Gavin Newsom Reconsiders Closure of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (latimes.com) 135
gordm writes: Following appeals from scientists, a Stanford and MIT study showing Diablo Canyon could save California $21 Billion, demand curtailment and a projected power supply shortfall, Gov. Gavin Newsom is now considering keeping the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open. Diablo Canyon generated 6% of California's total electricity in 2021 and 12% of California's carbon-free electricity.
Elon Musk has tweeted in support of keeping Diablo Canyon open, and in support of keeping European nuclear power plants running. According to the L.A. Times, Newsom said the state would seek out a share of $6 billion in federal funds meant to rescue nuclear reactors facing closure. The money comes from the Biden administration's recently announced effort to rescue nuclear power plants at risk of closing. "The requirement is by May 19 to submit an application, or you miss the opportunity to draw down any federal funds if you want to extend the life of that plant," Newsom said. "We would be remiss not to put that on the table as an option."
A spokesperson for the governor clarified that Newsom still wants to see the facility shut down long term. "It's been six years since PG&E agreed to close the plant near San Luis Obispo, rather than invest in expensive environmental and earthquake-safety upgrades," the report notes. "But Newsom's willingness to consider a short-term reprieve reflects a shift in the politics of nuclear power after decades of public opposition fueled by high-profile disasters such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as the Cold War."
Elon Musk has tweeted in support of keeping Diablo Canyon open, and in support of keeping European nuclear power plants running. According to the L.A. Times, Newsom said the state would seek out a share of $6 billion in federal funds meant to rescue nuclear reactors facing closure. The money comes from the Biden administration's recently announced effort to rescue nuclear power plants at risk of closing. "The requirement is by May 19 to submit an application, or you miss the opportunity to draw down any federal funds if you want to extend the life of that plant," Newsom said. "We would be remiss not to put that on the table as an option."
A spokesperson for the governor clarified that Newsom still wants to see the facility shut down long term. "It's been six years since PG&E agreed to close the plant near San Luis Obispo, rather than invest in expensive environmental and earthquake-safety upgrades," the report notes. "But Newsom's willingness to consider a short-term reprieve reflects a shift in the politics of nuclear power after decades of public opposition fueled by high-profile disasters such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, as well as the Cold War."
earthquake-safety upgrades ? (Score:1)
I'd like anyone to tell me about "earthquake-safety upgrades."
Seriously, I've been trying to figure out what the spokesperson is referring to.
Re:earthquake-safety upgrades ? (Score:5, Funny)
Pump caulk into the fault line and seal it up.
Re:earthquake-safety upgrades ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Caulking the fault won't fix the problem. Maybe jack the whole plant up onto furniture dollies.
Almost makes you think it was a bad idea to keep building the plant when the fault line was discovered right next door. Oh well, at least people kept newer ones from being built in safer locations, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an evolving area of engineering. After the Fukushima meltdowns they started looking at other plants, and they found several previously unknown faults. The technology at the time they are built couldn't find them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're talking about the Shoreline fault which was discovered in 2008. I'm talking about the Hosgri fault that was discovered during construction. The Shoreline fault is closer (1mile) than Hosgri (3 miles) but Hosgri is believed capable of stronger earthquakes (7.5 vs 6.8). Hosgri is still close enough that the plant can be considered to be built on top of it, and the plant was built only to withstand 7.5, so there's no margin for error. And apparently there were some (minor?) errors in seismic str
Re: (Score:2)
Pump caulk into the fault line and seal it up.
Have a local Kryptonian fly into the fault and put it back together if it breaks.
Re:earthquake-safety upgrades ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like anyone to tell me about "earthquake-safety upgrades."
Seriously, I've been trying to figure out what the spokesperson is referring to.
Possibly Hydrogen Recombiners as this was one of the things that could have prevented Fukushima from exploding after the earthquake, I'm speculating though. Other things could be location of backup generators and other vectors for mitigating the escalation of nuclear accidents/disasters.
People complain about nuclear regulation as if it is a bad thing bought on by NIMBYs, the reality is that regulation is a legal mechanism to capture the knowledge and experiences that come from the lessons learnt from running a nuclear facility and share that with other nuclear facilities.
