US Grants $1.1 Billion To Keep Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Open (reuters.com) 133
The Biden administration said on Monday it has approved conditional funding of up to $1.1 billion to prevent the closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California, as part of its effort to fight climate change. Reuters reports: The Pacific Gas & Electric plant, which was set to fully shut in 2025, applied for funding in the initial phase of the Department of Energy's (DOE) $6 billion Civil Nuclear Credit program meant to help keep struggling nuclear power reactors open. Diablo is the last operating nuclear plant in California. The Biden administration believes nuclear power is critical in curbing climate change and wants to keep plants open ahead of the development of next-generation reactors. President Joe Biden wants to decarbonize the power grid by 2035.
The U.S. nuclear power industry's 92 reactors generate more than half of the country's virtually carbon-free electricity. But about a dozen reactors have closed since 2013 in the face of competition from renewable energy and plants that burn plentiful natural gas. U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm said the grant was a "critical step toward ensuring that our domestic nuclear fleet will continue providing reliable and affordable power to Americans as the nation's largest source of clean electricity." Further reading: Debate at COP27: Nuclear Energy, Climate Friend or Foe?
The U.S. nuclear power industry's 92 reactors generate more than half of the country's virtually carbon-free electricity. But about a dozen reactors have closed since 2013 in the face of competition from renewable energy and plants that burn plentiful natural gas. U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm said the grant was a "critical step toward ensuring that our domestic nuclear fleet will continue providing reliable and affordable power to Americans as the nation's largest source of clean electricity." Further reading: Debate at COP27: Nuclear Energy, Climate Friend or Foe?
Diablo Canyon 2 (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Diablo Canyon 2 was great. Diablo Canyon 3 however. . .
Re:Diablo Canyon 2 (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
At least that's one reactor they won't shut down. Ever. It's immortal!
T-437 Safety Command Console costs alot + shipping (Score:2)
T-437 Safety Command Console costs alot + shipping
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a fan of peach bottom, personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Remarkable to find anything bi-partisan (Score:4, Interesting)
These days it seems like you find the two major U.S. parties on the opposite side of every issue (to the point where they flip en-masse if the other side flips on something).
But in the middle of that all, a shining example has ben support for nuclear energy which at this point has very strong bi-partisan support, including at the state level where a number of reactors in both Democrat and Republican controlled states being kept open that were supposed to be shut down.
With the upcoming Republican takeover of the house, one could imagine over the next two years the only bills actually getting passed all relating to supporting nuclear power in one form or another!
Re: Remarkable to find anything bi-partisan (Score:2)
This one plant is sucking up 1/6th of all available funds to keep all of the US nuclear power plants in operation, why can't California, the richest, smartest, and most environmentally conscious state in the country (just ask them) fund its own damn power plant? Why do the need federal grants to keep their power plant operating?
I mean, if we only had 5 or 6 nuclear power plants in the country that would be one thing, but there are over 90 nukes in the country, seems kinda selfish to spend so much money on o
Re: (Score:2)
Because a lot of that wealth keeps getting siphoned off to help keep a few red states from actually falling into barbarism.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Both parties are utterly stupid on this issue. This will ruin the US, but morons like you will continue to claim otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
You are deep in delusion. Not any surprise give what crap you post. And no, I am now "working" with anyone. I just have an understanding of the subject matter you lack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Support for nuclear? More like bailing out Cali yet again.
Yes it's also that but there are many other pro-nuclear things from the federal government in motion (a whole bunch of different stuff in the Inflation Accretion Act).
Also California originally didn't want it bailed out, they wanted it shut down. But they have gone 180 on this issue while Republicans have maintained support for nuclear as well.
The fact is that Democrats want nuclear for zero carbon, and Republicans want it for energy security. Actu
Re:Remarkable to find anything bi-partisan (Score:5, Insightful)
Cali is kind of stuck. Without Diablo Canyon they will have customers in the dark. And they know it.
Re: Remarkable to find anything bi-partisan (Score:5, Informative)
California gets $0.65 in spending for every dollar it puts into the Treasury. Out of the 50 states 47 get more federal support than California. Only Illinois, Washington and New Jersey get fewer federal dollars relative to their taxes paid.
