Smart meters are clearly for the express purpose of managing demand. The only way you can have a grid with unreliable baseload power is to be able to adjust demand as supply fluctuates. And they think this is progress …
Exactly. I've been told that that is already happening in Britain for certain industrial customers and is referred to as 'demand side modulation.' I would say that that is a pretty low quality service to get in the country with the most expensive industrial electricity prices... an example not to follow!
Interesting how the big tech 3 are given seemingly immediate approval to site and to operate new and former nuclear facilities; particularly the 3 mile island plant which was closed down for legitimate safety concerns. For years, utility companies attempting to site a new nuclear power plant were met with intensive siting and operational permitting hurdles along with a great deal of citizen opposition, some very warranted. Gen Z and others may not be aware nor recall the horrific failures of Chernobyl and -much more recently- the Fukushima plant in Japan. The meltdown on these plants reduced surrounding areas to radioactive wastelands, and in the case of seaside Fukushima, concern remains about long term contamination of sea life. Yoo-hoo! Guys. these nuclear power plants require a lot of careful design, construction, maintenance extremely well trained personnel.
While the total silence around their rapid approval and start-up of the new nuclear plants shows the unassailable clout of Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, I find it rather all sobering. I'm not opposed to well-run nuclear plants, but the effortless "go-ahead" given to these nuclear plants does little to confirm the intelligence, competency, and extraordinary care needed to assure their ongooing safety. I find it disturbing how Woke culture disallows criticism of the environmental damage and neglects to examine the economic foolishness of many of their beloved "alternative" energy sources. Equally so, its amazing and creepy how much the woke progressives & the stock market worship their high tech and AI, and how much they are willing to overlook or sacrifice to their high tech gods.
Per my status Three Mile Island did not shut down for 'safety concerns,' but rather for economic reasons, as it was not getting the subsidies for being a clean energy source, which other such sources were. I would argue that nuclear has a very good track record, given that we have only witnessed two major incidents over the course of eighty years, both of which could have been avoided given different human decisions along the operational life-cycle. Moreover, I am not aware of a single military small reactor having caused an incident. I agree that nuclear takes a high effort in training and permitting, but Southern Company has shown that it can be done and has successfully brought a new reactor online this year. That said, I am of course also advocating for research in even more advanced solutions. Breakthroughs don't happen if we don't believe in them.
This incident resulted in major concerns about radioactive fall out leading to citizen pressure to shut down or abandon a number of other nuclear power plants proposed and at least one under construction. For example, the proposed nuclear power plant at Satsop in Washington State; the remains of the "dome" stood in a field in a sparsely populated rural area for years.
Also coming to light was discovery and greater information about the leakage of the radioactive waste buried at Hanford on the Columbia River, also in Washington Statoe. This was orginally believed to be a "safe" disposal site, but it actually still leaks steadily today despite millions poured into attempts to contain discharge.
It may also be helpful to o look up EFSEC, a proposed federal siting proces for energy facilities. It was hoped this process would provide comfort to opponents so that more nuclear facilites could be approved in the face of citizen opposition. But the backdrop was a lot of concern about long term effects of radioactive waste and energy generation. Enough time had passed since the dropping of atomic bonds on Japan in WW2 and stories of the long term effects of radioactive fallout and the devastation this had caused survivors were widely discussed.
I totally agree nuclear power plants can be built and operated safely. Certainly this is true in Europe. However, nuclear power never really caught on in the US because of incidents like the one referenced in the this 1979 NYT article. Things have changed now n part because been so long since nuclear power plants were actively proposed in this country. Frankly, the potential risks and widespread awareness of the safety and environmental concerns are not the topic du jour and have faded from the concerned public eye. But the basic issue remains that you still need someone making sure these facilities are designed, constructed and operated with utmost care. And it begs the question of whether today's wimpy federal agencies will do the tough regulation, inspection and ongoing observation necessary to assure safety standards are followed. This time around I suspect federal agencies completely kow-towed to the billionaire high tech companies eager to expand AI . These big 3 clearly possess the political clout to get their extraordinary energy demands met. Meanwhile although citizens can no longer even buy a dishwasher that sanitizes dishes due to climate change and energy conservation mantras, nothing will be allowed to get in the way of the big 3 pursuing their moneymaking bliss.
Also, I don't buy that Western Europe would be capable of running nuclear reactors safely, but the US would not. There are operational reactors in the US with perfect track records. Likewise in Canada.
I agree that there is a certain lack of caution among some popular figures that talk about nuclear energy as if it has no downsides. Obviously it is a powerful yet dangerous technology that needs to be treated with a lot of respect. But it is still the most obvious, safest, cost effective choice between burning coal, so called "renewables" and striving for a low energy society. The latter scares me the most as it would cause the most damage and death in the nearest future.
Smart meters are clearly for the express purpose of managing demand. The only way you can have a grid with unreliable baseload power is to be able to adjust demand as supply fluctuates. And they think this is progress …
more specifically for the express purpose of control of the users as they deem fit.
