Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045

[SSGSurf]

Agreed that recycling is still very, very new, and methods and automation will need to grow exponentially, and it will.  The problem that I project is that the need for those raw materials will not be as valuable when alternative energy and storage sources are so readily available, and the megatons of waste we create are less profitable or feasible to recycle, and they become mountains in the desert Let's face it: Nuclear can easily replace all domestic power needs today if we choose to do it. For vehicles, hydrogen is about less than 10 years out of the mainstream. If we are being honest with ourselves, the only reason it isn't further along is due to the massive worldwide oil cabal.

I would say that extolling the virtues on nuclear power as replacing all the power needs today is a bit disingenuous as well.

First, and while not specifically for Hawaii, but construction of a nuclear power plant takes an average of 10 to 20 years. The last 2 nuclear units just recently brought on line - Unit 4 in April of this year – at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, cost 34 BILLION. Construction started in 2013, so it took 11 years to build it. But then there was VC Summer – the plant in South Carolina started in 2010 that was problem after problem from day one – with Westinghouse (the reactor maker) even going bankrupt stopping the construction then restarting the construction back up and having billions in cost overruns on top of the billions already spent, finally was just stopped altogether.

Let’s also remember, that back when nuclear power first gained traction and as units started being built and going on line back in 1965, no one knew what they would be doing with the eventual stockpile of contaminated waste and while being protected of course, more or less sat on the power plants land for several decades as everyone scratched their heads as to what to do with this stuff.

Then, the amount of labor, education, training and so on needed to run a nuke does not come cheap. Or at least it shouldn’t. In as much as a 19 year old high school dropout might easily get – and deserve that job at either an oil, coal, gas or now solar or wind – and even possibly geothermal, I don’t think they should be near a nuke under any circumstance.

And then, of course there is safety. And while, for the most part, the US has been pretty safe with regards to nuclear power accidents, the possibility of one “oh, shit” moment exists – that at a minimum and upside could cost billions, but even worse yet, an explosion and meltdown that would make Chernobyl look like someone just lit a candle.

And of course, there is always the potential of the terrorist threat.

And yes, there is promise in hydrogen fueled vehicles, but again, the biggest obstacle to that as I can see, is the distribution of hydrogen o be able to fill your tank. Which is a good 10 plus years away from fruition.

In the short term then, I’d say that EV and solar is worth investment in right now, as the window for alternatives to burn baby burn is slowly closing and I’m pretty sure there is no “god” going to open a door once that window is closed!

Aloha Julie, I am not saying that we could logistically do it today, but the technology, safety, and disposal have been effective and efficient for over 20+ years, and we sure as heck could have had it done by today.

That is why we need a hybrid approach and a reasonable plan, unlike the plan that Hawaii has adopted. People are slow to change, the energy barons need to make their money, and politics moves at the pace of lobbyists and activists, who all feed from the same bowl. 

As far as nuclear goes, while larger plants will be the backbone, I think the future lies in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), highly safe, low cost, modular, easy to deploy, scalable as needed by local power demands.

As for hydrogen, we are in agreement.  I stated we are likely 10 years out.