Could LFTRs save California?

NickL
Posts: 27
Joined: Aug 31, 2011 12:41 am

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by NickL » Nov 02, 2015 10:14 pm

@Kurt S: Electing a Republican from CA is a very long shot. You might do better to educate the likely Dem nominee, who is almost certainly going to be elected. Just sayin'...

Kurt Sellner
Posts: 576
Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Location: Iowa, USA

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by Kurt Sellner » Nov 03, 2015 1:07 am

NickL wrote:@Kurt S: Electing a Republican from CA is a very long shot.
Well, I reached out to him only because he came across my radar. As I see other candidates make themselves known to me, and I feel they may be receptive to nuclear power, I will reach out to them and suggest they consider thorium as an energy source. The fact that he's running under the Republican banner is largely irrelevant to me, I'll reach out to all candidates regardless of party affiliation.

I don't know how well dug in the Democrats are in California politics but nationally the Democrat brand does not carry the same weight that it used to. Recent polling suggests that no seat is safe for the Democrats any more. Perhaps not such a long shot.
NickL wrote: You might do better to educate the likely Dem nominee, who is almost certainly going to be elected. Just sayin'...
There is no reason we cannot also reach out to his competitors and see what they think about energy from thorium. I say we get all candidates as advocates for thorium then no matter how the election turns out then we win.

This is not just a matter for California to consider, all states could use this technology to grow their economy, produce clean water and fuel, and reduce our reliance on foreign energy sources.
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.

User avatar
Kirk Sorensen
Posts: 4068
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by Kirk Sorensen » Jan 11, 2018 1:57 pm

California regulators to decide fate of state’s last nuclear plant Thursday
A plan to close California’s last atomic power plant, Diablo Canyon, in seven years could win the approval of state regulators Thursday, despite the efforts of pro-nuclear activists to save it. The California Public Utilities Commission is expected to decide Thursday whether to shut down the plant when its two federal operating licenses expire in 2024 and 2025.

User avatar
Kirk Sorensen
Posts: 4068
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by Kirk Sorensen » Jan 11, 2018 8:38 pm

California’s last nuclear plant to close after unanimous vote by regulators
California’s last nuclear power plant — Diablo Canyon, whose contentious birth helped shape the modern environmental movement — will close in 2025, state utility regulators decided Thursday. The unanimous vote by the California Public Utilities Commission will likely bring an end to nuclear energy’s long history in the state. State law forbids building more nuclear plants in California until the federal government creates a long-term solution for dealing with their waste, a goal that remains elusive despite decades of effort. The decision comes even as California expands its fight against global warming. Owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Diablo Canyon is the state’s largest power plant, supplying 9 percent of California’s electricity while producing no greenhouse gases. “With this decision, we chart a new energy future by phasing out nuclear power here in California,” said commission President Michael Picker. “We’ve looked hard at all the arguments, and we agree the time has come.” Diablo Canyon’s planned shutdown is the latest blow to America’s nuclear power industry, beset by plant closures and the cancellation of proposed reactors.
Unanimous vote. Wow, that sends a message about which state we should never consider for a future nuclear power plant.
PG&E will, however, be able to shift onto its customers $241.2 million in costs related to shutting down the plant, including retaining its staff. That equals roughly $45 per PG&E customer, but many factors could affect whether some or all of that amount appears on utility bills. The company, based in San Francisco, did not have an estimate Thursday for the potential impact on ratepayers.
And the scary part is that most of their ratepayers will cheer.

jagdish
Posts: 2292
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by jagdish » Jan 12, 2018 7:55 pm

California ‘s dislike for nuclear could open some opportunities
Chinese, the nabors across the Pacific, could hire out mobile nuclear generators on ships where ordered.
The windmills could pump water or air for energy storage.
Good market for gas burning power plants.

User avatar
cld12pk2go
Posts: 51
Joined: May 31, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by cld12pk2go » Jan 12, 2018 8:11 pm

This generation will naturally be replaced by a new sexy, low cost, clean ~100MW solar plant according to news reports...

While a 2GW nat gas plant will actually replace most of the GW-h...

User avatar
Kirk Sorensen
Posts: 4068
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by Kirk Sorensen » Jan 26, 2018 8:27 pm

Diablo Canyon shutdown last chapter for clean nuclear power in California
The Public Utility Commission has accepted PG&E’s plan to close Diablo Canyon, the state’s single largest power plant and the last of its nuclear reactors, once their federal operating licenses expire. PG&E determined it would be “uneconomical” to continue operations beyond that point and plans to recover the lost generation with natural gas, renewables, and energy efficiency measures. The decision has been several years in the making and the outcome is of little surprise at this point. But what really drove this decision? To answer that question, it’s worth exploring that word “uneconomical.” California’s electricity markets have been qualified, constrained, and manipulated in so many ways that more accurate term would be “politically unacceptable.”



jagdish
Posts: 2292
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by jagdish » Jan 16, 2019 6:47 pm

A former NRC chairman has come out openly against nuclear power after retirement. The NPP development has changed home.

Asteroza
Posts: 134
Joined: Feb 25, 2011 1:55 am

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by Asteroza » Jan 20, 2019 6:56 pm

jagdish wrote:
Jan 16, 2019 6:47 pm
A former NRC chairman has come out openly against nuclear power after retirement. The NPP development has changed home.
I'm pretty sure he was openly against it WHILE he was chairman as well.


User avatar
Kirk Sorensen
Posts: 4068
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by Kirk Sorensen » Feb 14, 2019 10:34 pm

This Train Won’t Leave the Station
Perhaps the most critical national casualty may be the Green New Deal proposed by New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Much of her platform for a ten-year transformation of the American economy centers on transportation. In her bid to kill the internal-combustion engine, Ocasio-Cortez apparently seeks to eliminate both cars and planes. Her favored solution for cross-continental travel: a massive network of high-speed trains.

jagdish
Posts: 2292
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Could LFTRs save California?

Post by jagdish » Feb 18, 2019 11:52 am

The lifter or other NPP could power the rail lines if they are ever built.

Post Reply