Exactly. I've been told that that is already happening in Britain for certain industrial customers and is referred to as 'demand side modulation.' I would say that that is a pretty low quality service to get in the country with the most expensive industrial electricity prices... an example not to follow!
Interesting how the big tech 3 are given seemingly immediate approval to site and to operate new and former nuclear facilities; particularly the 3 mile island plant which was closed down for legitimate safety concerns. For years, utility companies attempting to site a new nuclear power plant were met with intensive siting and operational permitting hurdles along with a great deal of citizen opposition, some very warranted. Gen Z and others may not be aware nor recall the horrific failures of Chernobyl and -much more recently- the Fukushima plant in Japan. The meltdown on these plants reduced surrounding areas to radioactive wastelands, and in the case of seaside Fukushima, concern remains about long term contamination of sea life. Yoo-hoo! Guys. these nuclear power plants require a lot of careful design, construction, maintenance extremely well trained personnel.
While the total silence around their rapid approval and start-up of the new nuclear plants shows the unassailable clout of Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, I find it rather all sobering. I'm not opposed to well-run nuclear plants, but the effortless "go-ahead" given to these nuclear plants does little to confirm the intelligence, competency, and extraordinary care needed to assure their ongooing safety. I find it disturbing how Woke culture disallows criticism of the environmental damage and neglects to examine the economic foolishness of many of their beloved "alternative" energy sources. Equally so, its amazing and creepy how much the woke progressives & the stock market worship their high tech and AI, and how much they are willing to overlook or sacrifice to their high tech gods.
Per my status Three Mile Island did not shut down for 'safety concerns,' but rather for economic reasons, as it was not getting the subsidies for being a clean energy source, which other such sources were. I would argue that nuclear has a very good track record, given that we have only witnessed two major incidents over the course of eighty years, both of which could have been avoided given different human decisions along the operational life-cycle. Moreover, I am not aware of a single military small reactor having caused an incident. I agree that nuclear takes a high effort in training and permitting, but Southern Company has shown that it can be done and has successfully brought a new reactor online this year. That said, I am of course also advocating for research in even more advanced solutions. Breakthroughs don't happen if we don't believe in them.
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/16/archives/three-mile-island-notes-from-a-nightmare-three-mile-island-a.html See info on 1979 radioactive incident at 3 mile island.
This incident resulted in major concerns about radioactive fall out leading to citizen pressure to shut down or abandon a number of other nuclear power plants proposed and at least one under construction. For example, the proposed nuclear power plant at Satsop in Washington State; the remains of the "dome" stood in a field in a sparsely populated rural area for years.
Also coming to light was discovery and greater information about the leakage of the radioactive waste buried at Hanford on the Columbia River, also in Washington Statoe. This was orginally believed to be a "safe" disposal site, but it actually still leaks steadily today despite millions poured into attempts to contain discharge.
It may also be helpful to o look up EFSEC, a proposed federal siting proces for energy facilities. It was hoped this process would provide comfort to opponents so that more nuclear facilites could be approved in the face of citizen opposition. But the backdrop was a lot of concern about long term effects of radioactive waste and energy generation. Enough time had passed since the dropping of atomic bonds on Japan in WW2 and stories of the long term effects of radioactive fallout and the devastation this had caused survivors were widely discussed.
I totally agree nuclear power plants can be built and operated safely. Certainly this is true in Europe. However, nuclear power never really caught on in the US because of incidents like the one referenced in the this 1979 NYT article. Things have changed now n part because been so long since nuclear power plants were actively proposed in this country. Frankly, the potential risks and widespread awareness of the safety and environmental concerns are not the topic du jour and have faded from the concerned public eye. But the basic issue remains that you still need someone making sure these facilities are designed, constructed and operated with utmost care. And it begs the question of whether today's wimpy federal agencies will do the tough regulation, inspection and ongoing observation necessary to assure safety standards are followed. This time around I suspect federal agencies completely kow-towed to the billionaire high tech companies eager to expand AI . These big 3 clearly possess the political clout to get their extraordinary energy demands met. Meanwhile although citizens can no longer even buy a dishwasher that sanitizes dishes due to climate change and energy conservation mantras, nothing will be allowed to get in the way of the big 3 pursuing their moneymaking bliss.
I trust that the entire Wild Horse Wisdom community was already aware of the 1979 incident. But that is not why it closed. In fact, it ran safely for another forty years. Here is the true reason: https://www.reuters.com/article/business/exelon-to-close-three-mile-island-nuclear-plant-in-pennsylvania-on-friday-idUSKBN1W51FC/.
Also, I don't buy that Western Europe would be capable of running nuclear reactors safely, but the US would not. There are operational reactors in the US with perfect track records. Likewise in Canada.
I agree that there is a certain lack of caution among some popular figures that talk about nuclear energy as if it has no downsides. Obviously it is a powerful yet dangerous technology that needs to be treated with a lot of respect. But it is still the most obvious, safest, cost effective choice between burning coal, so called "renewables" and striving for a low energy society. The latter scares me the most as it would cause the most damage and death in the nearest future.