A letter by Mark Henry mistakenly asserts that the reason PG&E decided to close the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant by the end of 2025 was because of the California requirement that PG&E cease to use once-through cooling in order to protect marine life. The alternative would have been for PG&E to build expensive cooling towers (“Re: Diablo is a marine life killer,” Dec. 31).
The facts, as stated in documents from the California Water Resources Control Board and from PG&E, prove otherwise.
In 2010, California enacted the Policy on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant Cooling. This mandate required that by 2015 all coastal power plants must have in place replacement cooling systems that conserve water and protect the marine environment. But Diablo Canyon was excused from compliance with this policy precisely because of the expenses of cooling towers.
Hence, the expenses of building cooling towers had nothing to do with PG&E’s decision to close the Diablo Canyon reactors. Here is how PG&E explained its reasoning in a press release dated Sept. 20, 2018:
“California’s energy landscape is changing dramatically. State policies that focus on renewables and energy efficiency, coupled with projected lower customer electricity demand in the future, will result in a significant reduction in the need for the electricity produced by DCPP [Diablo Canyon Power Plant] past 2025.”
Jane Swanson
Mothers for Peace
San Luis Obispo
This article appears in Jan 7-17, 2021.
I’m having a bit of trouble with the analysis. The quotation “State policies that focus on renewables and energy efficiency, coupled with projected lower customer electricity demand in the future, will result in a significant reduction in the need for the electricity produced by DCPP [Diablo Canyon Power Plant] past 2025” appears preposterous. We are told that by 2050 we will use electricity to power our automobiles. That demand is now fulfilled by petroleum resources which provide a massive percentage of the total energy used by our society.
The PG&E projection could be based in part on our government’s view that you, the citizen, simply don’t need the energy upon which you now rely.
No need for Diablo, even though fossil fuels still provide ~45% of CA’s power? Here’s an idea! Let’s use renewable energy to replace fossil generation as opposed to other non-emitting sources. The fossil share of CA”s in-state power generation has not fallen much over the last 15-20 years because we’ve been replacing one non-emitting source with another. Closure of Diablo would continue that futile trend.
CA now has a requirement to eliminate fossil fuels from the power grid by 2045, and non-emitting sources like nuclear are allowed to provide 40% of that clean (non-fossil) power. Experts agree that including nuclear reduces the overall cost of achieving a non-emitting grid, since far less electricity storage is required.
I think the clue lies here: “State policies that focus on renewables and energy efficiency” The economic context for nuclear was being decided by the State. PG&E saw the writing on the wall. If they wanted subsidy, they would need to build gas plants and dress them in wind and solar facades. Continued operation of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was increasingly a public headwind to the point that the public response to anti-nuclear lobbying had influenced government, whose policy and regulatory tactics made it uneconomic.
This is tragic. Value invested will be lost. More money will be spent to replace that generation and carbon emissions will rise as a result. Consumers lose. Citizens lose. Nature loses.
Billy, Jim, and Clovis Dad are all spot on.
Once again Jane, your information is incorrect. PG&E only said *they* don’t need electricity from Diablo Canyon. Two reasons- 1) they are losing customers to community choice aggregators, similar to Central Coast Clean Energy, and 2) the state policies that require a certain percentage of “renewables” (a political definition) don’t allow for PG&E to have carbon-free nuclear in addition to the high percentage of renewables. Again, because they are losing customers (and nuclear becomes a larger percentage of their entire portfolio).
Tour statements about once-through cooling, the idea of cooling towers, and the reason for the “excuse for compliance” are all mixed up and misinterpreted as well. I thought at least you would know those details.
Did you know that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) recently granted emergency license extensions foe three years to a bunch of natural gas plants in Southern California? It’s pretty obvious California does not have enough electricity, let alone clean electricity.
Do you care about climate change? If yes, I’d suggest you put your energy towards fighting natural gas because california seems to be choosing to use more and more of it. Do you know about Aliso Canyon? Complete disaster. We have more and more information about the damage cause by expansion of natural gas, not just due to burning it in power plants. The transmission and distribution (and storage, like Aliso Canyon) systems are plagued with unstoppable leakage, and the extraction process using fracking is more and more impactful in terms of water quality, waste, and disturbance of the natural surrounding environment.
I think we want the same thing- a planet and future for our children that is as good (or better!) than what we had. I just worry that you’re protesting the wrong thing and actually making that goal harder to reach.
Nuclear Power is the most EXPENSIVE electricity. TMI has been fully stopped and Indian Point is 50% shut.
KEEP DIABLO OPEN AND OPERATIONAL!!!!! Nuclear energy is long term sufficiency for this and all surrounding areas as they grow. Unless in your frenzy to control power and the lives of others, you start sterilizing your children at birth (not to give you hippie fascists any ideas!!!) they will also have children and will want power to use as they live that is cheap and affordable. Nuclear provides this almost ETERNALLY! Just because you are afraid of nuclear power shouldn’t exclude us from having it. By the way, have you noticed that Diablo has never melted down? It actually improves the eco-system around it below the water line (I have diving experience in that area and the marine life is VERY plentiful as you get closer to the plant). This GROSS demonization of a viable power source is driven by power mad old hippies and their descendants that for TOO LONG have ruined what used to be the great state of California. GO EAT SOME GRANOLA SOMEWHERE ELSE!!! you tired old bastards and bastardettes, and leave us and our beautiful state alone!