Sanders calls for massive energy bill increases, rolling blackouts in NYC

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-calls-shutting-down-new-york-nuke-plant-n550331

A true champion for the working class.

[Xing]

Lief, it's one thing to have a crush on Sanders, but this is bordering on obsession...

[Lief 🗽]

Lief, it's one thing to have a crush on Sanders, but this is bordering on obsession...

Sorry for posting a breaking news article about a new policy position Sanders has announced?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Does Vermont have massive blackouts now that its sole nuclear plant was shutdown with Bernie's help?

[Eraserhead]

Lief, it's one thing to have a crush on Sanders, but this is bordering on obsession...

I am getting a little bit concerned about my old friend. He's literally putting the kind of memes that would be posted on facebook by 50-year-old Italian guys from Long Island into his sigs now. Hopefully he'll pull out of it after the primary is officially over.

[Seriously?]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-calls-shutting-down-new-york-nuke-plant-n550331

A true champion for the working class.

Oil. Bad. Coal. Bad. Nuclear. Bad. Wind farms. Bad (if built near a house owned by Kennedy). I guess we can rub two sticks together to generate electricity for the largest city in the US, Bernie.

Feel the Bern! to your wallet!

[DrScholl]

Did he propose a solution to replace the plant? The issue with Sanders is that he makes demands but doesn't really have a plan go along with the demands.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It'lol probably close anyway. A lot of the old plants are getting on, and they are very cost-ineffiective to operate in deregulated energy markets.

[Ban my account ffs!]

This is one area where I prefer Hillary over Bernie...and the importance of good energy policy cannot be understated.  A continuation of the Obama strategy of fighting emissions with an 'all of the above' approach is the superior strategy.  That includes efficiency and more gas and more nuclear with less coal and oil.

Look at Germany's disastrous Energiewende (energy transformation).  The renewables aren't working...prices have skyrocketed, and with no nuclear, brown coal power plants have pushed Germany's emissions higher while US emissions go down.

The German power grid has been destabilized and neighboring countries are balking at Germany's pleas to take the extra power on stormy days when the wind turbines produce too much and they cant shut down the coal plants fast enough.

[Torie]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-calls-shutting-down-new-york-nuke-plant-n550331

A true champion for the working class.

Ah, Lief dear, it is not clear that Bernie wants it shut down right away, without some alternative being in place (which at least in the short term would indeed be massively more expensive, but hey, folks in my income bracket can afford to gut these old houses, and insulate the sh*t out of them), and he didn't call for rolling blackouts. So well, your headline is a bit tendentious. And you are quite talented in doing that. Perhaps you should have gone into the campaign ad business, rather than being a lawyer.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-calls-shutting-down-new-york-nuke-plant-n550331

A true champion for the working class.

Ah, Lief dear, it is not clear that Bernie wants it shut down right away, without some alternative being in place (which at least in the short term would indeed be massively more expensive, but hey, folks in my income bracket can afford to gut these old houses, and insulate the sh*t out of them), and he didn't call for rolling blackouts. So well, your headline is a bit tendentious. And you are quite talented in doing that. Perhaps you should have gone into the campaign ad business, rather than being a lawyer.

Yeah, I'm sure it's contingent of some solution, whether it's decreased electricity usage (yeah, probably unlikely), upgrades of existing plants, new plants, or better transmission lines to plants that have excess capacity. Preferably renewable, which tends to be hydro in New York State.

[Seriously?]

It'lol probably close anyway. A lot of the old plants are getting on, and they are very cost-ineffiective to operate in deregulated energy markets.

Except the plant just got a 20-year renewal.

http://www.safesecurevital.com/indian-point-unit-2-will-continue-operating-under-its-existing-nrc-license-providing-essential-clean-and-affordable-power-with-continuing-nrc-oversight-until-the-license-renewal-process-is-complete-as-provided-by-well-established-federal-law.html

[RaphaelDLG]

This is one area where I prefer Hillary over Bernie...and the importance of good energy policy cannot be understated.  A continuation of the Obama strategy of fighting emissions with an 'all of the above' approach is the superior strategy.  That includes efficiency and more gas and more nuclear with less coal and oil.

