Just as there is no scary monster in your closet or under the bed, there is no scary power plant on the cliffs 7 miles north of Avila Beach 85 feet above sea level.
Too much unabated misinformation has been spread about Diablo Canyon for more than 40 years. Hopefully the following will negate much of that misinformation. Diablo Canyon has been operating safely for more than 30 years, creating safe, clean, base load power. There are no dirty emissions released into the air that can spread freely into our atmosphere.
As a tour guide at the power plant for 23 years, having led tours for hundreds of visitors and given talks to many groups, I know there is a silent majority of locals and people from elsewhere who support Diablo Canyon and nuclear power. Those who are opposed to closing Diablo Canyon, please email your state representatives and let them know.
I have talked to many skilled outage workers at the plant from other states and even locals who travel from plant to plant performing specialized maintenance work. They rave about how clean, carefully, and expertly managed the power plant is. Recently, at our local SLO farmers’ market, during the latest outage, one of the workers from Texas told me how he heard for many years what a great plant Diablo Canyon is and how others who had experience working there raved about it. He was excited to finally experience for himself what others had said was true.
Regular, intense inspections at Diablo Canyon are required and accomplished by three separate groups. The three groups include the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), INPO (Institute of Nuclear Power Operation) and the DCISC (Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee). Diablo Canyon is the only nuclear power plant in the USA to have three inspection groups. The DCISC is a group of highly qualified, experienced experts in nuclear and even seismic issues who are appointed by the California Energy Commission, the governor, and the lieutenant governor. Look up dcisc.org. Diablo Canyon also has its own quality assurance and quality control group that keeps a close watchful eye on all the work involved in keeping the plant clean and safe. There is no reason to conclude that there are any safety issues at the power plant.
There is no other industry that knows exactly where and how their entire byproduct is safely stored under strict regulations and continued inspections. The plant has no safety issues with storing used nuclear fuel. In all the years that nuclear power has been used commercially or by the military, there has never been any incidents of radiation escaping storage or during transportation. The U.S. military has transported used nuclear fuel to Washington state and Idaho safely for years.
More than 400 nuclear power plants in the world maintain incredible safety records. Only three accidents have occurred at nuclear power plants, and all could have been avoided. The first was at Three Mile Island in 1979 near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. A woman from Harrisburg toured Diablo, and she said the worst thing about Three Mile Island was the media spreading unsubstantiated fear. Although Unit 1 at Three Mile Island is permanently shut down, the nuclear industry learned and implemented many safety features such as requiring all nuclear plants to have their own training simulator—plus operator training was increased and emergency planning was expanded.
Chernobyl had no containment structures to protect the nuclear cycle. The control room operators were conducting a late night unapproved test in the control room, which led to a steam explosion, followed by a chemical explosion that spread the unprotected nuclear system into the open. A Chernobyl type reactor would have never been allowed in the U.S.
The Fukushima nuclear power plant was severely damaged by being unprepared to safely withstand a huge wall of water. The plant shut down after the earthquake, as designed, but having disregarded advice to build the plant farther from the ocean’s edge and failure to build a substantial wall to abate a tsunami led to extreme damage. Clearly, the safety culture and management at Fukushima was undeniably weak and unprepared. Onagawa, a nuclear power plant 75 miles distant from Fukushima, closer to the earthquake epicenter, survived the tsunami with only minor damage. Onagawa’s local residents flocked to the plant and were given refuge. Why did Onagawa survive the tsunami? Because they were prepared. The power plant was built on higher ground, with a wall in front of the plant that was built to withstand the onslaught of a tsunami. The safety culture at Onagawa was much stronger.
The only comparison between Diablo Canyon and Fukushima is they are both nuclear power plants.
Closing Diablo Canyon would be a dire mistake to our economy, to availability of clean reliable power, and it would be environmental hypocrisy. There are no facts or credible evidence available that renewables will be ready by 2025 to replace the power lost by closing the plant. Plans to build a gas fired fossil fuel plant on the beach in Oxnard have been met with much concern. The locals in that area vehemently oppose it. And it’s no wonder there are concerns. It would increase, not diminish, the harmful emissions being released into the atmosphere. Could there be doubts that there may not be enough power available when power from intermittent renewables is not accessible?
