California imports about 30% of its electricity. It can feel smug about its green credentials because, like Germany, it has extension cords to other jurisdictions to offset intermittency caused through its focus on renewables. Reliability is still an issue and power prices are rising faster than other states'.

What is feasible within the laws of physics is distinct from economic viability. Even if theoretically feasible, reliable 100% renewables is a considerably more expensive proposition than conventional nuclear, and SMR's will only widen the difference without a major, mitigating storage technology breakthrough. It takes considerable faith to live in anticipation of this transpiring.

The following assesses different energy mixes, https://epc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ReliableAffordableElectricPowerGeneration_Booklet.pdf

Further too.. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-they-bet-on-nuclear-not-renewables-germany-california-would-already-have-100-clean-power/#239fcdcce0d4

Toni,

I'm not sure why (or if?) you're not getting this, but I'm not saying that Fukushima/Chernobyl are reasons against us getting nuclear, only that they would be used by some to terrify those who want to be terrified.

I know that Fukushima was, in retrospect, poorly located and that we wouldn't make that error. I also know that the death toll was, at most, in single figures.

I know that Chrenobyl was caused by the disastrous Soviet system(for want of a better word) and that those who died suffered from the explosion rather than the radiation and that the death toll, depending on your counting was somewhere between 0 and 50. Although I'm open to the argument that the deathtoll was in the 10000's if you count the abortions that occurred due to western women being misinformed about the risk of the radiation cloud to their unborn child.

Again I'm aware that nuclear is safe and would be safe here. But I'm also aware that those who oppose it would use these overseas problems as evidence that the technology is a killer, that a portion of the press would amplify their claims and that enough people would be fooled by the scare campaign such that proposal would be DOA.

//I'm not sure why (or if?) you're not getting this//

For exactly the same reason you don't get the fact that reading the SMH, watching/listening to the ABC (more the BBC in my case, but they're basically the same thing, right?) and voting for the ALP don't make me a hippy. Because we perceive the world dimly, through the distorting lenses of prejudice and stereotype.

It's weird, man. Here I am standing in front of you, a proud self-affirming lefty publicly attesting my support for nuclear power... and you're trying to convince me that lefties can't learn to stop worrying and love the controlled fission. That's what I don't get.

//only that they would be used by some to terrify those who want to be terrified.//

Yes, of course they would. Those in power will always look for something to terrify those who want to be terrified; see 'Muslims'.

Those of who are naturally timorous wee beasties find day-to-day life quite daunting enough, and look to statistics to find out what we should be really worried about. As it turns out, it's neither Muslims nor meltdowns any more than it is shark attacks and lightning bolts. It's good old-fashioned things like cancer and car accidents.

//But I'm also aware that those who oppose it would use these overseas problems as evidence that the technology is a killer, that a portion of the press would amplify their claims and that enough people would be fooled by the scare campaign such that proposal would be DOA.//

I was going to say something about how this scare campaign might be defeated through empirically based arguments... and then I remembered some of the conversations I've had with Tories around here concerning Islam.

I concede. A well orchestrated scare campaign beats evidence hands down.

Oh I see.....

You think this is a left/right issue! But I haven't referred to that divide at all in this thread.

While those perpetrating the slander against nuclear are primarily of the left, or of the green variety (not necessarily the same), those who succumb to the scare come in all flavours. The most recent figures I saw were that opposition to nukes was about 65% and support 25%. Clearly there are at least some on the right who are also anti-nuke.

These scare campaigns often win not because of politics but because of ignorance.

Australia can't even agree to having a nuclear waste dump which would take low level waste that is entirely safe under any circumstances. Waste that is currently housed in our major cities. Every time that comes up the anti's barely have to raise a sweat to get the idea killed.

Maybe, when things get really bad in terms of power generation and economic circumstances, a majority may be open to arguments in favour of nukes. But that's a long way off and Graham's thread is about the here and now

Yes, of course they would. Those in power will always look for something to terrify those who want to be terrified; see 'Muslims'.
Toni lavis,
Well, aren't statements such as get rid of all infidels etc. put out by those in power ?
So, it's up to those in power elsewhere to warn of this very real threat. No need to want to feel terrified.