Greens targeting last CA nuclear plant

diablo Canyon power plantEnvironmentalists who hope to shut down California’s last remaining nuclear power plant are expected to attend a State Water Resources Control Board meeting on Tuesday in Sacramento to make their case that the Diablo Canyon facility is unsafe.

The board will take up possible changes in state rules affecting Diablo Canyon’s cooling water intake structure, a common feature of power plants build next to large bodies of water that are crucial to reducing excess heat during power production but that also can hurt nearby ecosystems. Diablo’s two nuclear generators, which produce more than 2,200 megawatts total, are located on the Pacific Ocean 13 miles south of San Luis Obispo.

It’s considered highly unlikely that the state water board would do anything dramatic. Federal law leaves the most important decisions on nuclear plants to federal authorities. But greens believe that their years of raising questions about the San Onofre nuclear power plant helped clear the way to the decision to shutter the north San Diego County facility in 2011 after it had severe problems with defective steam generators at both its towers.

The owner of the Diablo Canyon plant, Pacific Gas & Electric, has quietly made major progress toward keeping the plant in operation through 2045. This is from a July 13 greentechmedia account:

The license renewal process for Diablo Canyon, California’s last remaining operational nuclear power plant, has just been restarted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

 

Diablo Canyon’s reactors became operable in 1985 and 1986 and their licenses expire in 2024 and 2025. … PG&E started applying to the NRC for a 20-year license extension in 2009, but Japan’s Fukushima incident put the extension on hold until new seismic studies for Diablo Canyon were completed and submitted to the NRC and California Public Utilities Commission.

 

In September of last year, the seismic study conducted by PG&E to determine the safety of the Diablo Canyon plant found that the facility was “designed to withstand and perform [its] safety functions during and after a major seismic event.”

Seismic study sure to face questions

This study is sure to face sharp criticism at the state water board meeting next week. A preview of the criticisms can be seen in a San Francisco Chronicle story on the seismic report earlier this month.

Activists who never wanted Diablo in the first place have been pushing hard to close it, particularly after California’s only other commercial nuclear plant — San Onofre, north of San Diego — shut down in 2012.

 

They argue that PG&E has consistently underestimated earthquake threats to the plant, and that PG&E has a long record of snafus at Diablo, such as replacing the steam generators and vessel heads without first conducting a necessary seismic test. PG&E, in contrast, says the plant boasts a solid safety record.

 

“Our point is, this is a pattern with them,” said Jane Swanson, with Mothers for Peace. “They keep screwing up — and this is a nuclear plant.”

A different dimension to this energy fight

But this battle has different overtones than many fights over energy sources, which often involve declarations that fossil fuels should be scrapped entirely as soon as possible because of their role in generating the greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming. Some defenders of Diablo Canyon say it’s their side that has the moral high ground because the plant is a crucial component of an intelligent policy to address climate change. This is from the Chronicle:

California law forbids building more nuclear plants in the state until the federal government comes up with a long-term solution for dealing with the radioactive waste. And with San Onofre closed, nuclear advocates say the state needs Diablo Canyon in order to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear plants generate electricity without pumping carbon dioxide into the air, and unlike solar power plants and wind farms, their output doesn’t vary from one hour to the next.

 

“We really need to have a low-carbon, base load source of electricity,” said Jessica Lovering, a senior analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland think tank focused on energy and the environment. “Taking offline the last nuclear plant would be pretty detrimental to carbon emission reduction goals.”

The California Coastal Commission at some point is also likely to have some regulatory say over any relicensing of Diablo Canyon.

PG&E is believed to consider the plant to be a cornerstone of supply generation for decades to come. But as the greentechmedia account noted, the giant utility “has not yet made a decision about whether to move forward with the relicensing process” — despite building a case for an extended permit for nearly a decade.