The idea of clean renewable energy is great for helping combat climate change, but it isn’t the total answer. No source of energy is free of concerns. What needs to be known about renewables, wind, and solar is that they have their own negatives, including the use of hazardous chemicals, and yes there is hazardous waste involved. Plus each requires huge areas of land, which only adds to environmental issues.
There needs to be a balance of energy sources to maintain a stable grid. Closing Diablo Canyon and expecting to rely on renewables is certainly questionable. If renewables are not available, the burning of dirty, unhealthy fossil fuels will be the backup, which is bad for our health, our environment, and for future generations. Δ
Ellie Ripley from Arroyo Grande is a fan of nuclear energy and a fan of Diablo. Send comments through the editor at clanham@newtimesslo.com or send a letter to the editor for publication by emailing letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Dec 21-31, 2017.
Blame the cold hard FACTS:
Contemporary geological science confirms that Diablo Canyon Power Plant was inadequately designed–even with upgrades–for the seismic risks of its location, putting the plant, its employees and people of the Central Coast and beyond in serious danger in case of a high intensity earthquake.
PG&E and its lawyers and insurers are now well aware of these risks and the ensuing monumental financial (and moral) liabilities the company would be subject to. Thus there is more than one reason that PG&E is eager to close the plant ASAP.
Even by nuclear industry standards, and the obvious seismic risks not withstanding, Diablo Canyon Power Plant is an outmoded design and can’t be economically retrofitted to meet modern standards of more efficient nuclear facilities operating in other nations where the plants generate considerably less toxic radioactive waste per unit of energy delivered.
Nuclear power technology as practiced at Diablo Canyon is primitive. Within 20 years, completely new energy technology–c currently in development– will be established that will render investing more time and money into Diablo Canyon Power Plant make as much sense as investing in horse-drawn carriages for commuting on Los Angeles freeways.
The sea level water intake system and its continual clogging and its susceptibility to other potentially catastrophic tidal risks is another huge concern at Diablo, contributing to the many reasons that PG&E and it’s insurers would be eager to close the plant as soon as possible.
Ellie Ripley eagerly and grossly misleads the public from the first sentence of her reckless propaganda piece about Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Sure, there are portions of the power plant that are *85 feet above sea level”, but in her zealous and dishonest efforts to protect her personal financial interests, she, either through ignorance or purposeful deception, neglects to mention that tons of equipment crucial to the safe operation of the plant is firmly located at or below sea level.
In fact, the ocean water intake and cooling system is rooted at the very wet edge of the Pacific Ocean. Ripley also doesn’t mention that it is not unusual for that intake system to get clogged with seaweed and other debris during winter storm events on the Central Coast, sometimes necessitating the temporary shut down of some operations at the plant. What would happen to the system in the event of the inevitable tsunami is never adequately addressed in the typical propaganda pieces issued to the local media.
To rightword2:
First off, PG&E has experienced geotechnical and seismic engineers that ensure that the plant is more than adequately designed to withstand any credible earthquake event; discovered before or after construction began. PG&E even halted its own license approval from the NRC until they were able to redesign portions of the plant to withstand the previously undocumented fault line. Additionally, the land around Diablo and associated fault lines are likely some of the most studied and well understood seismic features in California; thanks to extensive investigations and modeling by PG&E. This understanding would be even greater, however, Environmental Activist groups (who argue that more geologic seismic modeling should performed) will not allow Diablo to use cutting edge technology to further map the nearby faults.
It just goes to show that false accusations and misrepresented comments such as your own are meant solely to deceive the public that may not have the full story; or even part of it.
To rightword2:
You suggest that Diablo Canyon is outmoded and no longer as efficient as plants in other countries; and yes Diablo is not the 2018 version or even the 2015 model but last I checked dates of construction or production are independent of safety standards. I dont know how much money you waste each month on the latest and greatest but I see plenty of perfectly good vehicles on the road that are 10-20 years old, running fine and satisfy all modern safety requirements. The NRC, and other expert groups, regularly inspect and report on the health and safety of all nuclear plants in the country (and even some abroad) and do not tolerate plants which perform in unsafe manners.
