New York’s Visionary Clean Energy Standard Values Nuclear Plants

[NukeWorkers News Bot]

New York's Visionary Clean Energy Standard Values Nuclear Plants

The New York Public Service Commission today unanimously approved the state’s first-ever Clean Energy Standard, a policy championed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo explicitly recognizing the role nuclear plants play as carbon-free sources of power.

Source: New York's Visionary Clean Energy Standard Values Nuclear Plants

[Rerun]

Lol BS

[GLW]

Lol BS

What is?

The CES,....

The NEI accolades?

energy subsidies in general?

[hamsamich]

Just another excellent opportunity to post a two word sound byte.

[Rerun]

The act has zero to do with clean air

[Marlin]

The act has zero to do with clean air

No one is talking about clean air except you. The government has chosen to regulate plant food C02. Clean Energy Standard (CES), Renewable Energy Credits (REC) and Zero Emissions Credits (ZEC) are all carbon emission regulations to combat AGT.

[hamsamich]

I'm not a big global warming champion but this is good for nuclear power.  While discussing whether carbon free generation helps the environment or not IS germane to this topic, do we really want to go there?  Besides GW/Climate Change (pick yer poison), there is the "breathing in this crap" also.  Can't be good for you, but maybe the risk is extremely low like with nuclear power as long as the levels stay low.  I'm sure there is study after study that supports and goes against all these theories.  So I'm just going with Marlin.  Some governments are saying there is value in zero carbon emissions.  That's the bottom line.  I'm sure plenty of people implementing this policy don't believe in it but it is pretty standard now.  Enjoy the future, looks like carbon free will be a big part of it some how some way.  Whoever wants to fight that battle on this forum I'd appreciate it if you could do it on a thread dedicated  to only that, because most of the people who believe one way or the other on it are very passionate that it either exists or it doesn't.  Most reason goes out the window and it isn't a real discussion it is a battle of emotions where one side ignores all the other side's data and vice versa.  I've only met a couple people I would discuss that topic with.  They are the small minority of people who don't mind looking at all the data without their heart leaping out of their chest.

[GLW]

The act has zero to do with clean air

yes, it does,...

"Clean Air" is the cause célèbre for this regulation,...

we can spout off with "no, it is not" 'til hell freezes over, but no one is listening outside the echo chamber of realists,...

"people" like the fuzzy bunny and unicorn rainbow veneers on top of their daily "first world cozy" existence,...

this regulation (as I have previously noted on these threads) is where the cold hard reality of a first world standard of living collides with the fuzzy bunny and unicorn rainbow fantasy of flicking the switch and being bathed in Gaia friendly green electricity,...

ergo, it ain't happening,...

BUT,...

"Clean Air", as a contrived, politically manipulated, false religion of hypocritical fantasy based "feel goodism" is what this IS all about,...

as I have typed here before:

the end goal of these zealots does not have any pro-nuclear acolytes,...

in their world view; nuke plants are evil,...

as a bridge to utopia, nuke plants have emerged as a necessary evil,...

this is not a nuclear Renaissance, it's just life support, and they WILL pull the plug as soon as they can,...

hopefully, our colleagues inside the nuke plants can secure their retirement or evolve into a new and substantial line of work before that plug is pulled,...

at this time however, I would not recommend anybody join the Navy Nuclear Power Program,...

nope, I would not,...

[Marlin]

Whoever wants to fight that battle on this forum I'd appreciate it if you could do it on a thread dedicated to only that, because most of the people who believe one way or the other on it are very passionate that it either exists or it doesn't.  Most reason goes out the window and it isn't a real discussion it is a battle of emotions where one side ignores all the other side's data and vice versa.  I've only met a couple people I would discuss that topic with.  They are the small minority of people who don't mind looking at all the data without their heart leaping out of their chest.

