Comments
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixilu21 wrote
The federal government should heavily fund the nuclear energy and the creation of many micro reactors. It’s the most environmentally friendly thing to do.
The one of the reasons the gov favors the fossil fuel industry is for the military. Fed gov needs to keep it profitable so that we have fuel and fuel production, refinement ability for war.
[deleted] t1_ixireb0 wrote
[deleted]
Time_Yam301 t1_ixjww4w wrote
Putting aside the higher capital costs of nuclear power, there is just as finite a supply of fossil fuels as nuclear.
[deleted] t1_ixjzy3z wrote
[deleted]
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixj07rz wrote
Yeah issue is the there isn’t enough time. We need to go solar and wind rapidly first. People forget about the green house effect. At a certain point, a near point in the future, the positive feed back loop of earth warming and getting continuously hotter becomes unstoppable. Then live in our known universe is gone forever.
[deleted] t1_ixj1bok wrote
[deleted]
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjwpo3 wrote
It’s not too late yet. We just need to deploy it like crazy in the next ten years. Then nuclear. If we miss the deadline, everyone parties and does every vice for ten years then we Jim jones the human species together.
[deleted] t1_ixk00wy wrote
[deleted]
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixk5ust wrote
It’s a joke. Jim Jones. The cult in South America that committed mass suicide by drinking kool aid laced with poison in Jonestown.
I’m saying if we get passed the point of the in which we can’t stop the positive feed back loop of Earth increasingly getting hotter and hotter. We party for ten years or forever how long. Live life to the fullest. No wars. Just fun. When the planet gets so bad, that people will start to have painful deaths full of suffering. Instead of suffering,slowly dying, fighting over the remaining resources until we go extinct. The species commits suicide. It’s not a realistic or a serious suggestion. It was a dark joke.
MightyMason t1_ixkaulu wrote
Funny you don’t see the irony in your Jim Jones analogy and your own train of thought.
You sound like the guy on the corner with the “the end is near sign” those guys have been out there for decades swearing the world is coming to an end tomorrow. And yet here we are.
Lots of good, grounded, realistic, responses from other users in this thread though.
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixke1se wrote
What exactly is your issue with what I said? I already stated nuclear should get even more funding and is the future and better long term then the other renewables. But nuclear is expensive, takes a long time to go live, political redtape, not in my backyardism make it costly, slow and sometimes impossible to get up and running.
Right now with the limited amount of money, the political climate, the current state of the energy industry, the window of time in which we need to decrease emissions, it makes more sense to invest more in solar and wind. We can more quickly reduce emissions which increases the window of time before the earth gets to hot, which gives nuclear more time to improve and become cheaper and more politically favorable.
I did not say that nuclear is bad and that wind and solar are carbon negative or that they produce enough energy to meet all our demands.
Based on the current science, political climate, money and time available, a long with the fact utilities/manufacturers/sellers/technicians/funding/governments have been pushing and have create an environment in which solar and wind are viable to be wildly adopted and installed. Regardless of we should do, that is going to happen.
I’m saying that should happen sooner. In the mean time nuclear gets billions of dollars from the government. It should. The funding, planning and promotion and researching and developing and the building of many more nuclear power plants should happen.
Because nuclear power plants take so long to get up and running usually longer than planned and go over budget
Along with solar and wind being more easily implemented
Push those more now, get emissions downs, which gives us more time, fossil fuels costs and renewable maintenance costs go up, now we can free up and justify more capital and labor to build more nuclear power plants.
Synapse82 t1_ixkhlyp wrote
The weirdest version of happy in this sub. You aren’t the old happy
Also, you forget that we literally destroy the Atmosphere and entire countries to create toxic disposables batteries and plastics that goes into solar.
The mining lithium is destroying this planet to feel good about having your house be solar powered.
We need clean global energy. Nuclear.
10 years to build or less, is not a long time compared to the Slave labor and people dying for rare earth minerals.
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixl0w8y wrote
Bro you know that’s not happening
slipperyrock4 t1_ixj2hu0 wrote
Life will be just fine. People won’t be able to see it though.
Solar and wind do not remove carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. The cheapest most proven method for that are just trees, plants, and other vegetation that then is not combusted.