So I think what you meant to say was "Thank you California"
Re: Remarkable to find anything bi-partisan (Score:2)
Was this calculation done before or after the last administration reduced the SALT deduction? Californians used to 'write off' countless billions in state and local taxes, reducing the actual money going to Washington in the form of income taxes.
If California is so rich, why do they need 1/6th if all available funds to keep their only nuclear power plant in operation, when there are over 90 in operation across America that could also use that money?
Funny how Californians always point out the taxes they pay
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Those numbers are inaccurate.
California has numerous government labs, bases and other functions and facilities which bring in many billions every year which is money almost entirely pumped into the local economy which are not counted on the input side to the California economy.
That has always irritated me when this comes up.
Re: (Score:2)
A cursory look says that's also false.
Total per capita spending including Social Security and Medicare spending: 35th of 50 states. They receive about 90% of the national average for all federal spending within the state.
Re:Remarkable to find anything bi-partisan (Score:5, Interesting)
It's bailing out PG&E, which is definitely not popular in California.
The right outcome is to expropriate the plant for $1 (as PG&E wants to shut it down anyway, how can they complain), take ownership and keep it running at cost.
Re: (Score:2)
PG&E should pay them to take it away. At some point it's going to need to be decommissioned and a long term home for all the nuclear waste stored on-site will have to be found. It will cost whoever owns it money.
decommission [Re:Remarkable to find anything b...] (Score:2)
PG&E should pay them to take it away. At some point it's going to need to be decommissioned and a long term home for all the nuclear waste stored on-site will have to be found. It will cost whoever owns it money.
If it's expensive to decommission, that is an argument to keep it running as long as possible, not an argument to shut it down.
Re: (Score:2)
as PG&E wants to shut it down anyway, how can they complain
That is unfortunately not how assets work. In accounting, even if something represents an ongoing cost, or an abandonment cost, it none the less has paper value based on the cost of the equipment.
Think of it like a $10m painting. Just because someone doesn't want it, and just because it doesn't actually generate any ongoing revenue doesn't mean it is worth $1.
Re: (Score:3)
cost basis accounting [Re:Remarkable to find a...] (Score:2)
That is unfortunately not how assets work. In accounting, even if something represents an ongoing cost, or an abandonment cost, it none the less has paper value based on the cost of the equipment.
Wrong. In accounting, cost of equipment is depreciated. The "paper value" is not the purchase price.
Think of it like a $10m painting. Just because someone doesn't want it, and just because it doesn't actually generate any ongoing revenue doesn't mean it is worth $1.
That's sunk-cost.
If someone doesn't want a painting, it may still have value. If no one wants a painting (and it doesn't generate ongoing revenue), its worth is zero. That's the very definition of worth in accounting (with the proviso that the cost basis is subject to IRS depreciation rules. You can't just declare an item at zero value. Unless you try to sell it and there are no buyers.)
Re: (Score:2)
The right outcome is to expropriate the plant for $1 (as PG&E wants to shut it down anyway, how can they complain), take ownership and keep it running at cost.
Agreed. But that's socialism which will never fly in the US.
Re: Remarkable to find anything bi-partisan (Score:2)
Luckily we are talking about California, not America - they tend to view things differently in CA...
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like a good idea.
But I would argue it on a the grounds of safety.
For Nuclear to be at all safe we need an external auditor that is focused only on safe operations. Today we put that role into the government. You don't want the role of external auditor degraded any more than it already is.
If you put the role of operations and audit into the same entity, and the role of auditor will be degraded to "safe face" on the role of operations.
Nuclear is already safer than anything else (Score:1)
But I would argue it on a the grounds of safety.
Per watt nuclear energy is already as safe [siemens.com] as wind and solar. Are you arguing we should halt putting up more wind and solar until they are safer?
It's also by far the most regulated form of power, meaning that its already got tons of safeguards which is why there have been no deaths from nuclear power for quite a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's saying he doesn't want the plant to be run by the same folks who do safety checks because it sets up conflict of interest.
That would be socialism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody bails out California. If they were a country their economy would be the world's fifth largest. If anything they fund the shitty red states like Mitch McConnell's home state of Kentucky.
Re: Remarkable to find anything bi-partisan (Score:2)
Then why do they need $1.1BN to keep a privately-owned Nuclear power plant in operation?
Re: Remarkable to find anything bi-partisan (Score:2)
Bailing out California? California is the second biggest net contributor to the federal government, second only to New York. The states that are being bailed out are Alaska, Mississippi, Kentucky etc.
