[Doly]

We are going in the opposite direction from what was predicted to happen to subsidies by renewable energy advocates years ago.

The problem, as Charles Hall pointed out a long time ago, is that renewables are relatively low EROEI, and unlikely to ever become very high EROEI. So no, they were never going to be as cheap as fossil fuels in their heyday. Whatever Adam likes to say, there is in fact a rough correlation between EROEI and cost. Very rough, but it's definitely there. Or, if you want to look at it this way, Frederick Soddy was on to something when he wrote about economy.

[AdamB]

We are going in the opposite direction from what was predicted to happen to subsidies by renewable energy advocates years ago.

The problem, as Charles Hall pointed out a long time ago, is that renewables are relatively low EROEI, and unlikely to ever become very high EROEI.

And you figure that a fisheries ecologist had this all figured out before, or after, he was discredited using his net energy ideas in the past? And the good news being, there is no more requirement that a world only use high EROEI processes rather than low ones than fish swim in deep water rather than shallow. Do humans tend to prefer the cheap and easy? Sure. But preferring, and requiring, are two different things. And in neither case do I ask a fisheries ecologist about it. I ask them about fish stuff.

So no, they were never going to be as cheap as fossil fuels in their heyday. Whatever Adam likes to say, there is in fact a rough correlation between EROEI and cost. Very rough, but it's definitely there. Or, if you want to look at it this way, Frederick Soddy was on to something when he wrote about economy.

Very rough indeed. And so what? Are you familiar with Charlies's work where he converted energy metrics, that he didn't have, into DOLLAR metrics, which he did from well AFE's drilled in Pennsylvania, in order to form some of his post-discredited ideas? Do you understand how building that relationship then builds into the result this correlation? What might you call that Doly, a naturally occurring correlation, or one DESIGNED within the work itself?

I have no objection to humans liking easy, and easy can be equated with less work delivering more work being a good thing. And cheaper than the alternative. And all you've done is just argued that things gradually will get more expensive. I have no objection to that as a working assumption. No need to bring EROEI into it at all, let alone Charlie "gee I wish I'd never demonstrated so early in my career that I don't know squat about net energy" Hall involved.

[Doly]

And you figure that a fisheries ecologist had this all figured out before, or after, he was discredited using his net energy ideas in the past?

When you say "discredited", what exactly are you talking about?

Are you familiar with Charlies's work where he converted energy metrics, that he didn't have, into DOLLAR metrics, which he did from well AFE's drilled in Pennsylvania, in order to form some of his post-discredited ideas?

I suppose you are talking about this:

http://theoildrum.com/node/3810

Do you understand how building that relationship then builds into the result this correlation? What might you call that Doly, a naturally occurring correlation, or one DESIGNED within the work itself?

I can see your qualms here. However, my reason to say there is a rough correlation wasn't that particular study by Hall. I deduce it from first principles of economics.

It's generally recognized that the cost of labour is part of the price of anything. But why should it make any difference that the work is done by a human, an animal or a machine? From the point of view of money, you could draw the line at any place you want, though the way you interpret the results would be different, of course. If you interpret as "work" all the three options, saying that something is low EROEI is pretty similar to saying that something requires a lot of labour, in economic terms. And it isn't precisely news that something labour-intensive is usually expensive.

And all you've done is just argued that things gradually will get more expensive. I have no objection to that as a working assumption. No need to bring EROEI into it at all, let alone Charlie "gee I wish I'd never demonstrated so early in my career that I don't know squat about net energy" Hall involved.

What is your explanation for why things gradually will get more expensive, then?

[AdamB]

And you figure that a fisheries ecologist had this all figured out before, or after, he was discredited using his net energy ideas in the past?

When you say "discredited", what exactly are you talking about?

Are you familiar with doing research as part of your paid profession? Or is your interest more related to noting ideas of folks you like without thought or question as to the past usefulness or accuracy of their work?

His published research discredited by...you know...reality, and I highly recommend Figure 2.

Hall, C.A.S. and C.J. Cleveland. 1981. Petroleum drilling and production in the United States: Yield per effort and net energy analysis. Science 211: 576-579

Are you familiar with Charlies's work where he converted energy metrics, that he didn't have, into DOLLAR metrics, which he did from well AFE's drilled in Pennsylvania, in order to form some of his post-discredited ideas?