It is the responsibility of the regulator to provide a legal requirement for nuclear plant operators to spend money on upgrading the safety features as those lessons are learned.
decades of public opposition (Score:1, Informative)
were fueled by the coal/oil/gas industry. If we demand real oversight, we can have perfectly safe and reasonably priced nuclear power. Every shortage we suffer is due to politics and the corrupt people we reelect to half-century careers
Re: (Score:2)
It is a valid position, and anybody who bought the anti-nuclear fear mongering should read up and potentially reconsider their opinion
Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement? [forbes.com]
Inside the Gas Industry’s Plan to Sink Nuclear Power [climatecoalition.org]
How important has oil money been to antinuclear movement? [atomicinsights.com]
Nuclear power saves millions of lives (Score:5, Insightful)
I've given up trying to make complex arguments about safety and waste disposal.
The anti-nuke types are just running on emotion, so keep it simple. By displacing fossil fuels, nuclear has saved millions.
Then you don't need to get into debates about whether Chernobyl killed 50, or 5000, or even 50,000. Or how reactors in the West are so much safer.
You can accept all their worst-case arguments, and fossil fuels are still worse.
https://www.energyforhumanity.... [energyforhumanity.org]
https://blogs.scientificameric... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: Nuclear power saves millions of lives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Nuclear power saves millions of lives (Score:5, Informative)
The thing it is not practical. In the US there are more practical solutions than nuclear power. The fact that nuclear is a good solution is not the question. What the nuclear wing hits miss always it is may not be the best solution for the US. In Texas wind is providing the best solution, and quickly displacing fossil. In California, they simply have proven incompetent at innovating energy.
Let's say most of your energy is from intermittent renewable sources. What happens when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? Without a percentage of something like nuclear in the mix the capex on storage necessary to get to a reliable grid will be enormous. This is especially true of Texas whose grid is islanded from the rest of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when the wind is not blowing
Winds don't stop. They shift. So if one area is becalmed, the wind is blowing even stronger elsewhere. The solution is geographic distribution.
This is especially true of Texas whose grid is islanded from the rest of the country.
The obvious solution is to connect the grids.
Whirled Peas. (Score:3, Informative)
Right, so instead of Russia using their supplies of natural gas to twist arms in Europe you see Russia using electricity supplies to twist arms in Europe.
Europe needs nuclear power or it will forever be at the mercy of neighboring nations that don't like them very much for the energy they need to live. Even within Europe there's bickering over trade so if there's a gas pipeline or electrical wire that runs through one nation to get to another then there's threats of energy supplies being cut off.
Europe is
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly every country on earth has enough locally available renewable energy potential to meet their own needs - they just lack the will to use it because it's currently more expensive than cheap fossil fuels.
Between solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and hydro there's energy all around us.
Even with just solar, you would only need to cover half the world's rooftops to generate the equivalent of all the energy the world uses - we just need to get better at converting it to forms it can be used - synthetic fuels,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where do you get the figure of only 5W/sqm? Solar influx is > 1000w/sqm and panels you can buy off the shelf today get easily about 200w/sqm, and over the course of the day, in Europe you'd get about 1kwh per sqm per day.
I got my figures from here:
https://theconversation.com/so... [theconversation.com]
I know from my own personal experience with 15% efficient panels on my property in Australia I get more than that - averaging at 33kwh per day in spring and autumn for a 6kw rooftop system that covers only about 1/4 of my roof,
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see where you get that bullshit math.
I'm guessing from reality, unlike you. Especially since I don't actually see any math in that post. What exactly are you imagining that the post says? They may appear to be thinking of just electricity rather than full on primary power, but a normal person asks them to clarify rather than spouting your nonsense.
Here's a chart that should show how solar power is bullshit.
http://www.inference.org.uk/su... [inference.org.uk]
I thought you'd started including a disclaimer when you posted links to that antiquated graph that it's on a log scale? Also, have you realized yet, after posting it countless times, that it puts the
Re: (Score:2)
Winds don't stop. They shift. So if one area is becalmed, the wind is blowing even stronger elsewhere.
