Climate activists backed and propagandized by the fossil fuel industry and the KGB.
And now that there are a number of barriers to creating new nuclear, the propaganda has flipped with fossil fuel companies supporting nuclear because they know it'll be decades before anything real can happen.
I have nothing against nuclear and if it can be built I'm for it. But at the moment, solar + battery is quick to deploy and about as cheap as you can get.
> But at the moment, solar + battery is quick to deploy and about as cheap as you can get.
The actual equation is solar + battery + gas fired power plant.
That’s the dirty secret behind intermittent power sources and why fossil fuel companies are all investing in solar and wind. Batteries are simply not enough to face the long term intermittence. It’s purely an intra-day solution at the moment and nobody knows how to actually run a large grid on purely intermittent sources.
Even China is actually aggressively pursuing nuclear at the same time it builds an insane amount of solar and gas fired power plants.
Long distant transmission lines would help with that. Also, I want to point out we need to decarbonize, so I don’t think gas considers all externalities that it causes, like air pollution.
The problem is that people don't really want to pay for it.
When you compare the rates at which people recognize the need to decarbonize, to the rates at which people are willing to pay 20-50% more for green energy, an obvious and expected trend arises.... people overwhelming don't want to put their money where there mouth is. Or they want someone elses money to go where there mouth is.
It needs to be understood that almost all those "green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels" studies use the best case scenario to calculate those values.
To put that another way, gas meets it's ideal pretty much everywhere, whereas green energy meets it's ideal in small, often far from society, spots. Transmission can bridge the gap to a degree, but it's then a cost multiplier.
A carbon tax is a good way to balance this, but man, people vote hard to not have to spend more of their own money. (I don't want to pay for it/I only want it if billionaires pay for it)
If you make the carbon tax revenue neutral, and dividend out the whole take per capita, those below median carbon emissions should end up ahead, and it does end up resting on the wealthy, since carbon emissions generally scale with spending.
I don't know about activists, vut the US green party was influenced by russia for years. There is evidence of influence with Jill Stein for instance. But if you pick a political organization anywhere in the world that doesn't show signs of Russian influence, that would almost be more suspicious.
To pretend that the US "green party" has anything to do whatsoever with the environment is beyond naive, it's completely disconnected from reality.
Neither their policies nor their electorate support the idea that people like Jill Stein are in any way looked at as authorities in any "green" subject.
I don't think that someone that had national relevance for roughly half an election cycle, and who got less than half of one percent of the vote (at the peak of her popularity) has had any influence shaping nuclear opinions.
She's not even on record stating her position, that's how utterly unimportant this issue to Putin / Russia.
I'm not even sure how you think Russia would benefit from less nuclear power plants an entire continent away
> I don't think that someone that had national relevance for roughly half an election cycle, and who got less than half of one percent of the vote (at the peak of her popularity) has had any influence shaping nuclear opinions.
It's not about any one person. You still see this now, where people suggest regulatory reform for the process of building new nuclear plants in the US to lower construction costs, people appear to tell you that nuclear costs too much and should be abandoned, i.e. they use circular logic to present the existence of the problem you're trying to solve as a reason not to try to address it.
The current line of reasoning is something like "solar plus storage is cheaper than nuclear so nuclear must never be attempted", which ignores both any possibility of improving the cost efficiency of nuclear and that the cost comparison they're using is for intra-day storage whereas nuclear also reduces the need for multi-day storage which is significantly more expensive.
> I'm not even sure how you think Russia would benefit from less nuclear power plants an entire continent away
Russia is a petroleum exporting country and petroleum is a global commodity. If the US (or anyone else) uses nuclear instead of fossil fuels then global demand for fossil fuels declines, US natural gas or coal producers instead sell to foreign customers who might have bought gas from Russia, etc.
Notice that the US oil industry has the same incentive. Exxon is very much aligned with Putin on this one and they have lobbyists too.
one of the current approaches is to turn communities against solar and wind projects on the grounds that it's racist or disturbs plant life etc. This has advocates of environmental justice, which is an important concern on its own, weaponized against building renewable energy.
China is eating everyone’s lunch on new(ish) sources of energy because it seems to have basically run out of old(er) ones. The insane amount of coal burning aside, there are e.g. basically as many hydroelectric plants in China as its enormous rivers can support, accompanied by the huge amounts of ecological and societal destruction that those always cause, and that’s still not enough. The buildup of both solar and nuclear energy infrastructure is not motivated by compassion for the environment or (pace George Carlin) the humans that have to live in it, it’s motivated by the cold, hard necessity of powering the industrial base. And if the project can partly fund itself by selling some of the production capacity to others, all the better.