I suppose you are talking about this:

http://theoildrum.com/node/3810

Of course not. I am referring to some late 1980's work that Charlie was involved with that was published in the usual way, not the kind of crap that the internet is good for, let alone TOD and the kind of half baked speculation and proclamations that were famous for.

Do you understand how building that relationship then builds into the result this correlation? What might you call that Doly, a naturally occurring correlation, or one DESIGNED within the work itself?

I can see your qualms here. However, my reason to say there is a rough correlation wasn't that particular study by Hall. I deduce it from first principles of economics.

Here is an article on the first five principles of economics. The first listed is The Opportunity Cost Concept.

It's generally recognized that the cost of labour is part of the price of anything.

Can you fit that into the first of, or any of, the five listed? I read your explanation after this first sentence, and it does not resemble a principle, but an argument.

Not to be rude, and willing to admit that while I have certainly passed my 10,000th hour of economic training, my work is all about practical applications, particularly as they relate to the field of oil and gas development, from the micro level of a well, to the global resource, development, transport and ultimately demand centers. And for the life of me I didn't recognize even what argument you were making, as compared to using some more basic, tried and true rules that are robust enough that you can even solve peak oil with them.

And all you've done is just argued that things gradually will get more expensive. I have no objection to that as a working assumption. No need to bring EROEI into it at all, let alone Charlie "gee I wish I'd never demonstrated so early in my career that I don't know squat about net energy" Hall involved.

What is your explanation for why things gradually will get more expensive, then?

One of the most basic laws of economics there is, supply and demand. The same one that works to solve peak oil, a a matter of fact. To most folks with any involvement in economics, you don't even need words, you can just SEE the relationship http://www2.york.psu.edu/~dxl31/econ14/pizza_eq.png in a single graph.

As for your statement that things gradually get more expenisve, you'd have to be more specific. Here is the real price for a globally importat commodity spanning parts of 3 centuries now, and its price varies between gradually getting more expensive....and then.....not.

Real Oil Prices Since 1861

https://assets.weforum.org/editor/OHpNY ... Rc0v7k.png

[Tanada]

California proposes to extend life of last nuclear plant



Governor Gavin Newsom talks to reporters during a press conference at the construction site of a water desalination plant in Antioch, Calif., Aug. 11, 2022. | Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo

Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed keeping open California’s last nuclear plant for up to another 10 years as the state wrestles with how to meet power demand while it reduces its reliance on fossil fuels for energy.

Plans to start closing the Diablo Canyon Power Plant over the next three years would be halted at a cost of up to $1.4 billion under draft legislation Newsom sent to legislators late Thursday, angering some of the governor’s environmentalist allies.

Diablo Canyon provides nearly a tenth of the state’s electrical power. Critics have long sought its closure for reasons that include the potential danger of a radiation leak because of earthquakes along the seismically active central coast of California. It was scheduled to close by 2025.

The proposed legislation would direct the California Public Utilities Commission to set a new closure date of Oct. 31, 2029 for one unit, and Oct. 31, 2030, for the other, according to the governor’s office. By 2026, regulators could consider an extension, but not beyond Oct. 31, 2035.

The bill would carve out an exemption from state regulations to allow operators to maintain operations at the plant without conducting extensive technical analysis of the environmental effects.

Extending the life of the nuclear plant would come at a cost. Pacific Gas & Electric, which operates the plant, applied to the U.S. Department of Energy’s $6 billion program to preserve the operations of nuclear power plants — though it’s unclear how much will be granted, or when. The language proposed by Newsom’s office this week would allow the state to grant PG&E a $1.4 billion forgivable loan to cover the costs of relicensing. Any extension would additionally require approvals by federal, state and local regulatory entities, the governor’s office said.

PG&E said it is prepared to keep the plant running. “We are proud of the role that DCPP plays in our state, and we stand ready to support should there be a change in state policy, to help ensure grid reliability for our customers and all Californians at the lowest possible cost,” the utility said in a statement.

Newsom in recent weeks has been praised for his calls for bold action on climate change, which includes speeding up the state’s carbon neutrality goals and transition to renewable energy. But news of this proposed extension for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant angered environmental advocates, who lambasted the governor for proposing the state circumvent its environmental protection laws to keep the plant going.

Newsom drew criticism this year for proposing legislation that would allow the state to buy more fossil fuel-powered electricity in an emergency. Legislators, some of them reluctantly, passed that measure with the hope the state would use its remaining $3.8 billion in the energy budget for more ambitious climate action.

