The recent opinion piece by Mark Henry (“A convenient untruth,” Sept. 12) suggesting a conspiracy between the fossil fuel interests and renewable energy proponents to thwart nuclear power is a reach that is difficult to square with reality or to read with a straight face. I had no idea that ExxonMobil and the Sierra Club were so close.
While the commentary recognizes the threat of climate change, defining nuclear power as “renewable” will not and should not prolong the life of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. It is among many others in the U.S. and internationally that have reached the end of their useful lives and are being shut down. Aside from safety, decommissioning, and waste management concerns, nuclear power is no longer economically competitive with wind and solar power.
Henry also suggests that building more wind and solar power sources will require storage that will be costly and difficult. It is ironic, then, that at the time when Diablo Canyon was built, PG&E had the same problem—too much power to sell. They solved that problem by building the Helms hydroelectric pumped storage facility. This installation of dams and reversible turbines uses power to pump water into high lakes when there is excess cheap power on the grid, then generates power to sell when it is expensive. This allowed Diablo to operate at full capacity while storing the excess.
Currently, there is the hydro-power capacity of six Diablo Canyon plants in California. Some of these plants operate continuously, which is why I was surprised by the statement, “The only proven feasible around-the-clock, non-carbon-emitting power production possibility is nuclear.”
We are fortunate to have a string of hydro plants in the Sierras that could be modified for pumped storage of wind and solar power. Conversion of a part of this system to pumped storage would greatly reduce the need for power derived from natural gas.
Another power storage option of the near future that was neglected is electric cars. It is projected that electric cars will become common in California in a few years. It should be recognized that the batteries in these vehicles will present a huge potential for storage of power. These cars will have ranges of more than 200 miles but most of the time will be parked at home or work. It is certain that there will be systems developed to allow for this unused capacity to be plugged into the grid.
Dr. Helen Caldicott suggested that the solar energy falling on just a small area of the Earth’s surface would power the world. She made that statement to illustrate the magnitude of the solar energy the Earth receives. The sun is the only nuclear power plant we should be using.
The Green New Deal is a start. Δ
Franklin Frank writes from Atascadero. Send a response in a letter to the editor and email it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Autumn Arts Annual 2019.
When you cite Dr. Helen Caldicott, please remember she said the U.S. could transition to 100% Renwables in a single year, “if we had the guts”.
Dr. Helen Caldicott cited a discredited map of supposed Fukushima fallout claiming it was created by Australian Radiation Service when it was a silly immediately-debunked internet hoax… Dr. Helen Caldicott continued to use the hoax slide for YEARS in her presentations.
When George Monbiot challenged her claims of conspiracy, she mused in an interview that it was due to a brain tumor, and questioned his motivation. Here’s a video I created with audio of that interview… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSLm37gcQjo …to address Kate Brown directing people to Dr. Helen Caldicott.
Dr. Helen Caldicott aside, the assertion Diablo Canyon can be replaced with alternatives would reflect a German approach to generating power… they THOUGHT they could replace everything with renewables. They were wrong. Had they decided to shut down fossil fuel combustion before nuclear, they’d have been wrong but emitting no carbon. Instead, they’re wrong and among the most CO2 intensive nations in Europe.
If one can be so confident Diablo Canyon isn’t needed, then surely California can prove the point by retiring fossil fuel combustion first?
IPCC puts nuclear’s carbon LIFECYCLE on the low-end BETWEEN solar and wind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC,_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources
…this is possible because nuclear is NOT combustion. There’s no fire. There’s no burning. Atoms are split, releasing energy. There’s no pollution to speak of, only casks containing spent fuel rods. That’s the difference between so-called waste, and pollution… stuff either gets released into the environment (coal) or gets put into containers (nuclear).
Most people are unaware that nuclear IS NOT COMBUSTION.
Most people are unaware that nuclear IS LOW CARBON.
I don’t know why people don’t know this. But they don’t. And when they do learn it, their opinion on nuclear tends to change.
The Green New Deal MUST exclude all nuclear power, or it is not acceptable. I was surprised to see the last statement of the otherwise excellent article, especially Dr. Helen Caldicott’s statement right before that line.
“Dr. Helen Caldicott suggested that the solar energy falling on just a small area of the Earth’s surface would power the world. She made that statement to illustrate the magnitude of solar energy the Earth receives. The sun is the only nuclear power plant we should be using.”
Nuclear power is a crime against all humanity, all living creatures and Mother Earth herself. Radioactive waste from nuclear power lasts hundreds of thousands and even millions of years. There is no place to store the radioactive waste. There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. The entire country of Japan is radiated. Dr. Ian Fairlie told us in 2014 that children who live near nuclear power plants have more incidences of leukemias than children who do not live near nuclear power plants.
Great piece, thank you. I am absolutely stunned how many young people think nuclear is the answer. Those of us old enough to really remember 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl understand nuclear power comes with unacceptable risks. Diablo Canyon is only feet from a fault line connected to other very active fault lines. We have been lucky, so far. Nuclear is non renewable, toxic, and dangerous. Good riddance!
Nuclear fuel can be reused until what remains is the size of a walnut so it is very easy to store safely. The U.S. does not permit this and excuses nuclear power plants from any liability. If those two facts were changed, we would soon see how many investors will support nuclear power.
The answer? The market – i.e. We the People – could decide by choosing to purchase out power from the sources available and reliable if only we were permitted to do so by ending the monopolies and opening the system to any and all competition.
There are so many possibilities that exist now through renewables with storage and new tech coming down the pipeline. Nuclear is basically clean, except when it’s not! Then, devastation. Diablo was built on a faultline and has cost us nothing but $$$$$$$, from the beginning when it had to be RE built and now the decommissioning. Why do people hold on so tight to coal and nuclear as if their life depends on it when there are other options?