   As is required on this site contentious posts are in PolySci (yes more contentious than here) and there are a few threads on Global Warming Global Weirding Climate Change, Gold Membership is cheap  . Eighty to ninety percent of the posts are mine as an AGT skeptic denier in those threads, I keep chewing that bone, can't help myself. Yes there is a lot of passion but not that much from advocates for the alarmist the sky is falling side of the fence.

[hamsamich]

"Yes there is a lot of passion but not that much from advocates for the alarmist the sky is falling side of the fence."  -  wow, you had to get that one dig in....poor alarmists.  GLW as far as that bridge goes I think your are right.  But the bridge may be quite a bit "longer" than we think. 

[Bonds 25]

Why is CO2 the only issue mentioned when discussing the burning of coal or other fossil fuels? It's the other "crap" that is emitted during the process which is the real issue (killing tens of thousands of people a year) and they don't matter if you believe in global warming or not. You know..."crap" like this....but not limited to:

Carbon Monoxide
VOCs
Mercury
Particulates
Nitrogen Oxide
Arsenic
Sulfur Dioxide
Heavy Metals.....including our baby boy, Uranium

These are what TRUE "Clean Air Acts" should be based on......along with energy that is reliable. The world needs reliable energy (just imagine a city of 10 million people relying on the sun or wind alone for their energy needs) so that's fossils, hydro and Nuclear. If you want your air "clean" and reliable.....that's Hydro and Nuclear.

Now which one of these has less of an affect on the environment?

Poor Countries that don't have reliable power (which if they did it would be fossil....pretty much coal) burn dung and wood....

[Marlin]

Why is CO2 the only issue mentioned when discussing the burning of coal or other fossil fuels? It's the other "crap" that is emitted during the process which is the real issue (killing tens of thousands of people a year) and they don't matter if you believe in global warming or not. You know..."crap" like this....but not limited to:

Carbon Monoxide
VOCs
Mercury
Particulates
Nitrogen Oxide
Arsenic
Sulfur Dioxide
Heavy Metals.....including our baby boy, Uranium

These are what TRUE "Clean Air Acts" should be based on......along with energy that is reliable. The world needs reliable energy (just imagine a city of 10 million people relying on the sun or wind alone for their energy needs) so that's fossils, hydro and Nuclear. If you want your air "clean" and reliable.....that's Hydro and Nuclear.

Now which one of these has less of an affect on the environment?

Poor Countries that don't have reliable power (which if they did it would be fossil....pretty much coal) burn dung and wood....

   Valid point but all of these have been drastically reduced by the clean air act already, carbon is new driven by a different (perceived) base hazard. The biggest problem with this side of the pollution problem is the restriction on building new cleaner ones keeping older dirtier plants on line simply buying pollution credits. All while waiting on the promise of renewables. Don't get me wrong I think wind and solar will take a big part of the grid eventually but probably not the way those who worship at the "Green Altar" see it nor even close to the timeline they want which is why we have the gap in emission controls.

[GLW]

Why is CO2 the only issue mentioned when discussing the burning of coal or other fossil fuels?....

It is not,...

the global warming / climate change acolytes focus on CO2 because it is easy,...

in the US of A you have at least CAA, CERCLA, CWA, FIFRA, RECRA, SDWA & TSCA which are just the compliance monitoring programs for emissions, etcetera,...

air, water, dispersal media, aerosols, it really goes on and on and on,...

these are the things that all informed realists understand are unavoidable to live at a first world standard of living,...

in any full life cycle assessment of any energy production scheme there are no zero emissions, only managed emissions,...

except for sunlight, we can harness sunlight, we cannot manage it, the sun does not care one whit what we do,...

commercial nukes involve a lot of emissions in the prospecting, mining, transportation, construction, fabrication, fuel manufacture, waste disposal, etcetera,...

plus, there are the logistics of the massive nuke security expenditures in ammunition production, patrol vehicles, weapons production and weapons proficiency,...

all electricity production has these types of costs and emissions,...

the tailings and waste ponds from the rare earth mining and processing creates vast brownfields in far off parts of the world so you can have "green" windmills and your "eco-friendly" Prius,...