4 comments

Write a comment
  1. Ronald Stein
    Ronald Stein 31 July, 2015, 07:49

    Major strides are taking place with alternative energies, but the major hurdle for alternatives is the cost of competing with the price of oil. An article several years ago in the Wall Street Journal by Keith Johnson describes the break even numbers:

    Geothermal breaks even when crude oil is at $57
    Nuclear power breaks even when crude oil is at $69
    Onshore wind power breaks even when crude oil is at $92
    Offshore wind power breaks even when crude oil is at $189
    Solar thermal breaks even when crude oil is at $393
    Natural gas breaks even when crude oil is at $657

    Today, crude oil is less than $50 a barrel.

    The break even number is a partial cause as to why alternatives they cannot come on line fast enough or at the scale required to replace current energy sources for several decades. The optimistic outlook in 2030 is that our energy sources will still be about 80% dependent on crude oil, coal and natural gas.

    More infrastructure and transmission lines may be required to bring Solar and Wind green power back from the desert to where the homes and businesses are located.
    • The green power options may NOT be available 24/7 as green power relies on Mother Nature’s sun and wind.
    • Other power plants such as fossil fuel and natural gas, that can provide 24/7 power will produce more metric tons of smog producing pollutants, and more metric tons of carbon emissions.

    The choices are MORE emissions, and MORE costly energy, but hopefully the SILENT majority of the homes and businesses that will be breathing those extra emissions and paying higher costs for power, and not just the few vocal minority, will be able to make those choices.

    Reply this comment
  2. Bill Gore
    Bill Gore 31 July, 2015, 22:12

    “We really need to have a low-carbon, base load source of electricity,”
    We Do!!!! And it is called GEOTHERMAL. Repeat: GEOTHERMAL. And California is particularly rich in cheap easy to drill geothermal resources! GEOTHERMAL is CLEAN GREEN BASELOAD. It does NOT produce waste that threatens life on earth!!!
    Someone explain what is this INSANE BIAS against geothermal. PLEASE. Nuclear is a stark raving NIGHTMARE….

    Reply this comment
  3. Ghettoman
    Ghettoman 2 August, 2015, 11:50

    As a lifelong san diegan I am ashamed to drive by San Onofre and see this huge power plant sitting there due to government stupidity and ignorance. To simply wipeout this massive technology by turning off a useful source of power due to steam generators is assinine. As a engineer who has friends who work there the repairs could have been done and if the correct steam generators were used then it would be up and running today. Look around you and you will see a increasing population in so-cal, more power outages and more people moving into our great areas. The idea that solar, geothermal or any other source is going to help is ludicrous! This plant is already there and needs repair, just like any other huge machine! Let the men here fix it and get moving and lets get real. We need those 3000 jobs back and we need power now! If the idiots in Sacramento get there way we will have no water storage, no power for our homes, more food stamps, and more driver licenses for non productive illegals! Nice future?

    Reply this comment
    • JimmyDeeOC
      JimmyDeeOC 4 August, 2015, 14:04

      The long term future of this state is toast. Ohh there will still be plenty of Tech and VC to go around, so public finances will be fairly well met and we won’t be like Detroit or Puerto Rico, but unless you are a tech 1%-er , the quality of life for most of us ham&eggers declines with each passing year.

      That’s not doomer speak. That’s just observable fact.

      Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Chris Reed

Chris Reed

Chris Reed is a regular contributor to Cal Watchdog. Reed is an editorial writer for U-T San Diego. Before joining the U-T in July 2005, he was the opinion-page columns editor and wrote the featured weekly Unspin column for The Orange County Register. Reed was on the national board of the Association of Opinion Page Editors from 2003-2005. From 2000 to 2005, Reed made more than 100 appearances as a featured news analyst on Los Angeles-area National Public Radio affiliate KPCC-FM. From 1990 to 1998, Reed was an editor, metro columnist and film critic at the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in Ontario. Reed has a political science degree from the University of Hawaii (Hilo campus), where he edited the student newspaper, the Vulcan News, his senior year. He is on Twitter: @chrisreed99.

Related Articles

Bad and good advice for the GOP on Latinos

May 2, 2013 By John Seiler Obviously, the Republican Party needs to do more to attract Latino voters. But it’s

Early voting: Too close on major Calif. propositions

10:06 pm, Nov. 6, 2012 By John Seiler It’s too early to call the major state initiatives. Looks like it’ll