Now those enormous costs shift to catching the wind wherever on earth it happens to be blowing.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind us what you do when the nuclear plant is offline for maintenance. Nothing has 100% uptime.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind us what you do when the nuclear plant is offline for maintenance. Nothing has 100% uptime.
Maintenance is planned in advance to take advantage of periods of low demand in order to minimize impact. When the plant is offline either other nuclear plants adjust their capacity to make up the difference or more likely additional hydrocarbons (nat gas, coal) are burned as necessary to meet demand.
In a system dominated by intermittent renewables you can count on none of the above. The wind will stop blowing and the sun will stop shining at the absolute worst times and there is no such thing as adjustab
Re: (Score:2)
So why can't we keep a few gas plants around for those rare occasions when there isn't enough wind?
And by rare I mean non existent.
Re: (Score:2)
So why can't we keep a few gas plants around for those rare occasions when there isn't enough wind?
Because while occasions where wind produces zero energy are rare, occasions where wind energy does not match demand is quite common [wikipedia.org]. The current system uses weather predictions to estimate how much wind power will be available. And have alternative sources ready to compensate.
So yes you run a system on a mix of wind and gas. But you need to stop calling it "carbon free" because the system still relies on carbon based energy.
Re: (Score:2)
But the amount of available wind energy depends on how many turbines you have and how widely distributed they are. If you build enough of them you can cover all eventualities, or reduce the times you need backup fossil fuels to any arbitrary amount.
Given that even the developers of nuclear power plants are giving us 20 year estimates for them to come on stream, and the existing ones are all rapidly aging, it doesn't seem wise to focus on them as a solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Few countries are large enough [wikipedia.org] to get the kind of distribution you are talking about. And it would require building electrical infrastructure to shift electrical power on a scale and distance far beyond what we have today.
Given that even the developers of nuclear power plants are giving us 20 year estimates for them to come on stream, and the existing ones are all rapidly aging, it doesn't seem wise to focus on them as a solution.
Those long 20 year estimates are exactly why we need to talk about them. Countries like Japan, China, and South Korea get their plants built in less than half that time. It's the anti-nuclear lobbying and lawfare that makes nuclear so slow and difficult to built, not the stations themselv
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that were correct, and it's not, do you think countries have energy independence now? Few developed nations do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Texas winter power crunch was caused in part because nuclear power plants froze up.
Part of a single nuclear power station went offline due to pump failures caused by weather and lack of planning. It's contribution to the total Texas generating capacity offline due to weather was 4%
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power stations have multiple reactors, modern ones typically have between 4 and 8 reactors. Maintenance and upgrades are planned ahead to ensure that enough reactors are operational to meet demand.
Re: (Score:3)
If we ban all driving we save millions of people per year. Officials statistics say 40,000 but that is an undercount. The thing it is not practical. In the US there are more practical solutions than nuclear power. The fact that nuclear is a good solution is not the question. What the nuclear wing hits miss always it is may not be the best solution for the US. In Texas wind is providing the best solution, and quickly displacing fossil. In California, they simply have proven incompetent at innovating energy.
Fine. Then displace all of the fossil FIRST, and then, AFTER you're done, start thinking about whether to go with wind or nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can accept all their worst-case arguments, and fossil fuels are still worse.
Disregarding your stupid idea about how many died due to Chernobyl:
Cars, Ships, Planes: they all do not run on nukes.
So? What is your stupid point? Oh, slipping from an oil rick might kill you. True.
A collapsing coal mine might kill you? True.
And? What is the damn point about that? You want a nuke in your backyard? That is simple. Buy the land. Become a billionaire. I think 20 Billions is a good hallmark. Build one. Be the hero
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...quick check on wikipedia has the number at about 140 for Chernobyl. I have yet to see anything other than the usual anti-nuke hysteria that suggests the actual number is more than an order of magnitude higher.
Now, assuming that "order of magnitude higher", we're talking maybe 1500 deaths. Which is rather less than actually die every year due to people working on wind turbines.
