After the expected decision to extend Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant’s life by 20 years, I found myself questioning the strange silence surrounding it in this county. Diablo occupies a peculiar place—immense in impact, yet oddly absent from the outrage that greets other perceived threats.
In Morro Bay, many protested the Vistra battery plant over fire risks, citing Moss Landing. Fair concern—but what would a fire at a 40-year-old nuclear plant holding massive high-level nuclear waste look like? Where’s that outrage? Offshore wind farms draw opposition for harming marine life, yet Diablo discharges billions of gallons of warm water daily, affecting vast ocean habitat. Again—where’s the outrage?
We loudly oppose offshore oil, rightly invoking Santa Barbara disasters. But Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island? Rarely mentioned. Why the selective concern?
Local politicians mostly dodge the question. Press them on Diablo’s extension and you’ll hear hedging about jobs, the grid, and necessity. I call it political cowardice. Some may call it business as usual.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party that opposed nuclear power for decades now embraces it like a teddy bear on a cold night. The shift is striking—and convenient. Which brings me to the obvious factor: money. The very real concern of a nuclear accident here and the effects it would have on thousands of people is mitigated by the happy thought that now Johnny and Suzy can have band and art classes without having to, well, budget like other school districts.
PG&E and the California state Legislature must be very relieved indeed to have such a compliant group of community leaders, willing to continue to put residents in harm’s way, with nary a whimper of regret or guilt of conscience.
Bill Riedemann
Los Osos
This article appears in April 9-16, 2026.
Diablo Canyon is a reliable, 24/7 carbon-free source of nearly 10% of the state’s power, and would need to be replaced by carbon-emitting power sources if it is shut down. Are we serious about fighting climate change, which we are told is an existential threat to the planet, or aren’t we? An difficult choice has to be made.
No, it supplies 8% to the power grid, and solar and wind could have replaced that 8% with far lower cost and carbon free power.
DC provides 8% to the power grid at the highest cost possible of all sources of power. Solar /Wind could have supplanted that amount with lower cost carbon- free power.
Just because nuclear energy is considered “clean” (carbon neutral), it does not make it safe. Nuclear power plants are extremely dangerous. First, they require uranium mining, which releases radioactive materials and heavy metals into the environment which causes great harm to humans. Second, they damage local aquatic systems because the release of warm water decreases oxygen levels in the ocean. Third, they produce extremely toxic radioactive waste that requires thousands to hundreds of thousands of years of secure storage. Finally, as we all know and most of us have witnessed, nuclear power plants have caused catastrophic accidents. The risk of Diablo having one of these events is increased due to its age and the fact it’s built on an earthquake fault.
There are no benefits great enough that outweigh the very real risk of such devastation to a multitude of humans and across such a broad area of the environment.
Too bad Al Gore was not our President in 2000 and we did not have Democrats in total control of the federal government since. We would have faced the truth of man-made climate change and would have consistently done more to address our energy needs so we wouldn’t have to face such difficult choices.
Finding and implementing solutions to the huge problems like we have now first require facing reality and a wide range of human cooperation. It is a tragedy that there is such a lack of either right now.
So you’re arguing that climate change isn’t an existential threat after all? When ranking “bad” outcomes, it would seem that a threat to our existence outweighs the “danger” of a nuclear accident and radioactive waste. Many problems don’t have “good” solutions, but just “less bad” solutions.
Don’t forget, the Democratic Party opposed nuclear power since 1972.
Their support changed recently, in 2020, mostly due to the need for a short term solution (a solution with both short and long term problems) to help decrease the effects of burning fossil fuels in an attempt to help slow down climate change and it’s disasterous (short and long term) effects. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. There’s got to be other ways.
I never argued that climate change was not an existential threat-don’t know where you inferred that thought.
My argument is that both nuclear power and climate change are threats to our existence now and in the future. Both threats are too great accept.
There are currently “less bad” solutions to using nuclear power out there and I’m sure the human race can continue to come up with more.
I, for one, would rather have people in our state conserve energy by 10% than to continue risking my life so they don’t have to.
Wow! Good for you John. It seems like you are admitting man-made climate change is real. Looks like your making a little progress in your thinking.
Now, if we could only get you to admit that threatening to annihilate an entire population is not a good idea. Expecially from someone who would probably do it.