A joint statement from Environment California, Friends of the Earth and the Natural Resources Defense Council said legislators should reject Newsom’s new bill “out of hand.”

“The findings used to justify these extraordinary provisions include no citations to published studies by any California regulator or agency recommending a further life extension for Diablo Canyon because there are none,” the statement said. “With Governor Newsom and the legislature working to appropriate climate budget funds and advance ambitious climate legislation in the waning days of the legislative session, this proposal is a dangerous and costly distraction.”

The governor’s communications director, Erin Mellon, said the state is focused on maintaining energy reliability while accelerating efforts to combat climate change.

“The Governor supports keeping all options on the table as we build out our plan to ensure reliable energy this summer and beyond,” Mellon said in a statement. “This includes considering a limited term extension of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, which continues to be an important resource as we transition away from fossil fuel generation to greater amounts of clean energy, with the goal of achieving 100 percent clean electric retail sales by 2045.”

POLITICO

[AdamB]

My experience with organizations devoted to causes is that 80% of the money goes to the organization and 20% to the cause- often it results in a 5% change in behavior.

I've worked in the voluntary sector, both as volunteer and paid, and in one of my positions I worked with many other voluntary organizations, so I got a good overview.....

Excellent story.

[Doly]

Are you familiar with doing research as part of your paid profession?

Nope, I don't get paid for doing research. As I have said before, I'm an amateur researcher, not a pro.

Or is your interest more related to noting ideas of folks you like without thought or question as to the past usefulness or accuracy of their work?

No, my interest is related to noting ideas I like, without thought or question as to whether the people who had them also had some other ideas that were bad.

His published research discredited by...you know...reality, and I highly recommend Figure 2.

Hall, C.A.S. and C.J. Cleveland. 1981. Petroleum drilling and production in the United States: Yield per effort and net energy analysis. Science 211: 576-579

Oh, yes, I remember we talked about this one before. Figure 2 is where he specifically mentions that he didn't include the latest oil discoveries. Which simply proves that he was being too conservative.

Can you fit that into the first of, or any of, the five listed? I read your explanation after this first sentence, and it does not resemble a principle, but an argument.

It's an argument based on first principles. And when I said "first principles" I don't mean that I got my ideas from some modern economics textbook that made a bullet-point list of principles of economics. I got my ideas from reading some of the original material of the early writers on the field of economics, because I heavily suspect that most famous economists post-WWII have been very busy saying whatever rich people wanted to hear. In particular, I'm referring to the labor theory of value.

One of the most basic laws of economics there is, supply and demand.

So you accept there is a crunch on supply. Do you accept the crunch on supply is likely to continue for the foreseeable future?

As for your statement that things gradually get more expenisve, you'd have to be more specific.

I was as vague as you were.

[C8]

TerraPower, a company working on small-scale nuclear reactor development backed by Bill Gates, has raised $750 million in investment, including from South Korea's second-largest conglomerate, to pursue its plan to manufacture mini-reactors.

TerraPower, a nuclear energy technology company, raised the funding co-led by Bill Gates to manufacture nuclear reactors that would be cheaper than conventional reactors.

SK Inc, part of South Korea's SK Group, invested $250 million in TerraPower in the fundraising, the company said on Monday.

As the world looks to cut carbon emissions from energy sources, Gates has been betting on small nuclear reactors that could have lower costs than the typical reactors used in nuclear power generation plants. At the same time, nuclear energy generation is zero-emission.

Last year, TerraPower picked a remote coal town in western Wyoming as the site of its first innovative nuclear power plant. The U.S. Department of Energy welcomed the plans and said last November it was "extremely excited about this project."

A small Wyoming town will lead the way to the future? Apparently.

[AdamB]

Or is your interest more related to noting ideas of folks you like without thought or question as to the past usefulness or accuracy of their work?

No, my interest is related to noting ideas I like, without thought or question as to whether the people who had them also had some other ideas that were bad.

Well, that is a good answer, sort of. So you like an idea, the credibility of the author being irrelevant, and then...you study it? Research it? Decide if the, in this case, previous discredited conclusions were drawn in error because of the data, or suppositions, or poor thinking on the part of the original claiment?

His published research discredited by...you know...reality, and I highly recommend Figure 2.
Hall, C.A.S. and C.J. Cleveland. 1981. Petroleum drilling and production in the United States: Yield per effort and net energy analysis. Science 211: 576-579

Oh, yes, I remember we talked about this one before. Figure 2 is where he specifically mentions that he didn't include the latest oil discoveries. Which simply proves that he was being too conservative.

