<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>epistasis</author><text>I think you&amp;#x27;ve got that a bit reversed, trying to fix climate change &lt;i&gt;with&lt;/i&gt; nuclear is a bit impossible at this point. We can&amp;#x27;t build it!&lt;p&gt;Why is this plant shutting down? Not because of some sort of hate of nuclear technology, as many would have us believe.&lt;p&gt;No, the real reason this plant is shutting down is because, like every other thermal generation plant, extending its lifetime past the original license means complying with environmental impact laws on waste heat. Once-through waste heat systems are no longer legal [1]. So why not just build a waste heat system and keep it running? Because when the utility tried to come up with one, the cost of  &lt;i&gt;the cooling system alone&lt;/i&gt; ran into the billions of dollars!&lt;p&gt;Much better to just by a few billion dollars worth of batteries and site them on location. At current costs, today, $1B gets you 5GWh at 1.25GW, roughly. The very cheapest estimate for a cooling system was $7B and they ran to over $10B for a new cooling system [2]. So even without the inevitable cost overruns, one could purchase 35-50GWh and 9-12GW of batteries.&lt;p&gt;A 40GWh&amp;#x2F;10GW battery would be a far better grid asset for California, and massive increase reliability far beyond what Diablo Canyon could ever produce.&lt;p&gt;When the mere cooling system for nuclear is more expensive than a better battery, the technology is dead, dead, dead. We don&amp;#x27;t need it and we have better alternatives.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.sanluisobispo.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;local&amp;#x2F;environment&amp;#x2F;article39459930.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.sanluisobispo.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;local&amp;#x2F;environment&amp;#x2F;article...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.waterboards.ca.gov&amp;#x2F;water_issues&amp;#x2F;programs&amp;#x2F;ocean&amp;#x2F;cwa316&amp;#x2F;rcnfpp&amp;#x2F;docs&amp;#x2F;subbechcom_111314.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.waterboards.ca.gov&amp;#x2F;water_issues&amp;#x2F;programs&amp;#x2F;ocean&amp;#x2F;c...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>njarboe</author><text>I agree. How about the radical move of deciding not to shut down a large nuclear power plant in California in 2025[1] that could power millions of these cars, carbon free. Trying to fix climate change without nuclear power is likely impossible at this point, but very few climate change activists support it.&lt;p&gt;[1]&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>bootlooped</author><text>Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 300ppm. In my lifetime I saw us cross 400ppm of CO2; I may very well see it cross 500ppm before I die.&lt;p&gt;This move feels radical, but I don&amp;#x27;t see how we avert catastrophe without moves that feel radical. If we keep plodding down the course we&amp;#x27;re on we&amp;#x27;ll just sleepwalk into oblivion.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>California to Require All New Vehicles Be Zero-Emission by 2035</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-23/california-to-phase-out-gasoline-cars-by-2035-governor-says</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>dv_dt</author><text>Personally I don&amp;#x27;t support it because the plant is on an earthquake fault, the design lifetime of that plant is near the end of life anyway, upgrade of nuclear plants has gone bad in CA before[1], and finally the upgrade resources could be better applied to renewable resources.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>njarboe</author><text>I agree. How about the radical move of deciding not to shut down a large nuclear power plant in California in 2025[1] that could power millions of these cars, carbon free. Trying to fix climate change without nuclear power is likely impossible at this point, but very few climate change activists support it.&lt;p&gt;[1]&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>bootlooped</author><text>Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 300ppm. In my lifetime I saw us cross 400ppm of CO2; I may very well see it cross 500ppm before I die.&lt;p&gt;This move feels radical, but I don&amp;#x27;t see how we avert catastrophe without moves that feel radical. If we keep plodding down the course we&amp;#x27;re on we&amp;#x27;ll just sleepwalk into oblivion.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>California to Require All New Vehicles Be Zero-Emission by 2035</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-23/california-to-phase-out-gasoline-cars-by-2035-governor-says</url></story>