BUT,....

you already know the Green Gaia acolytes do not have time for those considerations, that would be called "thinking too much",...

better a single "eco-devil" served by malignant capitalist demons in pitched battle against Hollywood Heroes and Politician Paladins,...

kinda like those stained glass window storyboards you see in some, if not many, old churches,...

stained glass windows which stood as proxies for an illiterate congregation which would or could not read for itself and inform itself,...

   Valid point ...

plus,...what he just said,...

[hamsamich]

Yeah, think "holes in the atmosphere" and "rising sea levels and drastic climate change".  Now out of all the stuff you mentioned, what is going to get the most play?  The stuff B25 mentioned is bad but will people focus on an extra .1% of people dying due to the nasty pollutants you mentioned, or the possibility of the world coming to an end as we know it? CFCs and CO2s become thousands of times more important to those on that side of the agenda due to shock value.  The other stuff pales in comparison due visuals.

Here's why people fret, movies media you name it, example -

[Bonds 25]

I actually do "believe" in accelerated global warming being caused by man. I "know" the oceans are becoming more acidic and I "know" burning fossil fuels emit poisons that in general are worse than CO2.

This is why I can't "believe" the world isn't going batsh*t crazy and building a massive amount of Nuclear Power Plants while also putting massive efforts into establishing next generation reactors. I believe Nuclear Power is the savior.

[Marlin]

I actually do "believe" in accelerated global warming being caused by man. I "know" the oceans are becoming more acidic and I "know" burning fossil fuels emit poisons that in general are worse than CO2.

Can't agree with that but in general no we should not be sh@$ing in our own nest.

This is why I can't "believe" the world isn't going batsh*t crazy and building a massive amount of Nuclear Power Plants while also putting massive efforts into establishing next generation reactors. I believe Nuclear Power is the savior.

Well maybe not the dinosaurs designed in the 60s but I definitely agree about next generation reactors especially molten salt modulars.

[hamsamich]

I'm not sure on the Global warming thing, but I think there is evidence it COULD be happening.  Ok, that's the most I'll share here, for now anyway.  Maybe B25 will get an earful at Columbia sometime.

[Bonds 25]

So I guess it's just coincidence that the natural warming of the earth that usually takes hundreds of thousands of years has now taken a couple hundred years......

And what exactly has taken place the last couple hundred years......what kind of global advancements have been achieved, say compared to the history of Earth? Any differences?

[Bonds 25]

"Well maybe not the dinosaurs designed in the 60s but I definitely agree about next generation reactors especially molten salt modulars."


Those "dinosaurs" are the safest, most efficent way to produce clean energy....

Also....are you saying the Westinghouse AP1000 and the GE ABWR are "dinosaurs"?

[Ksheed]

So I guess it's just coincidence that the natural warming of the earth that usually takes hundreds of thousands of years has now taken a couple hundred years......

And what exactly has taken place the last couple hundred years......what kind of global advancements have been achieved, say compared to the history of Earth? Any differences?

...and it's about time to go to PoliSci.

[Marlin]

Those "dinosaurs" are the safest, most efficent way to produce clean energy....

But not the cheapest or the most flexible for the future of the grid.

Also....are you saying the Westinghouse AP1000 and the GE ABWR are "dinosaurs"?

   Still stuck in the old light water reactor frame of mind. Big companies following Admiral Rickovers selection of type of reactor, kind of a Nuclear Jurassic Plant Park. Nuclear innovation has been stagnant in the big vendors. With so many intriguing concepts out there and people with a vision for the future these plants seem a little like putting lipstick on a pig. Much of what the world in innovating with was in our national labs in the 60s and 70s I think we can do much better. It is a shame that visionaries like Bill Gates has to go to China to explore new nuclear technology.

   "But that's just my opinion I could be wrong." D.M.