Indeed. And a common claim for peak oil methods getting it wrong.

So now I get to demonstrate why I asked about your familiarity with research professionally.

Hubbert published in the late 1960's how to correct for being too conservative. The method was employed by the USGS in 1975 in Geologic Circular 725, Methodology Chapter, approx page 25. Discovery process modeling was being published by the USGS in 1980 to make sure the inexpert and careless weren't being too "conservative" when doing their work. And before someone complains that gee, how could Charlie be expected to like do...RESEARCH....when it was published so near his work, well then he obviously missed the classic reference for the origins of this research, to whit,

Arps, J. J., and Roberts, T. G., 1958, Economics of drilling for Cretaceous oil on the east flank of the Denver-Julesburg basin: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 42, no. 11, p. 2549-2566.

So Charlie couldn't for the life of him find alternatively 2 year old published research from THE leading research organization on this topic, 7 year old publications from the leading researchers on how NOT to be conservative using 15 year old research from Hubbert himself, or 22 year old research that was the origin story of the entire concept, because, you know, fishing doesn't teach you Geocience 101?

Do you know why Charlie missed all this? Because to those of us who aren't amateur researchers (which alleged includes Charlie), the most likely answer CAN'T be "I was too conservative".

It's an argument based on first principles. And when I said "first principles" I don't mean that I got my ideas from some modern economics textbook that made a bullet-point list of principles of economics. I got my ideas from reading some of the original material of the early writers on the field of economics, because I heavily suspect that most famous economists post-WWII have been very busy saying whatever rich people wanted to hear. In particular, I'm referring to the labor theory of value.

Well, then we can discuss your ideas and arguments rather than pretending they are first principles just because you call it that, giving a priority it certainly may not have.

One of the most basic laws of economics there is, supply and demand.

So you accept there is a crunch on supply. Do you accept the crunch on supply is likely to continue for the foreseeable future?

Define "crunch". I know there is a 3 way relationship between supply, demand and price, and no part of the intersection of those 2 curves is called "crunch" that I have ever been aware of..

If I insert "high price" as a substitute for what you are calling "crunch", I would say no, I do not expect high prices to continue into the foreseeable future.

As for your statement that things gradually get more expenisve, you'd have to be more specific.

I was as vague as you were.

Well I would be happy to be more specific, but when you use the word "crunch" to define something on a supply/demand/price curve, we're all just arm waving here.

I've got no beef with independent research, but you didn't for a second do yours on Charlie's referenced work. When finished with a publication, I hand my work off to a pack of ravenous wolves who want to see the ideas torn down to atoms. The proof of the research is how well they can't do it. Who do you use for your research reviews? Folks in your area of expertise, or experts in the research field the idea you like is in?

[theluckycountry]

I don't think profit should be what decides what gets or doesn't get done where it comes to energy. Energy is too important to allow it to be available or not depending on whether an investor makes money out of it.

HaHaHaHa. You're advocating the business model of the USSR, not the capitalist West. HaHa
Dear oh dear you write some funny Doly.

[theluckycountry]

I think mini reactors are great, as long as they keep them the hell away from Australia. Preferably North of the equator.

[vtsnowedin]

I think mini reactors are great, as long as they keep them the hell away from Australia. Preferably North of the equator.

If the economies of the Northern hemisphere go toes up due to nuclear accidents how do you think Australia would get along without having them to trade with?

[Doly]

So you like an idea, the credibility of the author being irrelevant, and then...you study it? Research it? Decide if the, in this case, previous discredited conclusions were drawn in error because of the data, or suppositions, or poor thinking on the part of the original claiment?

I study and research the idea. And if I see a study that seems to be in error, I try to figure out what the error was. Or whether the study can be considered to be correct, within the limitations of the study.

Do you know why Charlie missed all this? Because to those of us who aren't amateur researchers (which alleged includes Charlie), the most likely answer CAN'T be "I was too conservative".

No, I don't know. Are you suggesting that Charlie was deliberately alarmist?

Well, then we can discuss your ideas and arguments rather than pretending they are first principles just because you call it that, giving a priority it certainly may not have.

The labor theory of value is highly respected in Russia and China. Just because Western economists don't usually give it priority, it doesn't mean they are right in not giving it priority.

Define "crunch".