Nuclear fission can serve as a stepping stone to increasing power storage and supply networks as well as reliability. If fusion is ever obtained then long term nuclear plants are viable. Otherwise, long term we will rely on the giant nuclear reactor 93 million miles away from us.
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjx0jv wrote
I’m not against nuclear, we just need to use other renewables now to slow warming down, while doing that we develop and advance and build nuclear power plant’s more.
You are right reforestation, Algea, energy efficiency, energy use reduce are the fastest ways to drop it. We certainly won’t be fine nor will most of life.
G3Saint t1_ixjn4le wrote
Solar and wind sound nice until it comes to a neighborhood near you. There;s a reason why only 2 large scale wind turbines have been built in the state in the last 10 years. And solar takes up way too much land for minimal energy.
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjvp04 wrote
We don’t have enough time. We have to use solar and wind to drastically reduce emissions. Then we can be sustainable with nuclear. Nuclear takes to much money and time to go live. If we get nuclear going sooner but didn’t decrease emissions enough to stop temps from rising before hand we are fucked. the permafrost thaw and ocean will be releasing methane and greenhouse gasses at an amount and rate at which humans emissions makes zero difference. The planet will continue to warm and warm and we can’t stop that. We won’t survive that. Solar and wind etc are the quickest ways for us to drop emissions to drastically slow that down so that we can then have the time to go nuclear. So nuclear is the future but we need to do other renewables right now so we have the time to go nuclear. Nuclear is hella expensive and takes time to go live. We don’t have the time and money currently
Myotherside t1_ixk95sn wrote
Put it on every roof and we won’t need large scale installations
kril89 t1_ixjglx0 wrote
Wind is a net neutral when it comes to carbon. It takes a TON of energy to create them. In theory with enough extra capacity from wind/solar and nuclear carbon capture becomes feasible. So the runaway problem might not be as big of a problem. But that’s at least 30+ years from now.
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjw9sl wrote
But if we drop emissions now with wind and solar we’ll have more time to advance and get more nuclear live. 30 years is not a long time. Right now I don’t see the money or time or political climate for use to reduce our emissions quickly with nuclear. Go solar wind heavy for ten years, not stopping nuclear development in the mean time. Reduced emissions can extend that window to sixty years and the need for nuclear to fill the void of fossil fuels will be more clear and politically favorable.
bigfoot822 t1_ixjp5cx wrote
The problem is we have been saying there isn't enough time for the last 40-45 years. I have no issues with wind and solar but it is not a sustainable base load for the grid, take a look at Germany after they closed their nuclear industry. In order to make wind and solar a possibility we need to develop storage that isn't there yet, or we could work on nuclear now and have a chance of stemming the tide
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjuasz wrote
I get your point. My point is our only option is to greatly and rapidly expand solar, wind, hydro in like ten to twenty years. Because that’s the quickest way to lower emissions to the point we don’t cause the unstoppable feed back cycle. Obviously nuclear is greener and more sustainable and the to long term solution. Ideally 50-60 years ago, we would have invested way way way way more into nuclear and energy efficiency along with renewables. We don’t have enough time currently to invest into nuclear more or reallocate funds from renewables to nuclear. Nuclear takes too long to go live without red tape. We need to get emissions down now. Then go more to nuclear. If we go nuclear now at the expense of other renewables, we won’t get emissions down fast enough. Yeah we’ll have sustainable energy with nuclear sooner but it would be too late. Us reducing emissions then won’t stop the feed back cycle, we are toast. We would have been better off just living it up emitting more emissions and all agreeing at a certain date fir ever country launching their nuclear weapons so we die quicker. Humans won’t survive but life might. Maybe the nuclear winner and removal of man will allow for the planet to heal.
WengFu t1_ixjbvq4 wrote
The feds already provide multiple subsidies for nuclear power industry, including billions direct tax credits and a gauranteed insurance program.
iwanttobehappy2022 t1_ixjwejl wrote
We need more. But you are right it’s expensive and takes too long to go live. Solar and wind funding needs to increase
eat_my_shorts_Reddit t1_ixigwx8 wrote
Right. This wouldn’t be an issue if there were more nuclear plants in the area
Ok-Tangerine9469 t1_ixj8dub wrote
My dad worked at millstone, we grew up with "go nukes" bumper sticker in garage. Doesn't help problem but we were pro nuke family. It put food on the table.