California pays many times that in Federal Taxes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remarkable to find anything bi-partisan (Score:4, Informative)
This article attempts to explain it:
https://localnewsmatters.org/2... [localnewsmatters.org]
Though it seems rather cheer-leadery and is short on details.
Honestly it seems like they should have looked at SMRs as a replacement years ago, assuming Diablo Canyon really costs that much for continued operation in total. There seems to be no mention of what kind of revenue it generates.
Re: (Score:1)
The question to ask here is if it would be better to spend $1.1bn of tax money on keeping this plant going or on wind turbines.
They are claiming that the plant produces electricity at $60/MWh, which is quite expensive and hence the reason they want to shut it down. Wind would obviously be much cheaper. The reactor produces 1.1GWe.
Using worst case for offshore wind in California, for $1.1bn they could deploy around 1,100 turbines with a average output of 11GW. With that much over-capacity it would never fall
Re: Does it matter? (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this informative? All it's got is a number of windmills and a price. Nothing about how much power will be produced or if it's a good deal or not. What we do know is that, for offshore wind, they tend to use the really big turbines. So, that means maybe something like 50K MegaWatt-hours per year per turbine. With 100 of them, that would be something like 5 billion KWh per year. If it lasts 30 years, that's 2.33 cents per KWh. Are we saying that's a bad deal or a good deal?
Re:Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That's why I said don't divert the money now, but get to building that wind capacity ASAP because at worst you end up with an extra 11GW of clean energy on top of the reactor. More likely when they come asking for money again in a few years you can say no.
Re: (Score:2)
and this:
are exclusionary statements.
Re: (Score:1)
The point I was making is that if the government is in the business of spending billions on energy security, it should think a little ahead.
Re: (Score:1)
"No longer" implies "did at one time".
Re: Does it matter? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need another power plant. When you have 11x over capacity and an area off-shore where there is constant wind that never falls below 10%, there is no need for more backup.
In your example of producing 1/8th the rated power, it's still a lot more than that reactor.
Re: (Score:1)
I firmly believe in your theories.
I think your numbers are solid and your thinking is sound.
You must have taken this to the next level. It's such an obvious and easy money maker. I'm surprised no one else is doing it.
Where can I go to invest in your company?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not so sure about his numbers, but I would like to point out that there is indeed a huge amount of investments going into renewables and almost none in nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
If your wind is 7.5 m/s the turbines will only produce 1/8 of the given power.
That does not really matter, as you plan the plant for its average output and not for its peak, just like any other power plant.
Your speeds given 15m/sex and 7.5m/sec are pretty high speeds, just for your interest.
Re: (Score:2)
They are claiming that the plant produces electricity at $60/MWh, which is quite expensive...Wind would obviously be much cheaper.
Obviously not. The latest report shows a range of $61-116/MWh for offshore wind. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wi... [energy.gov]
The reactor produces 1.1GWe.
It is actually capable of producing twice that (2.2 Gw), as it was throughout this summer.
for $1.1bn they could deploy around 1,100 turbines with a average output of 11GW.
You are off by at least an order of magnitude. There is currently a 2.6GW offshore wind farm off Virginia's coast that has a cost SPIKE of $2bil (for a new grand total of $10bil). https://www.eenews.net/article... [eenews.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Why is offshore wind so expensive in the US?
I'm there last UK auctions it was in at £25/MWH, maybe $30.
Re: (Score:3)
The latest price I see is £48/MWH ($57 USD).
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-price-for-uk-offshore-wind-is-four-times-cheaper-than-gas/
Re: (Score:2)
There were some auctions earlier this year that went with £37/MWh, but the actual bids were around £25-27. Because of the way the system works they get awarded the higher rate even if they bid lower, because the government wants to have multiple operators rather than all the licences going to the lowest bidder. Also because the government wants to see continued investment in offshore wind.
https://www.4coffshore.com/new... [4coffshore.com]
I can't find the PDF for the bids now, I'll have to dig it out
Re: (Score:2)
GOOD! (Score:2)
Nuclear is the only way we generate energy in sufficient density to meet any of the climate goals without resorting to stupid antics, like potentially irreversibly blotting out the sun. Shutting this site down without a replacement would be next-level moronic. If you don't like the site design, go build a new one. Modern nuke tech is much better anyhow -- you'll be doing everyone a favor.