A supply crunch is a period during which supply is lower than demand.

If I insert "high price" as a substitute for what you are calling "crunch", I would say no, I do not expect high prices to continue into the foreseeable future.

Why not?

Who do you use for your research reviews? Folks in your area of expertise, or experts in the research field the idea you like is in?

I published and was reviewed in The Oil Drum, back when it was active. I'd call them experts in the research field of the idea I was interested in.

As for my area of expertise, I would describe it as an emerging field that isn't well developed yet. At the time when I published in The Oil Drum, I didn't even know that its real-world name is cliodynamics (at least, by one school of thought - I think it's new enough that when it's better developed it may be commonly known by a different name). That makes it difficult to find good places to send research to.

[AdamB]

I think mini reactors are great, as long as they keep them the hell away from Australia. Preferably North of the equator.

If the economies of the Northern hemisphere go toes up due to nuclear accidents how do you think Australia would get along without having them to trade with?

Or build their cars for them, let them buy military hardware that isn't just hammered pot metal boomerangs, or give them an intellectual, economic and technological ideal to aspire to when the 1 in a 1,000,000 yearns to not be a Chinese serf?

[AdamB]

So you like an idea, the credibility of the author being irrelevant, and then...you study it? Research it? Decide if the, in this case, previous discredited conclusions were drawn in error because of the data, or suppositions, or poor thinking on the part of the original claiment?

I study and research the idea. And if I see a study that seems to be in error, I try to figure out what the error was. Or whether the study can be considered to be correct, within the limitations of the study.

So did you use Charlie's interesting idea, and correct for his mistakes when you used it?

Do you know why Charlie missed all this? Because to those of us who aren't amateur researchers (which alleged includes Charlie), the most likely answer CAN'T be "I was too conservative".

No, I don't know. Are you suggesting that Charlie was deliberately alarmist?

I'm suggesting that doing research, amateur, independent, or otherwise, involves more than liking an idea. And I've demonstrated that your statement from Charlie proves only that he didn't correct for known, published and quantified geoscience state of the art work at its time.

And while Charlie's idea might be terribly interesting, the work referenced was GIGO, because of what he told you. I assume as a modeler you know what GIGO is, and the explicit consequences of it.

Well, then we can discuss your ideas and arguments rather than pretending they are first principles just because you call it that, giving a priority it certainly may not have.

The labor theory of value is highly respected in Russia and China. Just because Western economists don't usually give it priority, it doesn't mean they are right in not giving it priority.

Well, I can't argue with where it may or may not be valued. But your examples are a failed communist state now totalitarian and headed back to Second World status (with nukes), and the ChiComs who aren't abashed at all about how great Communism is. So if this labor theory of value is respected by them, it is because the state requires it and it meets their ends in some way. No one should discount Chinese brain power, or the power of the Communists to use whatever theory, truncheon or forced sterilization they see fit on their people to achieve their ends.

How well did this labor theory of value work out during The Great Leap Forward?

Define "crunch".

A supply crunch is a period during which supply is lower than demand.

So...an upward price pressure. Fine. And? As one example, we've had an upward price pressure since Covid ended and suddenly everyone wanted to fly and cruise and drive. So a "crunch" arrived. And? As fuel prices seem to be mitigating, we are no longer in a fuel crunch. Good news for the consumer.

Who do you use for your research reviews? Folks in your area of expertise, or experts in the research field the idea you like is in?

I published and was reviewed in The Oil Drum, back when it was active. I'd call them experts in the research field of the idea I was interested in.

Well, some did confuse them with experts back in the day. In a different world of review, you don't hand off an idea to those who already support it. You hand it off to your intellectual enemies who want to see the idea destroyed. Only the enemy shows you where you are weak. Mazer Rackham. Enders Game. Good PhD's understand this because if they are getting it from a decent university, it's called defending your thesis. Nowadays I suppose in our PC world that might no longer exist. Can't have someone crying when they can't defend their work in front of experts in the field, better to pat them on the head and pass them along.

As for my area of expertise, I would describe it as an emerging field that isn't well developed yet. At the time when I published in The Oil Drum, I didn't even know that its real-world name is cliodynamics (at least, by one school of thought - I think it's new enough that when it's better developed it may be commonly known by a different name). That makes it difficult to find good places to send research to.

I'm old and fuddy duddy, I had to look cliodynamics up. Sounds sort of like psychohistory supposed by Asimov in the Foundation series?

