Californians: Do you support the closure of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant?

[simonsez]

Was reading about California's rolling blackouts and future energy requirements, commitment to renewables and keeping carbon under control, and taxpayer costs involved in energy decisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
Excerpt from wiki that came from the MIT/Stanford 2021 study linked below:
"A 2021 report from researchers at MIT and Stanford states that keeping Diablo Canyon running until 2035 would reduce the state's carbon emissions from electricity generation by 11% every year, save the state a cumulative $2.6 billion (rising to $21 billion if kept open until 2045), and improve the reliability of the grid."

https://news.mit.edu/2021/diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-1108

Does the good news regarding nuclear (stable, minimal carbon emission, etc.) not matter due to the negative association of accidents in the past?  Tangentially, it seems Germany has shut down multiple reactors in recent years (is not alone in Europe in doing this) as a result, the situation in Ukraine is more dependent on Russian energy than we would be in a more nuclear world.

This is not my backyard so I was curious what Californians thought about this.  The governor has set in motion some actions that will close both reactors by 2025.

[Fomerly known as something]

As a new to CA, I have no clue.

[NorCal]

I'm a former Californian that doesn't support the closure.  There doesn't seem to be a solid safety or environmental reason for closing it.  And early closures are one of the most expensive things for ratepayers.

I also have a friend who's mid-senior at PG&E, and he thinks CA will have a lot of challenges with grid stability in the winter after Diablo Canyon closes.  He's the type of person who always thinks change is bad, so maybe he's overblowing it.  But I can't say I trust what PG&E says either.

I'd be willing to hear out some contrary opinions though.  Most of what I've read is pretty one-sided.

[Sibley]

Also former Californian. They've got power issues now, even if it's entirely due to PG&E's greed. Its really stupid to turn off a reliable power source when you're already having problem, which means of course they'll do it. It's not a rational decision, its an emotional one.

[waltworks]

We should be building more nuclear as fast as we possibly can, for a host of environmental and geopolitical reasons.

-W

[nereo]

Completely different sort of answer, but the Diablo canyon complex has the most protected marine protected area in all of California and that’s created a biological refuge unparalleled in the US. As a ecologist I’d hate for that to be lost, because it’s literally irreplaceable.

[windytrail]

Here are some arguments for shutting it down, some of which also apply to other nuclear in the US.

- Diablo Canyon is perched on a Seaside cliff near several earthquake fault lines in Central California, one of which is only 2,000 ft from the two reactors. Many scientists believe there is risk of extensive damage or failure should a large earthquake occur. (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/diablo-canyon-and-earthquake-risk). Another nuclear plant in San Onofre near San Diego closed in 2013 after a leak was detected and expensive repairs appeared necessary. The Fukushima disaster, brought on by earthquake and ensuing tsunami in Japan, added to Diablo’s dim future. (https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Shutting-Diablo-Canyon-s-reactors-reflects-8316329.php)

- Spent nuclear fuel is toxic to the enviornment. A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years. The US does not have the infrastructure to dispose of radioactive nuclear waste in a deep geologic repository where it could slowly lose its radioactivity without causing harm.

- Nuclear energy is not likely to be financially viable on its own to support the risk of disaster. This is why the Price Anderson Act (1957) passed to place limits on liability to personal injury and property damage due to a nuclear disaster and created an insurance pool. If a large disaster should hit and insurance money is exhausted, the US taxpayer would likely be required to fill in the funding hole. (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html)

- The cost of renewable energy has plummeted in the past decade. Solar and wind energy are now the cheapest forms of energy. Nuclear is one of the most expensive. (https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/cheap-renewable-energy-vs-fossil-fuels/)

[simonsez]

Completely different sort of answer, but the Diablo canyon complex has the most protected marine protected area in all of California and that’s created a biological refuge unparalleled in the US. As a ecologist I’d hate for that to be lost, because it’s literally irreplaceable.

Are you saying because there are no beach houses, condos, or resorts there now due to the nuclear complex that it is better ecologically right now?  I had heard a few concerns about the health of the marine water nearby the cooling outlet (cool being a relative term, I think the water comes out at 95 degrees F still) but it seems to harbor some good seal populations who have to be drawn there due to the presence of fish.  I don't know much about nuclear water and if there are any environmental maritime issues at play or if having the plant be right there on the coast is a good thing for those natural habitats.

[nereo]

Completely different sort of answer, but the Diablo canyon complex has the most protected marine protected area in all of California and that’s created a biological refuge unparalleled in the US. As a ecologist I’d hate for that to be lost, because it’s literally irreplaceable.

Are you saying because there are no beach houses, condos, or resorts there now due to the nuclear complex that it is better ecologically right now?  I had heard a few concerns about the health of the marine water nearby the cooling outlet (cool being a relative term, I think the water comes out at 95 degrees F still) but it seems to harbor some good seal populations who have to be drawn there due to the presence of fish.  I don't know much about nuclear water and if there are any environmental maritime issues at play or if having the plant be right there on the coast is a good thing for those natural habitats.