Which makes nuclear power safer by an order of magnitud
Re: (Score:2)
The large numbers of deaths predicted (but never observed) for Chernobyl are based on the linear no-threshold model.
There is no evidence to support that, and plenty to say it is wrong.
It works like this: observe if you drop a ton of rocks at speed into a space full of people, it kills ten of them.
Therefore assume that a ton of sand thrown evenly over a city will also kill ten people.
That's it! Its sounds stupid, but it originally was used for a reason. They did not know how dangerous low-level radiation w
Re: (Score:2)
The large numbers of deaths predicted (but never observed) for Chernobyl are based on the linear no-threshold model.
There is no evidence to support that, and plenty to say it is wrong.
The evidence is: from the > 600,000 so called "liquidators" more than 450,000 are dead.
Russian scientists estimated the total death toll in 2016 (that was the 30 year anniversary) around 2,000,000 people. As the food harvested in the Ukraine was distributed and mixed into the other food all over the USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
The official number killed by the Chernobyl nuclear power plant stands at 60. More people die each year from auto-erotic asphyxiation.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no official number.
And that the original "official number" from the USSR authorities is wrong: is pretty obvious. Or not?
The first weeks after the accidents the soldiers dying in the clean up where placed on the the red place in front of the Kremlin. That alone where 1000nds.
Re: (Score:2)
Sixty is the official number, and that is the number we are going to stick too. We are not going to entertain any made up numbers by the anti nuclear crowed.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "official" number.
Unless you want to believe the first "Stalin Russia" number. The people watching from the other side of the lake - during the fire - are already several thousand. You simply know nothing about the topic, dumb idiot.
The top number ATM is 2 millions. And that is not even one under discussion, it is the more or less agreed number.
Re: (Score:2)
See that is your problem. You can not accept being wrong on something. You are so brain washed that you can't accept facts and figures that prove you are wrong on something.
Here, let me help you with your reply.
Me: The offical number is 60, and for the purpose of this conversation and future ones on the subject we will stick to that.
You: Yes, you are correct. That is the number and that will be the one we will be using. In the future I should not FUD cloud my judgement on these subjects.
See th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ships, Planes: they all do not run on nukes.
Well in fact there are a number of ships and submarines in the United States Navy that are run by nuclear power. I can't tell you anything about them because they are all classified. I can tell you they are decades ahead of anything on the civilian market for power output vs size.
There was even a design for a civilian vessel called the NS Savannah commissioned in 1962. The issue with the Savannah wasn't from her nuclear power system, which worked perfectly for the entire life time the ship was in s
Re: (Score:2)
Well in fact there are a number of ships and submarines in the United States Navy that are run by nuclear power. ...
We obviously all know that
There where other civilian ships of course. I believe the Russian "Federation" still operates a fleet of nuclear powered icebreakers. :P
Indeed they do. A bit difficult to judge if that is "civilian", though
Re: (Score:2)
I've given up trying to make complex arguments about safety and waste disposal.
Please point to where you've made these arguments.
The anti-nuke types are just running on emotion, so keep it simple. You can accept all their worst-case arguments, and fossil fuels are still worse.
Being anti-nuclear doesn't mean someone is pro-coal, that's a pretty massive generalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Being anti-nuclear doesn't mean someone is pro-coal, that's a pretty massive generalization.
Coal or gas. Unless you live somewhere like Iceland, maybe. Nobody is replacing nuclear with hydroelectric, as the hydro is all exploited already.
One day will might find an economical way to store solar for 24/7 use, but that day is not yet in sight.
Gas is better than coal, but still far worse than nuclear.
Solar is great if you have a plant that can economically operate for only several hours per day. Who does?
You need not preach to me about solar, but every nuclear reactor the Germans shut down me
Re: (Score:2)
Coal or gas. Unless you live somewhere like Iceland, maybe. Nobody is replacing nuclear with hydroelectric, as the hydro is all exploited already.
In the US scores of nuclear reactors worth of hydro are presently untapped.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wa... [energy.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
It probably won't be as bad as Chernobyl. And I'm actually trying not to sound sarcastic, did I succeed?