None of this detracts from the quality of the engineering, but it’s important to keep the motivation in view (whether to filter out the propaganda or to try and reproduce something like this at home).
I don’t really care what the motivation is. If it means we get green energy over more coal-fired plants/fossil fuel sources than whatever. Call it Super Awesome MEGA PATRIOT Fuel for all I care. Right now we have an administration touting the virtues of “beautiful clean coal” on its official government website - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/rein...
NIMBY homeowners mostly. For instance, these days the Sierra Club mostly exists to preserve property values by blocking all new green energy construction.
Solar + battery + wind actually do pretty well. There's a bit of a de-correlation between solar and wind that makes the mix more resilient than either alone. We can't do 100% in most places yet, but it's pretty straightforward to move to a much higher percentage of them in our grid mix than we have now, California possibly excepting. (But even in California you see battery starting to extend how much we can do with solar as prices continue to drop.)
And the plummeting price of solar modules makes it more cost effective to over provision for the case of clouds, and/or to mount solar panels to optimize for morning and evening production as well.
California has energy costs more than double most other states so it’s probably not the best argument for “it’s so easy to go mostly renewable.” A lot of things are feasible if you’re willing to [force everyone in the state to] spend 2x. Whatever California is trying to do in the past 20 years has been extraordinarily regressive.
It hasn’t, it is actually showing the way forward for a more dynamic energy mix. Regressive is continuing with the same 150y fossil fuel receipt for energy despite continuous advances in various clean technologies. California has multiple natural issues with regular fires and dry air that makes energy management very expensive.
Our energy costs are due to the distribution network and the massive amount of deferred maintenance on it that has come due in the last decade, accelerated by the Camp fire court case. There was a two year period a few years ago where power went out at least once a week while SDGE replaced every power pole in the rural east county by flying them in on helicopters. That's largely what we're paying for.
You'll see that right now (before solar has really kicked in), The price for the next megawatt hour of generation is $49 -- i.e., under 5c per kWh. That's comparable to the average price in PJM (east coast) at the same time:
The big problem for California is that cheap generation via solar doesn't move the needle as much on consumer bills because of the transmission and distribution costs. In San Francisco, for example the distribution fee is over $0.20/kWh. That's twice what mine is in Pittsburgh. In contrast, the generation pricing is only about $0.04/kWh more than mine:
In terms of consumer bills, California is actually among the states with typical spending on such things. Your actual energy bill in California is not that high. There are 14 American states where residential energy bills are higher than California's.
People are always pointing out the marginal volumetric costs of electricity, which is indeed very high. But that is just reflection of the fact that we use so little energy because of our history of efficiency laws and the mild climate, so the fixed charges and taxes that combine into the volumetric price are much higher than in other states. And our extremely large fleet of behind the meter solar panels also contributes to the higher volumetric price of grid electricity. All together, this doesn't tell us much about whether renewables are a good policy or not.
Agreed. The point I'm trying to make is that the breakdown of California's costs shows that it's not actually the generation cost, i.e., whether or not the generation is solar or fossil is not really the thing that's making the difference.
(When you factor in behind the meter, solar is, in fact, probably reducing the average cost to consumers.)
If the homes heated by gas or oil all switched to grid electricity, that would in all likelihood reduce the marginal volumetric price of electricity by amortizing the fixed costs over a larger volume.
Texas and Florida both have a lot of solar as well, with TX likely passing CA on battery storage over the next few years. Those states also have much cheaper energy than CA.
California's energy problems aren't due to the source of their energy.
Not sure how they're allowed to generate a profit or distribute dividends given the cost of the wildfires started by their complete and total failure to maintain equipment to minimum safety standards.
Molten salt solar power doesn't care. It remains hot.
Advancements in solar also are improving with clouds.
Also, you know, batteries. When someone makes it cost effective to install a device to sell your car battery power on the grid we'll also have a better time managing the grid during spikes... Would be nice if that also did home battery backup in blackouts... 70 kWh would get me through most of the ones I've experienced.
And now that there are a number of barriers to creating new nuclear, the propaganda has flipped with fossil fuel companies supporting nuclear because they know it'll be decades before anything real can happen.
I have nothing against nuclear and if it can be built I'm for it. But at the moment, solar + battery is quick to deploy and about as cheap as you can get.