53
Why California Is Reconsidering Its Decision to Shun Nuclear Power
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
53 points (93.4% liked)
News
39156 readers
2649 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Show me a single serious one pls...
The whole concept of baseline production is obsolete. I was the idea of having a steady, cheap base load producer (mostly coal) with a quickly reacting, more expensive peaker (oil or gas) to cover the actual demand.
But coal isn't cheap anymore, neither do we actually want to burn more of it even if it was. And nuclear can't fullfill either role. It's useless as traditional base load in the actual sense of the concept as it's not cheap. It's useless as a peaker.
And renewables plus batteries (both having seen exponentially drops in costs for years now) can actually already cover that base load concept. Get enough capacity to shift the production peak at noon to the demand peak in early evening and you are set (that is in fact what California is already doing).
The actual route to full decarbonisation is that renewables+short-term storage and some long-term storage. And a big part of that long-term storage is power-to-gas (from excess renewable production at peaks) and gas-peakers.
Nuclear can play a role in reducing some of the demand for short-term storage (flattening the curve by always producing at some level) and make electrolysis more economical (not only running with renewable excess power in the day but also at night when demand drops and nuclear still produces). But this is mostly from a perspective of already having nuclear, wanting nuclear for geopolitical reasons and then finding a niche were is can work in the renewable/storage system.
(For reference: RTE, the French grid provider –they have the higher share of nuclear after all–, did a big study about the future of nuclear up to 2050in 2021), modeling a lot of scenarios... Long story short: Renewables, batteries and power-to-gas with peakers is the way to go. Nuclear can work in this setup (at about 35%, 65% renewables) when that's politically demanded.)
These studies generally take a high level approach, but coming from a technical side I fail to see where the grid forming generators will come from: wind & solar cannot be grid forming, I don't think there is enough water to maintain a stable grid. The only way I can see the renewable only setup working in the near future is to change transmission to DC, which has much larger technical limitations than a few nuclear plants. I skimmed the PDF, I didn't see anything addressing that issue, if I missed it please point me in its direction.
Solar and wind are not intrinsically grid forming like traditional power plants. However, grid forming inverters are a solved problem at this point. If grid operators want a large solar or wind farm to be grid forming, it is a relatively low cost to make it so.