely safe. So we now have a pattern of being told things are totally safe, then learning we were wrong, they are actually deadly. At some point we need to stop and notice this pattern, learn from history, and re-examine how quick we are to assume things are safe. Learn from our mistakes. That’s all I’m suggesting here, not that we go back to fossil fuels, that we instead resist the powerful nuclear power lobby and turn to solar, wind, and hydro. Innovate with projects that produce hydro locally like this one that produces no radioactive waste: Or, solar roof tiles that produce no radioactive waste: We have solar electric fences, solar paint, solar bike paths, solar hats, and even a converter of CO2 to power but we aren’t using them.

Also, we are passing this radioactivity problem on to many future generations. Do we have that right to say “here, we are long gone, we did this but it’s your problem now”?

Biggest environmental disasters in history includes Chernobyl:

But I have no expectation anyone here will agree with me, accept that 100%

When the nuclear energy lobby says “we need this, it’s this or fossil fuels” don’t believe them. They are biased. There are other options. They downplay those other options for profit.

When the nuclear power lobby says solar-wind-hydro can’t provide enough, my thought is: we haven’t even tried. Lets try.

Downvote me all you want, I think we can do better/cleaner than nuclear.

It reminds me of the sugar industry telling everyone that weight gain is related to fat intake: we all believed it, but now know better (both fat and sugar are related to weight gain).


femtoinfluencer t1_j1uy5th wrote

You have good points.

I will say that solar PV needs a LOT of area to generate power in amounts that we currently use/need it as a civilization, but, blanketing far more urban surfaces with PV installations even in marginal areas could make a big dent in our energy needs. I believe this type of policy has been effective in Germany.

The other issue is that tons of new solar generating capacity would absolutely have to come with grid-scale storage for when the sun isn't shining, and that's not yet a solved problem. Researchers are working their asses off to scale up battery storage to grid scale but it's not yet ready for prime time. Another 5 to 10 years will likely solve that, but it remains an additional capital cost + logistical issue to then set up a bunch of grid-scale storage facilities, plus all the changes to the power grid to accommodate them. Edit: there are also other forms of grid storage, but they're either less developed than batteries, or have requirements that limit them to favorable geographic areas (pumped hydro and the like).

A couple things to keep in mind about nukes:

First, modern reactor designs are drastically safer than the reactors everyone thinks of when they think about nukes. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are generations-old reactor designs with many many more failure modes than current designs. Chances of accident with a major radiation release are so much less with current designs, you can't ever truthfully say zero, but they really are leagues better than the type of nuke plants we're used to thinking about.

Second, nuclear waste is largely a solvable (not solved - but solvable) problem. As long as we are using uranium for fuel, it's possible to build reactors that then burn the waste for power, the resulting waste of that process is both less in quantity and less problematic. There is also the possibility of switching to thorium for fuel, which generates much less / less bad waste in the first place, unfortunately thorium reactors haven't yet been scaled up / installed / operated for years at grid scale. So either of these solutions have a ways to go before they are actual solutions, but, at least they are possible. If new nukes do become a policy then it would be good to push that policy towards solutions like this.


bubalusarnee t1_j1qtayv wrote

Looks to me like the utilities are slow rolling them. The wind folks can't answer certain questions because the utilities aren't engaging with them on all the fronts.

The existing utilities who stand to lose money if wind succeeds, are somehow ABLE to put out a stumbling block?

That's Massachusetts Politics RIGHT THERE. Someone intended that.


Ilikereddit15 t1_j1r64ga wrote

How are they losing money? They earn it on the transmission still was my understanding


NativeMasshole t1_j1r8zq2 wrote

Seems more likely that they don't want to have to pay for any of the infrastructure to support transmission. We really should be investing heavily in the next generation power grid to support all the renewables, but that's kind of tough when they're all owned by some of the most hated private interests in the country. They don't want to invest on their own, we can't make them, and nobody trusts them with subsidies.


OneRingOfBenzene t1_j1rpiau wrote

Widely speaking, the utilities don't have to pay for the transmission infrastructure, at least not the transmission infrastructure that is required to support these wind projects. That infrastructure would also be paid for by the wind project.

New England utilities are not allowed to own generation, which means that they're also not competing with the wind project for revenue.