WengFu t1_ixjbddw wrote
They closed the nuclear power plants because they were antiques and it wasn't profitable to run them.
If it was profitable to build and operate new nuclear power stations, they would be hard at work building and operating new ones right now.
HubcapMotors t1_ixjjjs0 wrote
Does it need to be profitable, though?
I mean, I get how a for-profit business needs to be profitable. But this is power generation, an essential part of a modern economy. We don't need a profit motive to make these nuclear plants.
G3Saint t1_ixjnfsg wrote
this is a free market economy, power plants - solar gas wind nuke coal , are built by companies, not the government.
HubcapMotors t1_ixjvd9m wrote
There are 44 million electric customers served by public utilities or not for profit co-ops: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40913
And ten percent of electricity generated in the US is generated in public power plants: https://www.publicpower.org/public-power/stats-and-facts
So it is a thing, we just need to make sure it's a thing here in Connecticut.
G3Saint t1_ixjvoxr wrote
Oh, correct. But it is occurring in Connecticut.- wallingfird, jewett city, groton, third district of Norwalk.
Charley2014 t1_ixjwayk wrote
To be honest, I don’t think a lot of people even know the meaning of a free market economy or how it applies to their day to day life.
WengFu t1_ixjrvjy wrote
You are preaching to the choir but, unfortunately, that is not how our system works.
CoarsePage t1_ixjqy4v wrote
It is profitable, but riskier. At least that was the analysis 15 or so years ago when the market decided on natural gas as the "best" option for power generation in New England.
jabbadad2 t1_iy0zkbf wrote
It was shortsighted decisionmaking. At the time they seemed expensive to maintain. In today's economy and energy "shortage" they are a bargain. Solar and wind are no bargain, environmentally wasteful and only benefit China.
WengFu t1_iy12qtg wrote
Yes, but what solar power generation facility failure has resulted in 20 mile exclusion zones and cleanup costs approaching $1 trillion USD?
PoorInCT t1_ixkwtav wrote
Weren't all the pipes scarred by neutrons and too brittle
StretchLimo66 t1_ixm0sfj wrote
Forget what exactly I was watching but it was an interview with a career Nasa scientist and his work on climate change. It was the Clinton administration that put the kibosh on federal funding furthering nuclear research into the most modern reactors. Keeping in mind Fukushima being the most recent accidental nuclear crisis that reactor was actually quite old and this guy was talking about how the modern reactors that were being designed were basically incapable of meltdown....until the federal government pulled funding for their development.
I'm assuming it is impossible/ illegal to work on a nuclear reactors if you aren't the federal government these days.
TreeEleben t1_ixj0c0r wrote
We will never see more nuclear plants. They need to be placed near water for cooling, and the rich who own property near water simply won't allow a plant to be built where they can see it and anti nuclear activists will protest violently against it. Same with new pipelines. Rich land owners and environmental activist organizations will stop any new construction.
Poor people in Connecticut aren't wanted or welcome here. The rich can afford to pay these insane rates so they don't care.
Money_Whisperer t1_ixl1ybh wrote
We truly live in strange times, where environmentalists, climate change activists, and big oil work together to fight against nuclear power. The latter takes advantage of the formers idealism and perfectionism to blunt progress. Nuclear is such an obvious choice when renewables are potentially a century or more away from being able to adequately serve our needs.
-ctinsider OP t1_ixicuws wrote
TL;DR: Experts and state leaders say it could take up to a decade or more to solve the state’s high electricity prices.
Why are CT costs higher than the national average?
Even before the proposed Eversource and UI rate hikes, CT’s electricity costs put it in the top five most expensive states, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Much of the reason for those costs has to do with the region’s reliance on natural gas to fuel its power plants, along with a limited supply of cheaper, renewable alternatives such as hydroelectric or solar power.
Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine has also led to higher natural gas prices in particular.
Short-term solutions
We’re mostly out of luck. State officials have already said they have little authority to oppose the price increases, which will last from January until June.