Look at Germany's disastrous Energiewende (energy transformation).  The renewables aren't working...prices have skyrocketed, and with no nuclear, brown coal power plants have pushed Germany's emissions higher while US emissions go down.

The German power grid has been destabilized and neighboring countries are balking at Germany's pleas to take the extra power on stormy days when the wind turbines produce too much and they cant shut down the coal plants fast enough.

A hardcore Sanders supporter that agrees with you and is against Sanders on this one.

Nuclear energy is a key tool to wean us off the teat of fossil fuels, protect this planet, and power new technology.

We suffer from the same dumb superstition against nuke E that we do against GMOs, vaccines, etc.

You shouldn't be moronic with your application of nuclear energy, but it's not a big bad bogeyman.

[Mr. Reactionary]

It'lol probably close anyway. A lot of the old plants are getting on, and they are very cost-ineffiective to operate in deregulated energy markets.

Not necessarily. While there is a high fixed cost needed to construct the reactor in the first place, electric generation through nuclear power has one of the lowest marginal costs for meeting an increase in energy demand on the grid.

Below are 2 charts. The first is the marginal cost of energy generation facilities in the New York market. The second is the same information for Canada. In both cases, nuclear is one of the cheapest sources of baseload electricity, only behind hydro and wind.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is one area where I prefer Hillary over Bernie...and the importance of good energy policy cannot be understated.  A continuation of the Obama strategy of fighting emissions with an 'all of the above' approach is the superior strategy.  That includes efficiency and more gas and more nuclear with less coal and oil.

Look at Germany's disastrous Energiewende (energy transformation).  The renewables aren't working...prices have skyrocketed, and with no nuclear, brown coal power plants have pushed Germany's emissions higher while US emissions go down.

The German power grid has been destabilized and neighboring countries are balking at Germany's pleas to take the extra power on stormy days when the wind turbines produce too much and they cant shut down the coal plants fast enough.

A hardcore Sanders supporter that agrees with you and is against Sanders on this one.

Nuclear energy is a key tool to wean us off the teat of fossil fuels, protect this planet, and power new technology.

We suffer from the same dumb superstition against nuke E that we do against GMOs, vaccines, etc.

You shouldn't be moronic with your application of nuclear energy, but it's not a big bad bogeyman.

Nuclear fusion could be very promising. As for coal versus natural gas versus nuclear fission, it's really pick your poison.

[Erc]

US deaths attributable to coal-fired power plants per year: 7500

US deaths attributed to nuclear power plants, ever: 0

I know which "poison" I'm choosing, thank you very much.

[Adam Griffin]

While there's no reason to forcibly push for nuclear plants to be shut down this minute, there is the combined reality of the fact that the US regulatory process ensures that it takes at least 15 years to build a nuclear plant...and the fact that in terms of average cost per kWh generated, solar will surpass nuclear in terms of cost-effectiveness within the next 10 years. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know with regards to the future of nuclear power plant construction and how it pertains to standard residential/commercial/industrial energy needs.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Nuclear works just fine, just upgrade or replace the 1st and 2nd gen reactors.  Those are the problem children that create disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima, or leaks like Turkey Point and Indian Point.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Jesus, Lief is becoming more and more like the National Enquirer with these pathetic Titles.

[SillyAmerican]

Nuclear works just fine, just upgrade or replace the 1st and 2nd gen reactors.  Those are the problem children that create disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima, or leaks like Turkey Point and Indian Point.

Exactly. Instead of focusing on the old reactors, people should be looking at the developments, and places like France:

• France derives about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. This share is to be reduced to 50% by 2025.
• France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.
• France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
• It is building its first Generation III reactor.
• About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.

While the United States has effectively shut down its nuclear energy production, the French have embraced it, and are realizing the benefits.