You mention that it is uneconomic to continue to maintain an older, already constructed and efficiently run plant when brand new plants with the latest technology could be installed. This may be true if you were not in California and playing in Sim City where things can be does in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. Diablo will be fully paid off in 2024/2025 meaning all that would need to be paid for is relicensing (was 70-80 % complete and paid for before the announcement) and continued maintenance. Is more efficient to keep using your paid off 2000 model car or continuously buying this years model before the previous car is paid off?
Your comment about the intake system, clogging and catastrophic tidal risks is ignorant at best. Personnel at DCPP are well aware of the changing tides and marine (plant and organism) influxes and have appropriately designed/practiced mitigation techniques for these concerns. A bubble curtain is installed during high salp conditions to safely bring the organisms up to the natural current at the water surface which takes the salp safely away from the intake suction. Divers are regularly utilized to reduce kelp and other potential debris to prevent clogging. In certain storm seasons the plant even reduces power to mitigate the ocean storm effects.
To rightword2:
Ellie Ripley in no way misleads the public in her statements, she is just more aware and sensitive to those that may not fully understand all of the technical jargon in the public post. But since you are unnecessarily concerned, Yes there is some (very few items) equipment located at the intake below the 85 elevation that the plant uses for safe operation and safe shutdown. All components of this nature however are protected against failure. The best example is the ASW pumps; these pumps, used for emergency cooling, are located below the 85 elevation in a sealed room. The room is water tight below 85 elevation and has snorkels to prevent suffocation of the pumps; snorkels extend above the 85 elevation and are qualified to withstand seismic, wind and tornado borne missiles. And there are multiple pumps for redundancy and there are other sources of water in extreme situations that are gravity fed.
And to answer to tsunami question, while everyone (yourself included) is heading for higher ground inland, designated plant employees would be headed toward their posts at the plant to ensure safe operation of the plant through the storm. The Fukushima tsunami would have hit our shores 46 BELOW the cliff top (39 tsunami at Fukushima Daiichi). Prior to the tsunami the plant would have already been in the process of shutting down temporarily (dues to predetermined seismic motions or operator response based on USGS reports) to ride out the event. The plant would then be fully inspected by civil engineers and plant operators to ensure the plant is safe for continued operation.
The foot of the Diablo Power Plant, including crucial safety features, is at and below sea level. Ellie Ripley tells the public the plant is 85 feet above sea level. If she was being honest she would make it clear that PORTIONS of the plant are 85 feet above sea level. But she instead repeats the often repeated falsehood, suggesting the entire plant is 85 feet above sea level.
If the plant is so safe, why do so many plant employees continue to “massage” the truth and spread verifiably misleading statements? What is the problem with being truthful with the public? We need to trust plant employees. Ripley and Stallman aren’t helping on that matter. In fact, they are being reckless and deceptive. That’s not a good sign, especially when our safety is dependent upon employees tending to their close to sea level posts under the threat of a tsunami.
Stallman also doesn’t seem to understand the difference between an earthquake’s magnitude versus its intensity. Important difference. Hopefully someone at the plant does understand the difference.
Stallman is also not forthcoming about how frequent plant operations are affected by ocean storm events involving the sea water cooling system.
As I’ve said, there are MANY reasons PG&E is trying to shut down operations at the plant.
Things to consider:
Why does PG&E want to close Diablo Canyon Power Plant? They built it, the run it, now they want to shut it down. Is PG&E’s reasoning behind the decision sound? If PG&E doesn’t want to operate the plant, is there another company that does want to?
Furthermore, Ellie Ripley is being ridiculous when she encourages readers to believe that the biggest problem with the Three Mile Island nuclear accident was caused by the news media reporting about it. Ripley owes the news media and readers a serious apology for promoting such total B.S.
Thank goodness that in the United States, the news media is allowed to report on nuclear accidents. What a shame that Ripley uses her writing to denigrate people and institutions that are dedicated to informing the public on matters of grave concern. If Ripley cares about the well-being of the community, she should be encouraging the news media to fairly and accurately report on the nuclear industry, not ignore it.