It's a de-facto no-take reserve; one of the largest and best protected in California (I believe Big Creek is the oldest, but it's much smaller).
It's not just the lack of beach houses and condos, but also the complete prohibition on any activities (including fishing) which makes it incredibly unique.  Makes for a dream comparison site when dealing with questions of anthropogenic impacts. That gives is a value which is almost incalculable when trying to tease apart, say, the impact of coastal development or fishing pressure compared with the broad-scale impacts of rising CO2 levels.

The once-through cooling effluent has certainly influenced the local ecosystem, but the restricted area extends far outside the immediate region that experiences elevated seawater temperatures by a wide margin. in fact, one of the primary ways of definitively knowing what impacts that effluent has had is to monitor changes post-shutdown (your classic BACI design).

I would hope that post-decommissioning they manage to maintain it as a no-take MPA, but I'm not optimistic.

Like I said, it's likely to be a niche opinion...

[simonsez]

Here are some arguments for shutting it down, some of which also apply to other nuclear in the US.

- Diablo Canyon is perched on a Seaside cliff near several earthquake fault lines in Central California, one of which is only 2,000 ft from the two reactors. Many scientists believe there is risk of extensive damage or failure should a large earthquake occur. (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/diablo-canyon-and-earthquake-risk). Another nuclear plant in San Onofre near San Diego closed in 2013 after a leak was detected and expensive repairs appeared necessary. The Fukushima disaster, brought on by earthquake and ensuing tsunami in Japan, added to Diablo’s dim future. (https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Shutting-Diablo-Canyon-s-reactors-reflects-8316329.php)

- Spent nuclear fuel is toxic to the enviornment. A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years. The US does not have the infrastructure to dispose of radioactive nuclear waste in a deep geologic repository where it could slowly lose its radioactivity without causing harm.

- Nuclear energy is not likely to be financially viable on its own to support the risk of disaster. This is why the Price Anderson Act (1957) passed to place limits on liability to personal injury and property damage due to a nuclear disaster and created an insurance pool. If a large disaster should hit and insurance money is exhausted, the US taxpayer would likely be required to fill in the funding hole. (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/nuclear-insurance.html)

- The cost of renewable energy has plummeted in the past decade. Solar and wind energy are now the cheapest forms of energy. Nuclear is one of the most expensive. (https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/cheap-renewable-energy-vs-fossil-fuels/)

Weren't some analyses already conducted taking the fault lines into account?  The Shoreline Fault (the one nearby) is expected to produce earthquakes up to 6.5 at most on the Richter and the power plant is rated for 7.5.  Since that's logarithmic, it seems like overkill to worry about that particular fault line.  If there is disagreement about the earthquake potential (like if the potential is actually an 8.0 quake or something), I'm all ears for other sources on that.  The first link you gave is from 2013.  Here is a report (granted, it is from PG&E to the NRC if I'm reading that correctly) from 2018 indicating "no seismic hazard vulnerabilities were identified." per the conclusion starting on page 89. 

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1812/ML18120A201.pdf

On the spent nuclear fuel, isn't that one an easy solution and a non-problem as it stands currently?  All reactors already store the waste (including gloves, clothing, etc.) on site.  Of course the waste is toxic but I haven't heard much about the toxic waste leaking out or causing issues.  If the Yucca Mountain site or something similar is available at some point in the future, wouldn't that work out pretty easily?  I've been led to understand that for the entire country and associated nuclear waste, a single facility would need to be a couple football fields big at most.  Is that not feasible due to NIMBY-ism?
Here is the NEI on storing waste:
https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us

As for the costs, I mostly agree but in this instance I specifically singled out the Diablo Canyon complex because it's already built and the cost to maintain it would be minimal.  If we were going to compare costs in this example, wouldn't it be the cost to build new energy sources (even if it's "cheap" renewables) compared to the existing nuclear plant?  And for nationwide, I like the idea of having a reliable clean energy source if the sun and wind aren't cooperating or there is political instability/fossil fuel shenanigans.  Add in the carbon aspect (or lack thereof for nuclear) and it seems hard to argue against it the more I read into it.  The technology has improved and the chance of disaster has to be decreasing all the time.

Still, public perception is public perception.  The downsides to nuclear can be catastrophic.  I used to be against nuclear when I knew very little about it and just knew that catastrophe=bad.  Now I'm mildly for it being a tool the American energy grid can harness to mitigate unreliable energy disruptions with other sources.  So, I don't envision nuclear to supply the majority of energy and would like the majority to be renewable like wind, solar, hydro, wave, etc. but think it has an important place on our grid.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on nuclear energy to be sure.

[Missy B]

Michael Schellengerger addresses the whole issue of nuclear and how the anti-nuclear movement is undermining our efforts to effectively reduce our carbon footprint and ecological impact here and in Europe.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=apocalypse+never&i=stripbooks-intl-ship&crid=398GPM6FZSVIE&sprefix=apocalypse+never%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C109&ref=nb_sb_noss_1

If you've watched "Bill's Brain" on Netflix you know that Gates' team has a plant design that can't explode and uses the waste fuel rods from other nuclear plants, but they can't get it built because of politics and anti-nuclear sentiment.