[vtsnowedin]

I think mini reactors are great, as long as they keep them the hell away from Australia. Preferably North of the equator.

If the economies of the Northern hemisphere go toes up due to nuclear accidents how do you think Australia would get along without having them to trade with?

Or build their cars for them, let them buy military hardware that isn't just hammered pot metal boomerangs, or give them an intellectual, economic and technological ideal to aspire to when the 1 in a 1,000,000 yearns to not be a Chinese serf?

I do not understand your hatred for all things Australia. Perhaps you got your ass beat to a pulp in an Aussie bar fight. ???
Australia has shown up and done more then it's part in every conflict that mattered for more then a century.
Their economy suits them and does not try to build a product there that can be had cheaper elsewhere as that would be a stupid business decision.
But in the trenches if you have the Aussies on your left and the Scottish Black watch on your right your enemy in front of you has much more to worry about then you do.

[AdamB]

I do not understand your hatred for all things Australia.

I love Aussies. Worked with their government geoligists back during the early days of the shale revolution, great folks.. I only bash banana benders who buy expensive motorcycles while lacking either the roads to use them on or the talent, and then brag about that here. All the other Aussies I've ever met seem quite nice.

[Tanada]

Nuclear power stations could be fast-tracked to help solve energy crisis



Nuclear power stations could be fast-tracked under a planning shake-up to try to alleviate the country’s energy crisis.

Greg Clark, the Levelling Up Secretary, unveiled new rules to speed up approval for major infrastructure projects as part of an effort to enhance energy security.

The plans could also slash the amount of time it takes to get offshore wind projects approved.

Energy costs are soaring thanks to the disruption caused by the war in Ukraine, with warnings that UK bills could reach almost £7,000 by April.

On Tuesday, Ursula von der Leyen blamed Vladimir Putin’s threats to Europe’s gas supply for breaking the electricity market.

The European Commission president said: “The electricity market is no more a functioning market because there's one actor – Putin – who is systematically trying to destroy it and manipulate it.”

Russian gas giant Gazprom on Tuesday night announced it had made a record 2.5 trillion roubles (£36 billion) in net profit in the first half of the year.

Liz Truss, the frontrunner in the Tory leadership contest, is expected to unveil short-term help with people’s energy bills soon after taking office on Sept 6.

She is also looking at ways to increase the UK’s energy independence by extracting more gas from the North Sea.
Planning process 'often moves too slowly'

Mr Clark said the new rules would help speed up the approval of large projects.

“Particularly in a time of high inflation, things need to be done more quickly or costs of major infrastructure projects will rise,” he said.

“These changes will help deliver new infrastructure more quickly by speeding up the planning process, which often moves too slowly.”

It comes amid uncertainty over plans to refill Britain's largest gas storage facility - a way to increase Britain’s energy security - as talks drag on over taxpayer funding.

On Tuesday, the Rough facility under the North Sea was given final approval by regulators to begin filling up within days, but it was not clear when the process would start.

Also on Tuesday, Boris Johnson said he would be saying more later in the week about his Government’s plans to build more nuclear power stations.

The Prime Minister said: “People want to know that we are going to have a long-term British energy security strategy. And we are. We are putting in more nuclear. You are going to be hearing more about that later this week.

“And we are putting in absolutely shedloads of wind power as well.”

The Prime Minister is expected to make a speech about energy security on Thursday. Last year, 38 per cent of the UK's overall energy supply was imported from abroad.

Mr Johnson hopes he can give the go-ahead for the new Sizewell C nuclear power station before he leaves office next Tuesday.

The plan is understood to have the backing of Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary, who is expected to be Ms Truss’s chancellor.

But there is always the concern that any new power station will take years to be approved and built.

The new powers announced by Mr Clark will mean shorter deadlines can be set for examinations of “nationally significant infrastructure projects”, speeding up decisions and getting projects built more quickly.

A spokesman for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said this could include strategic roads, offshore wind farms and nuclear power stations.

The relevant secretary of the state – for example for energy, transport, environment or levelling up – will decide whether to put the shorter deadline in place.

It is hoped this will reduce the amount of time to approve offshore wind farms from four years to one, and also significantly reduce the amount of time to give the go-ahead to nuclear power stations.

The Government wants to ensure that the seven years it took to approve the Sizewell B nuclear power station is significantly reduced in future.