Re: (Score:2)
I've given up trying to make complex arguments about safety and waste disposal.
You've given up, all right. You've given up logic.
The anti-nuke types are just running on emotion, so keep it simple. By displacing fossil fuels, nuclear has saved millions.
The false dichotomy is the opposite of logic. Thanks for proving my point. Nuclear only looks good compared to coal, which is why you nuclear fanboys always have to mention it even when nobody else brought it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear only looks good compared to coal,
And gas. And hydro. And wind. PV Solar is theoretically safer, and probably the future. In big farms of course - solar panels on house roofs lead to far more deaths per GWhr than nuclear, due to falls and electrocutions.
We just need to figure out how to economically store it for when the sun is not shining. That is hard, but we'll get there one day.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you anti nuclear types keep spreading decades old out of date FUD about the current state of nuclear power? Why don't you ever sit down and have a rational discussion about the subject with a open mind? Most of the issue you have were solved decades ago but the FUD you and your kind keep spreading won't allow it to be used.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal is just low hanging fruit. Everything looks better when compared to coal. When you sit down and to the real math taking into account environmentally, reliability, safety, and cost nuclear looks better than everything else with the possible exception to geo thermal.
An this is with out of date technology. Think of what nuclear will be like when the newer designs come out of the lab.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The decision to shut down Diablo was a business decision. Nuclear was simply not competitive with the alternatives at this point, and bringing the plant up to date was going to be far too expensive, AND RISKY - We have experience with nuclear upgrade screwups here, some which caused ratepayers billions of dollars on useless upgrades that, in the end were the root cause of the permanent closure of the San Onofre plant in SoCal.
SEE: It's not just the steam generators that failed at San Onofre [sandiegouniontribune.com]
How San Ono [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I've given up trying to make complex arguments about safety and waste disposal.
I've gave up a long time ago trying to explain anything to the anti nuke types. They are simply unwilling to accept that the data they are using is decades out of date and just want to spread FUD about the current state of nuclear power.
Thanks for the links, they do look interesting to read. I came across this video the other day that I thought was interesting.
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k [youtu.be]
It's simplified but touches on the plans we have had for decades to deal with nuclear waste.
Re: So it really doesn't matter how many lives it (Score:1)
Flint Michigan wasn't a disaster, it was bad politics. If you want examples of disaster relief for disasters akin to a nuclear incident, see 9/11 and Katrina.
Re: (Score:2)
You are powerless to stop it. You need baseline energy.
It's one of the core elements of every rockin tune.
Why is Musk even mentioned? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to weigh in on the main issue here at all but why the heck is Musk even mentioned in the summary? Why does the opinion of one random billionaire matter in this? The man owns twitter now so all of a sudden he's an expert on the future of nuclear plants? His opinion on this matters as much to me as Tom Cruz's (as in, not at all)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Critical thinking isn't a feature of left or right politics. Power is.
Re: (Score:2)
The man owns twitter now so all of a sudden he's an expert on the future of nuclear plants?
Look, Elon might not be a nuclear engineer, but he did buy holiday inn express last night.
Re: (Score:2)
As the CEO of a business that will provide a significant demand for a product that Diablo Canyon produces, I can see where his opinion might matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's a NON-random billionaire (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not trying to weigh in on the main issue here at all but why the heck is Musk even mentioned in the summary? Why does the opinion of one random billionaire matter in this?
Because Elon Musk is not a random billionaire. He is a futurist who is firmly dedicated to promoting the human race's survival, by (among other things) moving the Earth to sustainable technologies and enabling humanity to move beyond Earth, and eventually the solar system.