The anonymous writer hiding behind the pseudonym above appears to follow the “fearmonger playbook” religiously. The key technique is to invent some Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) condition that sounds scary to a reader that is not familiar with the plant and then raise misleading or downright false claims regarding the outcome. I appreciate that Jeff Stallman is rebutting such fearmongering. You may learn more about the safe, abundant, reliable, cost-effective and emission-free power from DCPP at the Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP) at CGNP dot org. CPUC Intervenor CGNP strenuously opposes PG&E’s wasteful plan to abandon DCPP after only 40 short years of operation. If DCPP is abandoned in 2025, the result will be even higher power rates and millions more tons of carbon being emitted annually by in-state natural gas-fired power plants and out-of-state coal-fired plants. (Any new solar or wind generation will be “too little, too late.) PG&E’s shareholders will benefit at the expense of PG&E’s ratepayers (also known as you and me.) The plant is designed to last well beyond 60 years, just like a large hydropower dam. When measured by the metric of the number of deaths per unit of energy generated, nuclear power is as safe, or safer than solar or wind.
To rightword 2
One of the persistent myths propagated by the antinuclear industry is that nuclear plants are uniquely vulnerable to earthquakes and other seismic activity. Many decades worth of experience with robust nuclear plants in the real world indicate that they are resilient and rarely suffer ANY damage at all in earthquakes. Since the systems in the plants that are important for ensuring safety must adhere to even more stringent requirements, there isnt a documented case anywhere of a nuclear plant suffering a safety equipment malfunction as the result of an earthquake.
Catastrophic and complete power failure, yes. Earthquake, no.
Its also intriguing for me to know that the Hosgri fault discovered near Diablo Canyon after the site was chosen and construction was well underway was discovered by a pair of Shell Oil Company geologists who apparently just happened to be conducting seismic surveys off the coast of the site. Oil and gas companies have no desire to harm their competitors – right?
Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights
To rightword 2
In a way, you are correct that the media reporting on Three Mile Island was just doing its job in trying to tell the public what was going on at the plant.
As is their habit and prerogative, they made sure that the story was reported in as dramatic a way as possible, and they took their traditional angle of severe distrust of company spokesmen.
After spending many hours digging through the historical documents and reports, Ive found that the people closest to the problem had the best understanding of the situation and were taking effective action to minimize damage.
Because there was only a single phone line in the control room and dozens of bureaucrats at the local, state and federal level who thought they were supposed to be in charge, there was a severe communications breakdown. Numerous inaccurate or incomplete reports were passed, akin to the elementary school game of telephone.
Some of the government officials were technical specialists in areas not closely related to nuclear plant operations, but they were thrust into roles as experts.
One of the most consequential of the many errors made in communications was misunderstanding a radiation measurement taken directly over the plant and interpreting it to have been taken at the power station fence line several hundred yards away. Based on that single, unverified and inaccurate report, the confused NRC commissioners recommended a partial evacuation on day 3, after the public had been told that everything was under control. That single action, reported with grave seriousness by Walter Cronkite – and never corrected, is what turned TMI into the famous event that it was.
Otherwise, it would have been a footnote in industrial history.
Rod Adams
There are literally MILLION OF POUNDS highly toxic radioactive being stored at Diablo, with TONS more being added each year the plant operates. The waste is being held in a facility licensed only for TEMPORARY storage. The site is not engineered or approved for permanent storage. By contemporary nuclear industry standards, permanent storage in the current facility is inadequate and officially deemed a risk.
The yearly cost for storing that waste is huge. Unfortunately there is no currently approved or viable option for permanent storage. When we calculate the yearly expense multiplied by the THOUSANDS OF YEARS that waste must be stored and actively monitored, the financial liability is ASTRONOMICAL. Among other things, this makes Diablo a very unattractive investment. No wonder PG&E is trying its best to get out from under this financial guillotine.
Unthinkable and “impossible” accidents do happen…often. Read all about it:
https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Dam…
Anyone who believes Diablo is immune to catastrophe should listen to this remarkable and gripping true-life story about a horrendous and deadly accident that brought a huge portion of the United States to the brink of nuclear holocaust. What it teaches us is that event the best employees at Diablo should never get too cocky or believe the myth that all the threats to Diablo are being adequately identified and dealt with.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-arc…
Industrial accidents are frequently the result of surprising events that were never anticipated or prepared for.
In other cases, “experts” are simply overconfident and incorrect about risks, one example being at Fukushima, where, prior to the accident set off by a massive earthquake, “experts” told the public that an earthquake of that magnitude and in that region was “impossible” or “highly unlikely.”