The policy, however, does not cover onshore wind farms, as they are not considered a “nationally significant infrastructure project”.

Ministers will make the changes to the process through amendments to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
Nadhim Zahawi: Nick Clegg meme 'broke my heart'

Last week, in an interview with The Telegraph, Nadhim Zahawi, the Chancellor, said he wanted to see Britain follow France - which incentivises people to accept nuclear power stations locally by offering them free energy.

“They did that very successfully in France with nuclear, so people living within a certain radius of a nuclear project get power to their homes for life,” he said.

Mr Zahawi said the Government needed to get better at “holding risk” to ensure large-scale infrastructure projects, such as nuclear, go ahead.

He said: “It broke my heart seeing that meme on social media of Nick Clegg saying there's no point investing in nuclear because it won’t come online until 2021-22.

“And you think if we'd done that, then where would we be today in our resilience and being able to withstand this pressure from Putin? You’ve got to be comfortable holding risk.”

He also spoke about his support for tidal power.

“The beauty of tidal, of course, is that it is predictable,” he said. “So it helps with baseload.

“Unlike wind or solar, when the sun is not shining or it's very cold and there's no wind, it’s more challenging. Nevertheless, we continue to invest in offshoring where we're doubling down on our capacity offshore wind more so.”

The owner of the Rough facility in the North Sea, British Gas's parent company Centrica, is understood to be in talks with ministers over how to fund the refill of the facility. It would not comment on when the process would begin.

Chris O’Shea, Centrica’s chief executive, has previously said it could re-open this winter, and that is understood to remain the plan. However, it remains in talks with the Government over some form of long-term taxpayer support for the site.

A Whitehall source said: “Discussions on an appropriate financial mechanism that shares the risk and reward over the longer-term are ongoing.”

LINK

[Tanada]

Several pictures are mixed with the text if you follow the link below the quoted material.

Why even environmentalists are supporting nuclear power today

The Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was scheduled to be shuttered in 2025. But California Governor Gavin Newsom now wants to expand its lifespan.

Resistance to nuclear power is starting to ebb around the world with support from a surprising group: environmentalists.

This change of heart spans the globe, and is being prompted by climate change, unreliable electrical grids and fears about national security in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In California, the state's last remaining power plant — Diablo Canyon, situated on the Pacific Coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles — long scheduled to be scrapped, may now remain open. Governor Gavin Newsom, a longtime opponent of the plant, is seeking to extend its lifespan through at least 2029.

It's a remarkable turnaround in a state where anti-nuclear activists and progressive Democratic lawmakers have fought with great success to rid the state of nuclear power.

Last week, Japan's prime minister said the country is restarting idled nuclear plants and considering building new ones. This is a sharp reversal for the country that largely abandoned nuclear after the tsunami-led disaster at the Fukushima plant in 2011.

Germany pulled the plug on nuclear after Fukushima, too. But this summer there's been an intense debate in Germany over whether to restart three plants in response to the country's severe energy crisis prompted by the Russia-Ukraine war.

Backers of nuclear power note that it is a source of emissions-free reliable power. And they believe their case has been strengthened due to the threat of climate change and the need to stabilize unreliable electrical grids.

In California the moment of truth came in 2020 when residents had to endure a series of rolling power outages, said Michael Shellenberger, an environmentalist and author who supports nuclear.

"The state is constantly on the verge of blackouts," Shellenberger said.
Environmentalists for nuclear power

The turnabout on Diablo Canyon is noteworthy because California is the birthplace of America's anti-nuclear movement. The case against nuclear power stems primarily from fears about nuclear waste and potential accidents as well as its association with nuclear weapons.

The two operating generators at Diablo Canyon had been set to shut down by 2025. And for years the momentum to shutter the plant seemed inevitable, with anti-nuclear sentiment in California remaining high. Even the utility that operates Diablo Canyon, PG&E, wanted to pull the plug.

So it is striking that the most vehement arguments to keep Diablo Canyon running haven't come the nuclear industry. Instead, they have been put forward by a most unlikely collection of pro-nuclear advocates.

It seemed quixotic, even hopeless, in 2016, when Shellenberger along with the pioneering climate scientist James Hansen and Stewart Brand, founder of the crunchy Whole Earth Catalog, began advocating to save Diablo Canyon.