Some households may be eligible for the Connecticut Energy Assistance Program, where you can receive $200 to $600 depending on income level and household size.
Some energy officials have proposed waiving the Jones Act, a federal law requiring that cargo transported between U.S. ports be carried on American ships.
In an October letter to President Joe Biden, Eversource CEO Joseph Nolan said that such a waiver would allow foreign-flagged vessels carrying liquid natural gas to stop at multiple U.S. ports, including import facilities in Everett, Massachusetts. Nolan also proposed using the Defense Production Act to boost domestic energy supplies.
Long-term solutions
A longer-term solution to increasing the supply of natural gas to New England would likely require adding additional transmission pipelines beyond the three that currently serve Connecticut, officials said, though doing so would be a costly initiative that could take years and would likely meet fierce opposition from environmental groups.
The pipeline infrastructure that transports gas has not been updated to meet the region’s demand, particularly in wintertime.
The CEO of Avangrid Networks, the utility division of United Illuminating's parent company, pointed to the decommissioning of four nuclear power plants in New England in recent decades as another cause of the reliance on natural gas.
“If we had more pipelines into the region, which is something we may need to consider someday, that would I think help to stabilize prices,” said Frank Reynolds, the president and CEO of United Illuminating.
Several of the state’s top officials, including Gov. Ned Lamont and his commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Katie Dykes, have instead pointed to the state’s efforts to transition away from fossil fuels entirely by 2040 as a vital component to reducing energy costs.
The earliest estimates for the completion of grid-scale renewable energy projects — such as a wind farm slated to be built off the coast of Rhode Island — are measured in years, however, and even then they are likely to account for only a fraction of the region’s energy needs.
- Casey
psu1989 t1_ixk1zhe wrote
"Limited supply of solar". Funny
StretchLimo66 t1_ixm2yk6 wrote
FRANK REYNOLDS IS THE CEO OF UI!
foodcoma85 t1_ixixpcn wrote
Nuclear energy should be the center of a clean energy future. Generation 4 reactor tech is as safe and clean as they come. I would also very much be in favor of constructing additional natural gas pipelines for New England.
youngestalma t1_ixjykhn wrote
Why build more pipelines that will take decades to complete at the same time as we are trying to reduce how much gas we use? That would be massively expensive and lock us into a ton in sunk costs.
foodcoma85 t1_ixjyvh6 wrote
I think no matter what there’s going to be a need for a large amount of NG in the northeast. Many homes just won’t convert away from it.
youngestalma t1_ixk0647 wrote
Sure, but even reducing our usage of natural gas for electricity generation makes the need for more pipelines significantly lower. Our capacity is only strained because gas usage for heating+electricity generation has increased the last 20 years. If we decrease usage from where we are now then we will be fine.
Myotherside t1_ixk8vda wrote
But then how could we guarantee increased profits for fossil fuel companies?
Think of the oil companies for once /s
kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixj5fyb wrote
- Cover more than just 30% of solar installations on houses.
- Require solar in all new construction
- Invest in nuclear.
learner77 t1_ixjptgx wrote
Yup, more everything: nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass… and maybe a bit more efficiency/conservation?
kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixk29qn wrote
I’d agree, but Americans are not very good at that.
Money_Whisperer t1_ixl2b8a wrote
The problem with solar in CT is we don’t get a ton of sunlight. I was just in Arizona and it was nutty man, they have literal miles of solar panels set up in the desert. Some places are gonna be better than others at generating renewable energy. That’s fine. There’s plenty of energy for everyone as long as we have the grid for it and the ability to properly store it.
We don’t right now, and it’ll take a century to have the kind of tech that can do it. Nuclear is a stopgap so that we buy ourselves time while we figure out the numerous logistical issues with renewables. It could last us 10,000 years if we needed it. It’s truly a gift that we ignore
kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixlpvso wrote
Everyone I know with solar in CT is making more than they use or close to that, so pair that with nuclear and I think we have winter/night pretty much covered.
ImpecableCoward t1_ixj90qz wrote
The first point is useless. The more financial incentives the gov gives away, the higher the prices companies will charge. Effectively nullifying the incentive.
kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixjbh19 wrote
Please provide any data that proves that. From what I have seen, it is the opposite.