He also believes in doing well by doing good, building profitab
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you look at Musk's record, it's pretty hit and miss. There nuclear industry should probably be wary, it could go either way if he gets involved.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to weigh in on the main issue here at all but why the heck is Musk even mentioned in the summary? Why does the opinion of one random billionaire matter in this? The man owns twitter now so all of a sudden he's an expert on the future of nuclear plants? His opinion on this matters as much to me as Tom Cruz's (as in, not at all)
His opinion is overvalued just like Zuckerberg's was for a very long time. A few years ago I worked for a company in the lower part of the Fortune 500. I'm not going to name them for various reasons, but I will say that while they like to pretend that they are innovators, in reality they are reactionary and extremely risk resistant. They really and truly wait to see where others lead and then they follow them and claim that they were always there up front from the beginning. Anyway, this company spe
Re: (Score:1)
Because he saw the original 79 Scientists+CEOs open letter asking Newsom keep Diablo open...
https://mobile.twitter.com/sla... [twitter.com] ...by way of Slashdot feed, and responded "Agreed" and I'm personally hoping he'll chime in on Diablo again, to clarify his agreement. I think his (more vocal) support of Diablo would help improve the chanced Diablo stays open.
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk was mentioned because he has been consistently urging for nuclear power plants to be kept open until renewable power can support all our needs. This is newsworthy for two reasons: first, because Elon Musk has been an outspoken advocate for reducing CO2 emissions to avoid climate change, and it's unusual for climate change advocates to be pro-nuclear power; second, because Tesla sells solar panels and giant battery packs, so there's an element of "man bites dog" in that he's arguing for something
Re: (Score:2)
There are people who have been pushing for the exact same thing who are far more educated then Musk. I'd much rather hear from them as there is nothing about Musk that makes him the go to guy for commenting on stuff like this relative to proper experts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because he is "trending" since he bought twitter. His name is a big key word now so any search engines will automatically move articles with his name in them to the top. Musk has actually nothing to do with the article subject, he is just mentioned there to bring eye balls to the article.
sigh (Score:1)
Is elon going to have an opinion on everything?
Maybe he could decide if I should shit or piss.
Re: (Score:2)
It will work as long as you keep making the monthly payment for the flush option on your Tesla electric toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not both?
Give him a few years and he will (Score:2, Insightful)
But I have committed the cardinal sin of
Re: (Score:2)
Get help.
Re: (Score:2)
Diablo Canyon 2 why can't you be more like Diablo (Score:4, Funny)
Diablo Canyon 2 why can't you be more like Diablo Canyon 1?
Re: Diablo Canyon 2 why can't you be more like Dia (Score:2)
Because they won't hire me an assistant...
Re: (Score:2)
Stay a while and listen.
desperation move? (Score:2)
Maybe a dose of reality has struck and they realized they need the energy after all. But a much better idea to build a new one somewhere else, like not so near a fault line. (Pro tip: try also not to build it on the pacific ocean super near the cascadia subduction zone either)
Make a big deal about zero carbon of ongoing operations, something like 'working in cooperation with green alternatives to supply peak loads, where this is boring old base load', and assure everyone that you'll only be using 'conflict-
Re: (Score:2)
The subduction zone is much further North. As in, Washington. The major faults in Southern California are horizontal faults.
Also, the reason they can't build a new one not so near a fault line is "not near a fault line" pretty much excludes building one in California.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a dose of reality has struck and they realized they need the energy after all. But a much better idea to build a new one somewhere else,
Your "much better idea" doesn't make sense because this is California and we are ideally located for solar and wind power. Even if you build storage with it to make it emulate base load power when needed, either is still cheaper and faster to build than nuclear. We can get more power in less time with less money by building wind or solar, so it makes sense on literally no level to build more nuclear plants.
like not so near a fault line. (Pro tip: try also not to build it on the pacific ocean super near the cascadia subduction zone either)
Tell us you know nothing about California without telling us you know nothing about California. Hint:
keep it open (Score:2)
We should be building more nuclear power.
Having the power plant there in Diablo Canyon has kept the area around it free of people and all natural. Its beautiful there. Not so much untouched California coast left.
Re:keep it open (Score:4, Informative)
Two and a half million people live on California's Central Coast. It's been kept pretty natural, but the area is certainly not free of people.