Re: (Score:3)
Capacity [Re:GOOD!] (Score:2)
https://solarbay.com.au/newsro... [solarbay.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting this site down without a replacement would be next-level moronic.
Yes and no. Just because you don't have a replacement doesn't mean it's not a good idea to shutdown something that is well beyond it's design life. Basic reliability theory states that you can't repair and maintain to as-new condition, and that eventually you will start getting serious failures.
The hope here is that it gets shut down before any other high profile incident sets the industry back another 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
This is kind of what lead to the failure of nuclear in the US. It was seen as a magic bullet so no amount of money was too much to spend. Texas rate payers were shafted in the late 1970s paying five time
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
the socialization of electricity production
the privatization of the electricity production in my country lead to more expensive electricity. I want it back in gov hands
The Water Works is run by the govment so why not? (Score:2)
The Water Works is run by the govment so why not do the same for the power system?
Tennessee Valley Authority (Score:2)
The TVA train has left that station a long time ago.
mismanaged, maladministrated to death (Score:2)
Energy costs money to make. People and businesses pay more than the money that energy costs to make. This is called an energy market.
What in the fuck are they doing wrong that these No Government Regulation proponents can't make money without the Government?
This is so ass-backwards I need to have it explained.
As another example, the fossil fools industry in my country receives billions of dollars per year in subsidies, tax rebates and grants from tax payers. While the RWNJs get on the radio and vent bile
Re: (Score:2)
No Government Regulation proponents can't make money without the Government
I'm sorry, do you think there is a dearth of regulation on either nuclear power plants or any additional cali regs specifically? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, do you think there is a dearth of regulation on either nuclear power plants or any additional cali regs specifically? Really?
PG&E was partially deregulated in 1996. Hasn't gone well. HTH.
Re: mismanaged, maladministrated to death (Score:2)
What theyâ(TM)re doing is sitting and watching methane be incredibly cheep, while going out of business. Until the price of methane reflects the catastrophic damage gas peaker plants do to the atmosphere, simple market economics arenâ(TM)t going to make this work out.
It's not mismanagement - it's voters (Score:5, Interesting)
Voters are dumb, envious, ignorant and want to blame others for their problems. We can't do any of the easy things to reduce energy costs and the impact on the environment because those changes might give the wrong people advantages.
Re: (Score:2)
Passing spot wholesale price onto consumers has its problems. Ask those people in Texas who received bills with rates at $9000/kWh.
Re: (Score:2)
The coal exporters seem to be fraudulently exaggerating the quality of the coal we export.
Basically only possible if the users are households.
A power plant operator realizes the quality instantly, the wrong coal can even damage the plant.
Re: mismanaged, maladministrated to death (Score:2)
But "Nuclear is Cheap!" (Score:1)
Ok enough trolling disingenuous nuclear proponents that keep citing entirely fictitious cost projections. Good on the US government for delivering energy subsidies to somewhere they're actually needed for once in its existence. Now let's keep funding battery and fusion research as well so we can one day live off a power industry that doesn't "
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
K, now have the government pay for any cost overruns caused by government interference and see whether it's still not viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Found the nuclear fanboy who thinks the nuclear industry can regulate itself.
Hint: no industry will do that in good faith, HTH
Re: (Score:1)
I would rather be thought of as a nuclear fan boy than one of the biggest idiots on /.
So why are you posting anonymously, coward? All of the lowest-quality comments here are posted by people from whom you are indistinguishable.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if the plant operator pays for their own insurance to cover any potential accidents.
Since the government offers free insurance, like any insurer they get to set the terms. I somehow doubt that a commercial insurer taking on trillions in liability will not want to heavily regulate nuclear power.
Re: (Score:3)
I keep hearing this. What interference is the government causing?
"Government Interference" (Score:2)
The trouble with nuclear is that you can do it cheap or you can do it safe.
Fukushima is what happens when you pick "cheap". That city was evacuated for about 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima is what happens when you pick "cheap".
Up until it blew up, Fukushima was one of these "modern, safe, it-can't-happen-here" powerplants in an advanced western-style industrialised nation.