In my opinion- at the end of the day, the reason these larger projects are moving slowly is simple: They're hard, and they're expensive. And land rights- particularly in New England- make the required transmission infrastructure to support the generation doubly hard and doubly expensive.


Cobrawine66 t1_j1rq2qu wrote

Most if not all of the wind cocompanies are foreign companies that sometimes pair up with American companies for optics.


Ilikereddit15 t1_j1rcr72 wrote

Yeah it’s pretty funny when their websites espouse their goals of moving to renewables then this happens…we’ll see what comes of it in April


Cobrawine66 t1_j1rq74i wrote

It's all about the $$$ for them. Not about the environment.


femtoinfluencer t1_j1uz53z wrote

> Seems more likely that they don't want to have to pay for any of the infrastructure to support transmission.

This is an anecdote, but I've never lived anywhere in the USA with electric distribution infrastructure as seemingly shitty as Masschusetts. As soon as the weather gets even a touch spicy, it's a question whether the power will go out, and at least in my experience it's been that way since the 1990s (which was the first of several times I've lived in state or split my time between MA and somewhere else).

Like look. I know it's still within spec for a "developed country" - we don't have rolling blackouts, the power is on 99.9% of the time. But that being said I've never lived anywhere else where most of the houses in well-to-do neighborhoods have a generator on a concrete pad outside. I was staying with friends who are fairly well off and was walking around that neighborhood last year when the power went out and it was quite an experience suddenly hearing like 50 generators autostart, took me half a minute to figure out what the hell was happening. That level of not being able to trust the power company isn't typical for the entire USA, and that includes other places which get cold af in the winter.


buried_lede t1_j1rpi5z wrote

I don’t think so. Avangrid just doesn’t want to honor their contract. They want a redo. It’s referred to as a long time power purchase agreement but in none of the articles I’ve read does it specify the length of the contract. I guess it’s on file if anyone wants to dig it up. I think Avangrid should just eat it and apparently, so does everyone else. As part of Iberdrola, it’s a huge international company and can absorb the temporary impact of a calculation it regrets making.

The utilities make gobs of money on transmission and distribution improvements and extensions. FERC sets generous payment for transmission, and in distribution, the cost of capital improvements, such as more or improved distribution infrastructure, can be passed onto customers. They are always thrilled to do either so I don’t see any reason the utilities would want to stop the wind projects from coming online


Cobrawine66 t1_j1rpvip wrote

It's not the utilities, it's the wind companies wanting to make bank. They already have a ton of tax credits.


LaurenDreamsInColor t1_j1ru4yw wrote

The same reason there's a limit on how many kilowatts of solar you can put on your house and when you can install battery backup.


March_Latter t1_j1r9vmd wrote

Supply chain issues on these projects are two years old so any claim they didn't see this problem coming is a lie or incompetence.


Cobrawine66 t1_j1rpo9g wrote

It's a lie. These companies don't care about climate change just the $$$


bemest t1_j1vjjzn wrote

And now they want to fleece taxpayers to subsidize their economically untenable power.


[deleted] t1_j1rrnvt wrote



Cobrawine66 t1_j1rvlvy wrote

And it's not even "green", it's just alternative.


March_Latter t1_j1rzeej wrote

Exactly. The problem these folks have is they forgot nobody cared about the economics of the bids....just the narrative. They could have charged double.


gongnomore t1_j1snows wrote

Actually not a lie or incompetence, development costs have skyrocketed and a key part of that is oil price, labor agreements and currency market anomalies. An example is dayrate to charter a vessel to support development has gone from 14k of to 32k in eight months due to increased demand in GoM.


March_Latter t1_j1u1taa wrote

I am deeply embedded in the supply chain. Summer of 21 I could have easily told you costs were moving upward at an unprecedented rate with no end in sight. You know what happened after contractors were informed of the situation? They bid jobs pennies over cost and then acted surprised they could not afford to do the job. You can claim hundreds of issues that led to this but in every sector everyone was informed costs in the future were a guess at best and to factor that in.


ExpatJundi t1_j1se917 wrote

I remember when people like Ted Kennedy helped kill Cape Wind. They were all about renewable energy, except when they'd see it on the horizon.