And it might be understandable that people in the area are not eager to trust energy companies, considering the last time they trusted one (UNOCAL), an entire town (one of the most beautiful in all of California) was practically wiped out because some cost-cutting execs decided to skimp on the safety features. Forty-five years later, the town and the surrounding coastline and ecosystem are just barely recovered. I used to live near there (and near Diablo) and it's absolutely reasonable that a nuclear plant there should be upgraded to protect the people and coastline. The question is who can be trusted to run it safely?
https://www.latimes.com/archiv... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Two and a half million people live on California's Central Coast. It's been kept pretty natural
Like essentially the rest of the world, all but a few patches of redwoods and a little chunk up here in NoCal have been clear-cut at least once. It's quite unnatural.
it's absolutely reasonable that a nuclear plant there should be upgraded to protect the people and coastline.
Not as reasonable as shutting it down.
The question is who can be trusted to run it safely?
In this state? Absolutely fucking nobody. Certainly PG&E can't be trusted to come anywhere near it. But that illustrates a larger problem. I double extra promise you that if the CA PUC is ever deeply investigated we will find corruption at all levels. They have essentially existed to rubberstamp PG&
Re: (Score:2)
Short of the power plant, the entire coast from Avila to Los Osos is all natural. Montana de Oro is one of my favorite spots. The safety zone around the power plant really has kept the area natural, plus is runs into Montana de Oro, leaving the beautiful natural coast there.
What problems has the power plant caused? Oil companies have done horrible things to the coast but that isn't what we are talking about. The state benefits from the clean power and Diablo Canyon certainly has economic benefits for the
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.pge.com/en_US/resi... [pge.com]
http://parks.ca.gov/?page_id=5... [ca.gov]
Without the power plant and the park the bluffs that wrap the coast there would look just like Cayucos, a strip of expensive homes across the bluffs.
Naw...let's shoot ourselves in both feet (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, what the hell else would you call shutting down and blocking nuclear power plants while also trying (and succeeding) in shutting down and blocking oil and gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines while screaming bloody murder about carbon free electricity for all?
This is why I don't believe a word the enviros say. Their crazy* is on full display.
*Okay, "crazy" is a judgy word. The exact thing I mean is self-contradictory impulses greased by some good old fashioned ignorance about how things l
Re:Naw... (Score:1)
Now if less than half of americans have 1K available liquid, how are they going to buy an eV, even with 12,5K subsidy for union built cars. Truth is their disattachment from reailty is what makes the left. And with increasing interest rates (finally) those l
Climate Change (Score:4, Insightful)
If California's government honestly believes that climate change is a "crisis" this is a no-brainer. It makes zero sense to be shutting down carbon-free energy sources while continuing to operate carbon emitting ones.
But of course political rhetoric rarely matches reality.
Gavin Newsom Reconsiders (Score:1)
I'm anti-nuclear... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this sounds reasonable if the plants can be run safely
They can't
They're already built & they're supplying a demand that would be difficult to replace at such short notice
In short that's really not accurate [almanacnews.com]. It takes years to refurb a nuclear plant, we can literally build renewables in the time it takes to do. It's also very expensive. If we're spending that money, then we should do what makes sense for the future. That means renewables.
The fact is that where this reactor is sited makes it inappropriate to continue to maintain it, no matter what else you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can't
It is running safely right now. It does not need to be refurbished at all. It can run for 20 more years at least.
"earthquake-safety upgrades" ? No. (Score:1, Informative)
A spokesperson for the governor clarified that Newsom still wants to see the facility shut down long term. "It's been six years since PG&E agreed to close the plant near San Luis Obispo, rather than invest in expensive environmental and earthquake-safety upgrades."
...folks the ENVIRONMENTAL "upgrades" is a thing. It is a nonsense thing... Diablo outputs warm water into the infinite-heat-sink which is The Pacific Ocean. There's no actual impact since that started in 1995... that tiny amount of warm wat
Re: (Score:3)
I'm reading over some of the reports about Diablo Canyon plant now. There is nothing in here that states any real reason to shut the plant down. There are normal operating issues it seems. One of the reports deals with the auxiliary feedwater system failing. The reactor that it serviced was shutdown and the system repaired.
There is simply nothing critical about the issues with Diablo Canyon that warrants a shut down at this time.