Re: But "Nuclear is Cheap!" (Score:2)
We haven't stopped funding other projects, but with over 90 nukes in the US, why does this one nuke need 1/6th of all federal grants available? Are the other 90 plants supposed to share the remaining $5BN? This is a $1.1BN gift of free money to PG&E to keep one remaining power plant in operation...
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't stopped funding other projects, but with over 90 nukes in the US, why does this one nuke need 1/6th of all federal grants available? Are the other 90 plants supposed to share the remaining $5BN? This is a $1.1BN gift of free money to PG&E to keep one remaining power plant in operation...
Here's a guess: if the plant shuts down, a lot of people in the state won't have power. Feel free to rant on, but bear in mind that access to electric power is not a convenience.
How about that (Score:2)
Reality does have a tendency to assert itself once in awhile.
in the face of competition from renewable energy and plants that burn plentiful natural gas.
And in the face of mindless political opposition.
Great (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You clearly haven't seen the price tag for a nuclear plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Great (Score:2)
They aren't building it, they are subsidizing it - big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
A real conservative would say that if a commercial generating plant can't turn a profit then maybe they shouldn't be in business.
In other words (Score:1)
Diablo Canyon is a welfare queen. It can't turn a profit. Why aren't republicans yelling at this power plant to get a better job and stop being a leech to the tax payers? Maybe Diablo Canyon should have saved up some money for a rainy day.
Re: In other words (Score:2)
PG&E was too busy burning down upstate California to plan ahead for a rainy day...
Why does a private power plant deserve $1.1BN of taxpayer funding?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the other option is people learning to live without AC...which they can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the other option is people learning to live without AC...which they can't.
Probably more about oxygen generators and dialysis machines, but sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the government pay for these socialist dental implants?
Neck-and-neck with renewables (Score:4, Interesting)
Looking at the data for 2021 [eia.gov], nuclear produced 771 billion kWh, vs 815 for all renewables put together - but that includes 54 of biomass (mostly wood and landfill gas) which are renewable and net-0 (ish) but a bit different.
So, the crossover point of wind+hydro+solar over nuclear has not happened, but is imminent.
The crossover point of wind+hydro+solar+nuclear (1593) over fossil fuels (2508) will require almost doubling 2021 wind+solar production, assuming total production and nuclear production remain constant.
The last doubling of wind power took 7 years, although its growth in that period [statista.com] looks more linear than exponential to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydro is older and you shouldn't expect high growth.
Wind and solar is different. It can even speed up, as it depends on fossil prices to make investment more or less attractive.
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity generation has been level [statista.com] for over a decade, although I don't see how that can continue with the transition to electric cars. We would have to make really big efficiency gains elsewhere, but where?
Re: Neck-and-neck with renewables (Score:2)
Marketing speak (Score:2)
Notice how they use the term "carbon free" rather than non-polluting? It seems like every discussion of nuclear, pro and con, technical and non-technical, left and right, develops Alzheimers when it comes to radioactive waste.
Nuclear is the dirtiest form of energy: We have still not developed a method of properly handling the waste products during their 10,000-100,000 year radioactive period. I am not worried about the next 500 years. I am very concerned about the 10,000-100,000 years after that. 500 years
Re: (Score:2)
No idea why you are so WayStipiderThanMe.
There is a slight difference between an Uranium ore you find in the desert of Australia and a 1ton uranium oxide block sitting in your basement.
Well ... a slight difference ... you can figure the difference by putting your hand on the block. Or taking off your sunglasses and look at the glow with straight eyes ... dumbass.
Carbon tax (Score:2)
But about a dozen reactors have closed since 2013 in the face of competition from renewable energy and plants that burn plentiful natural gas.
That's the problem. The sane way of handling all of this would be a carbon tax. If other sources of carbon-free energy are cheaper, the reactors should close. Let's spend the money where we get the most benefit. But they shouldn't get undercut by natural gas plants that are only cheap because they don't have to pay for dumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. Tax them for the damage they do and let the market find the most efficient solution.
Well golly gee wiz... (Score:2)
Let's just see here: The CA Democrats hate nuclear power and have been working hard to kill all of California's nuke plants (this is the last one running), and the national Democrats also hate nuclear power - they've been working to shut down the pro-nuclear stuff the bad orange man started working to enable.... so what explains the national Democrats (the GOP has not taken over the House yet) giving money to the CA Democrats to keep a nuke plant running? Here's a possible answer:
CA recently realized we wou