At present, by the standards set by nuclear industry professionals, Diablo has been retrofitted to be able to withstand up to a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. The “impossible” one that set off the disaster at Fukushima was a 9 magnitude quake.
Another thing we learn from the above mentioned book and podcast is that at times of emergencies that could potentially kill massive number of people, some employees, including team leaders, who we depend upon for our safety, do not always act rationally or honestly.
I’m concerned about what seems to be a cocky attitude among a small number of Diablo employees who continually try to downplay obvious risks at Diablo, assuming, among other things, that the regulation and oversight at the plant has somehow made the plant as safe as rubbing two sticks together.
Bottom line is that we need to honor and thank the employees at Diablo who work diligently and do their best to safeguard the plant and our community. There is no doubt that there are many heroes who have worked at the plant who have stepped up and protected our community over the years in ways that will never be reported in the news media. We, in fact, owe our lives to Diablo employees who never shirk from doing the right thing, even when those around them may not appreciate the value of their attitudes and actions.
One of our community goals should be working on how to support morale among employees who know that one day the plant will be shut down and their current jobs will come to an end. There is little doubt that our community’s safety will remain in the hands of those employees. Let us pray that they are blessed with the wisdom, talent and common sense needed when confronting problems big and small at the plant.
THANK YOU DIABLO PLANT EMPLOYEES!
Things to consider:
Why does PG&E want to close Diablo Canyon Power Plant? They built it, the run it, now they want to shut it down. Is PG&E’s reasoning behind the decision sound? If PG&E doesn’t want to operate the plant, is there another company that does want to?
Can ANYONE identify ANY company in the world that is eager to take over and operate the Diablo Canyon Power Plant when PG&E steps away? Seriously. If PG&E doesn’t want it, who does?
NASA experimented with hydrogen powered turbine engines back during the age of the space race. I always wondered why we never combined liquid oxygen/hydrogen cryogenic compressor to power liquid hydrogen/oxygen combustion turbines. While it may need external power to get it up to speed, once it produces adequate liquid hydrogen, it could fuel the combustion to power a turbine. The complication lies in the compression part, but since it is a stationary power plant it shouldn’t matter. Meaning it isn’t powering a vehicle, but a drive shaft.
We already have Power-to-Gas technology, which uses electrolysis to extract hydrogen fuel from water. Why not a hydrogen fuel powered turbine power plant?
As far as nuclear power is concerned, it’s the best compromise for electricity that we have-now more than ever. The power output’s cost, quality, and availability provided by a nuclear power plant simply outweigh the cost of radioactive waste produced and possibility of radioactive contamination of a Fukushima like event. We are faced with depleting fossil fuel supply/rising fuel costs for oil burning power plants and the decline of hydroelectric power due to drought and depletion of aquifers. Solar and wind power both share an inherent weakness- inability to provide electrical demand as needed. Nothing yet can take the place of a continuous power generating turbine to provided for varying demands. I am simply amazed that people don’t know that there are electrical power really has two components- electrical charge and magnetism. Solar simply cannot provide the inductive force necessary. Besides, what good is solar at night time? Anyone that’s been sailing can tell you how reliable wind power can be- it’s the reason why ships have engines and boats have motors.
Don’t get me wrong. We need all the alternative power generation sources we can build, because if we wait until we are out of fossil fuel – we are screwed. The fuel cost involved in Carizzo Plains solar projects would amaze most people. If we run out of oil tomorrow, manufacturing and construction would cease- that’s how dependent we are on oil. If we think we need it to survive a fossil fuel scarce future, we need to build it now- no, actually yesterday.
If we have a Fukushima like seismic event, we will have plenty more than just Diablo Canyon to worry about. It’s already built, it runs, and hasn’t broken yet. Let’s not Chicken Little this to death.
Contrary to the ridiculous and misleading statements by Charles Bird, solar power and wind power DO provide electricity at night and on windless days. The energy from both sources can be stored in batteries. If solar was not capable of powering lamps or other electrical device at night, we would to have the growing solar industry we have.
Bird also questions why we don’t extract hydrogen fuel from water to generate power. Maybe because an inordinate amount of effort has been put into maintaining a nuclear power industry, despite the tremendous and unsolved problem of how to permanently and safely deal with the massive amounts of toxic radioactive waste that nuclear power plants–particular old, inefficient plants like Diablo–generate.