balding_dad t1_iy3y4nw wrote on November 28, 2022 at 3:58 PM

Reply to comment by ThisistheInfiniteIs in Bloomberg article on tearing down Vermont Yankee by GraniteGeekNH

We currently consume three times more energy than we produce and 70% of homes are heated by fossil fuels or wood. The status quo is completely unsustainable and nuclear is a crucial part of a balanced energy strategy. I know the old guard green peace types think nuclear is scary but in 10 years when the boomers are gone the rest of us are going to be rueing our failure to build three reactors as the basis of our energy future.

Edit: source

lantonas t1_iy42k7a wrote on November 28, 2022 at 4:29 PM

But we can fill every field in Vermont with solar panels instead!

ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_iy43wha wrote on November 28, 2022 at 4:39 PM

Vermont's in-state electricity net generation has come almost entirely from renewable resources since the permanent shutdown of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station at the end of 2014.

In fact Vermont already has the lowest carbon dioxide emissions of any state.

lantonas t1_iy5swhq wrote on November 28, 2022 at 11:28 PM

A quarter of which is from burning wood. And hydroelectic power from... Canada.

More than half of our power isn't even generated in state.

ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_iy428zt wrote on November 28, 2022 at 4:27 PM

>The status quo is completely unsustainable and nuclear is a crucial part of a balanced energy strategy

That is absolutely false, we do not need nuclear fission at all, not to mention the fact that even if you were somehow able to find a site for a new plant, which is very doubtful, it would be a decade just getting the planning done, and like another decade before it was actually built, and most likely billion over budget. Financially, nuclear fission just can't compete, even with the massive subsidies and the Price-Anderson act.

Also, nobody wants a pile of radioactive waste in their back yard.

WE have much better options now, which are much easier, and much much faster to build, which don't come with all of the awful liabilities of nuclear fission, or the permanent radioactive waste problem. In fact, they don't consume any expensive fuel whatsoever and they actually make money instead of wasting it.

The green revolution is here and this failed technology is dead, thankfully.

balding_dad t1_iy44t8w wrote on November 28, 2022 at 4:45 PM

The existing renewable options don’t actually fill the same energy niche as coal and natural gas. We still need baseload power to serve as a stable base for consumption. This company has been trying to “solve” grid storage as baseload power since 2012 and they’re still saying “two more years” (spoiler lossless energy storage is very expensive and probably thirty years away). Our existing renewables are great for variable needs but the existing options are coal, natural gas, and nuclear. For the baseload niche, that is our choice today, I choose nuclear.

ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_iy46wl7 wrote on November 28, 2022 at 4:59 PM

>We still need baseload power

This is also false, first, we already have "baseload power" from Hydro-Quebec, what we need are sources that can be easily taken on and off line, which nuclear is terrible at. It is actually a liability in our future grid.

Also, everywhere else, "baseload" power stations are not going to be a part of our electric grid going forward, renewables and batteries are what is actually being built now, we have this technology today, which is much cheaper, safer, greener and easier to build than super expensive, dangerous, unpopular nuclear fission plants.

Edit: spelling