"We were basically excluded from polite conversation for even talking about keeping the plant open," recalled Shellenberger. Promoting nuclear as an important tool in fighting climate change would get him dismissed by fellow environmentalists as a conspiracy theorist or, falsely, as a corporate shill, he added.
Two moms — a scientist and an engineer — join hands to save nuclear

At the same time, Kristin Zaitz and Heather Hoff were forming an advocacy group called Mothers for Nuclear, a local grassroots effort to keep Diablo Canyon operating. To say their views were not widely embraced would be a serious understatement.

"We felt like we were on an island all by ourselves," said Zaitz. "We had people wishing that we would die, wishing we would get cancer...making weird videos about us that made me feel like, am I unsafe, is my family unsafe?"

In many ways Zaitz and Hoff are also the most unlikely of nuclear advocates. They both describe themselves as eco-friendly liberals, moms concerned about preserving wild spaces, recycling and climate change.

At Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, not far from Diablo Canyon, they both studied engineering and both took jobs at the plant – Hoff is a materials scientist and Zaitz is a civil engineer – despite misgivings about nuclear energy.

"I was nervous about nuclear before I started working there," said Hoff. "And it took a lot of years to change my mind...and eventually realize that nuclear really aligned with my environmental and humanitarian goals."

To promote those goals Zaitz and Hoff talk to community groups and professional societies, they promote nuclear power on social media and generate conversations walking around their hometowns wearing t-shirts that say, "Why nuclear? Ask me."

They see their role as going beyond just facts to make an emotional connection to people suspicious of nuclear, especially fellow environmentalists.

"It's the largest source of carbon free electricity in the United States," said Zaitz. "Most people don't know that it produces a lot of electricity on a relatively tiny land footprint."
Overcoming the stigma of "The Simpsons"

It's only reasonable to push back and say it's not surprising that Zaitz and Hoff support Diablo Canyon – after all, they work there. And, yes, they acknowledge they want to keep their jobs. But they say with their skills and experience they could find similar jobs elsewhere.

"This is how we feel we can contribute as environmentalists," said Hoff of their advocacy.

A lot of their work involves trying to combat a longstanding stigma against nuclear power, especially in popular culture, where its image is abysmal. Like on "The Simpsons," where Homer Simpson works in a slipshod plant and nuclear waste is dumped in a children's playground.

"We need to point people to accurate information so they can make up their own minds," said Zaitz.
Nuclear power has a safer track record than coal or natural gas

They don't shy away from the fact that for many people nuclear power is scary. "We say we were scared too," said Hoff. "It's okay to be scared. But that doesn't mean it's dangerous."

In terms of deaths from accidents or pollution, nuclear is far safer than coal or natural gas - the largest sources of electricity in the U.S.

Diablo Canyon got a boost last year when researchers from MIT and Stanford said keeping the plant open until 2035 would cut carbon emissions from California's power sector by more than 10% and save $2.6 billion in electricity costs.

The most important reason to keep the plant running is to help assure the reliability of the state's power grid, said John Parsons of MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and one of the study's co-authors. "And it's a zero carbon source of power so it can keep emissions low while also providing low cost power and reliable power."
Diablo's storied history of arrests & more

Despite recent gains by the plant's backers, opposition to Diablo Canyon remains stout and has a storied history dating back decades. In 1981 singer-songwriter Jackson Browne was arrested at the plant with some four dozen anti-nuclear protestors.

Governor Newsom's plan to keep Diablo Canyon operating still faces a number of obstacles, including opposition from some of his fellow Democrats in the state legislature. It must clear state and federal funding and regulatory obstacles. And diehard grass roots opponents of the plant are not giving up.

"Diablo Canyon is not safe and it's old, too. It's almost 40 years old," said Linda Seeley, a spokesperson for San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, a watchdog group that has opposed the plant for decades.

She said that it's especially risky because of its location in an earthquake prone area. Critics like Seeley also also call Governor Newsom's plan to keep the plant operating a corporate giveaway, noting that it includes a $1.4 billion forgivable loan to the plant's operator, PG&E.

And finally she said it's unwise to forget the nuclear disasters of the past. While Japan just announced it is restarting idled nuclear plants, Naoto Kan, the prime minister at the time of the Fukushima accident, has a different perspective, she said. In May, he wrote to Governor Newsom advising him to shut down Diablo Canyon as soon as possible.

NPR

[Doly]

I only bash banana benders who buy expensive motorcycles while lacking either the roads to use them on or the talent, and then brag about that here.

It's the first time I come across anyone suggesting that Australia doesn't have plenty of roads.