[GLW]

So I guess it's just coincidence that the natural warming of the earth that usually takes hundreds of thousands of years has now taken a couple hundred years......

well, first you are wrong:

your statement of fact is natural warming requires hundreds of thousands of years,...

so, if I take the lower end of your range of fact, 200,000 years, and compare that to known and irrefutable facts we develop the following dichotomy:

first the little ice age, a period between about 1300 and 1870 (570 years):

570yrs of known fact / 200,000 years of your statement of fact = your statement of fact being wrong by about 99.72%,...

if I take the last glacial maximum which began to ebb about 22,000 years ago to our current norm:

22,000 years of change / 200,000 years of your statement of fact for change to occur = your statement of fact being wrong by about 89%,...

for the last 500,000 years there have been 12 interglacial periods and 12 glacial maximums of similar definition to the last 22,000 years (the rise of man's civilization has only occurred in this last and current interglacial),...

500,000 / 12 = an average period span of about 42,000 years,...

(keep in mind that the parameter "of similar definition" includes a half dozen periods where the period extremes of cold and warm were greater than the last 22,000 years yet still occurring within the same 42,000 year periodicity),...

now, if I was looking for grant money (you know, pay my mortgage, put my kids through college money) AND I was making computer models to project what future climate might be AND I was part of the solution to that problem I JUST MIGHT have a little bit of bias in how I load my computer model,...

just like if I make my living in 50 year old technology I might have a bias in promoting that technology as the best technology to be part of the solution for tomorrow's energy continuity challenges,...

there's a lot more to all of this,...

but we owe it to ourselves to put out accurate assessments, not trill soundbites laden with inaccurate adjectives and adverbs,...

peace,...GLW 

[GLW]

...Also....are you saying the Westinghouse AP1000 and the GE ABWR are "dinosaurs"?

I would not say they are dinosaurs,...

they are synonymous to building Ford Trimotors with the best of modern materials and engineering tweaks,...

which would produce fabulously reliable and safe aircraft compared to the original Trimotors,...

they would still be Trimotors, and if that's good enough for you: okay then, good for you,...

why are the second worlders building these "old technology" reactors by the score?!?!?!?

precisely because they are old technology,...

there are still steam trains running the rails in Africa,...

old technology which is closer to the standard of living and infrastructure support of Africa's technoenvironment in the bush,...

everybody wants to modernize, not everybody can afford or support modernization to the latest level of technology,...

after they lay down their baseline and fully move into first world hegemony, the second worlders will build the SMRs, molten salts, pebble beds, etcetera,.....

as appropriate that is,...

[Bonds 25]

Thanks for putting in all the effort, guys.

The problem I have with not building the reactors that are available TODAY....is the other wonderful, next generation reactors and SMRs will most likely take a decade (at least) to get the true dinosaurs (NRC) to approve the damn things.....then there is construction....then there is training and licensing the Operators on an entirely new technology. Believe me, I want this more than anything, but I would also like to see AP1000's and ABWR's being put up while we are waiting.

[GLW]

Thanks for putting in all the effort, guys.

The problem I have with not building the reactors that are available TODAY....is the other wonderful, next generation reactors and SMRs will most likely take a decade (at least) to get the true dinosaurs (NRC) to approve the damn things.....then there is construction....then there is training and licensing the Operators on an entirely new technology. Believe me, I want this more than anything, but I would also like to see AP1000's and ABWR's being put up while we are waiting.

now those are good assessments,...

and because of their inherent goodness vis a vis accurate statements of fact and reasoned assessment there is no point / counterpoint debate
to be engaged,...

my assessment is the best, realistic scenario calls for a comprehensive national energy policy which advances commercial nuclear where commercial nuclear is a good fit, with comprehensive streamlining of all those hurdles and challenges you referenced,...

this was done before, about 50 - 55 years ago,...

so, in my odds making of the above paradigm coming to pass:

possibility - 1

probability - poisson dit cygne noir

Enjoy the Day