Aaron351 t1_ixjv1iv wrote
Do you have data to share with your anecdote?
kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixk25v5 wrote
I don’t think I need an article for common sense. Plus, you are the one making an argument that conflicts with basic economics.
Aaron351 t1_ixk4v12 wrote
I’m not making any argument, just find it funny the person demanding data to back a claim is providing counter argument in the form of an anecdote.
iCUman t1_ixj0333 wrote
This isn't 60 years in the making. It's 30. When the government got out of the power business (can't say that I blame them - the legacy costs of our generation plants were being kicked down the road like everything else at the time, and without divestment, we would've faced enormous cost increases one way or another), private investment became the decider in how to deploy new generating facilities. It stands to reason that capital would chase the most economical option for power generation, and given that natural gas is essentially a byproduct of oil production, it has emerged as the "fuel of choice" for those seeking to deploy new generation.
Now, the question I have is why did ISO NE approve the development of new natural gas generation facilities knowing full well that those facilities lacked sufficient supply to generate fuel? Surely proper due diligence would have revealed that increased pressure on our supply caused by the deployment of these facilities would result in what we're facing today. So was the decision to allow the construction of these facilities done without proper due diligence, or was this result intended? Either way, it appears to me that ISO NE has violated their responsibility to New England energy consumers and those in charge should be held accountable.
CoarsePage t1_ixjr69l wrote
Pipeline is not the only source of supply. Rail and road freight are adequate to supply natural gas plants.
DarkDeSantis t1_ixidh9a wrote
Lol no, the high costs IS the solution. Price the poor out, it's the CT motto
TituspulloXIII t1_ixii8ct wrote
Anyone that doesn't plan on moving anytime soon should be putting panels on their roof (buy don't lease!)
They will certainly pay for themselves at these rates
[deleted] t1_ixirixz wrote
[deleted]
Prestigious-Tie2049 t1_ixja065 wrote
We need more hamsters. More wheels.
More fat hogs to crank
USAroAce t1_ixjpezl wrote
Millstone couldn’t build another reactor until this year when they gave them a carve out from the moratorium. Any new reactors on new land still can’t because this moratorium still exists for the rest of the state.
CtForrestEye t1_ixifrgy wrote
Most solar systems would be paid off in less time than that.
Johnnie-1 t1_ixmwrgx wrote
Or just move to Wallingford
Ordinary_Guitar_5074 t1_ixj7q2r wrote
I thought the solar panels on our roofs was supposed to fix this? Oh and what’s this you want us to buy electric lawn mowers, chain saws and CARS? And you want us to replace our oil and gas furnaces and stoves for… electric? The fix is in folks.
TheOkayestName t1_ixjujwp wrote
In other words, the democrats and GOP don’t care about their constituents.
kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixlpz5w wrote
This is a given.
TheOkayestName t1_ixmy6zq wrote
“BUT STEFANOWSKIIIII!”
kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ixnz83x wrote
He is tall and handsome.
Magmaster12 t1_ixjw81n wrote
At this point we could end up with rolling blackouts like certain third world nations.
ctusa73 t1_ixknl6b wrote
Shit we might be waiting decades to buy leagal weed in ct
Usedtoknowsomeone46 t1_ixkw89h wrote
Humanity won't last that long.
Temporary-Car7981 t1_ixl0loo wrote
Or, we could all reduce our usage, install solar panels, and explore regional wind projects.
G3Saint t1_ixlxdb3 wrote
true dat! It's the easiest route. and a few lawn mounts where feasible
StretchLimo66 t1_ixm4403 wrote
Informative interview on a leading climate scientist James Hansen on nuclear energy. Note it has long been known that renewable energy is not a viable replacement for our energy needs. This interview is OLD.
Note it was the Clinton administration that stopped the development of a commercially viable Gen 4 reactor after pressure from anti nuclear lobby.
Synapse82 t1_ixiglhf wrote
Shouldn’t have closed the nuclear power plants, literally clean energy fought against by people who want clean energy + money. (Solar, batteries, renewables)