The largest ecological detriment of all will result from the loss of a huge amount of 24/7, CO2-free, pollution-free power.
Diablo will probably be replaced (at least in part) by polluting, CO2-emitting fossil power generation. The result being increased air pollution and CO2 emissions, along with higher power costs. Even if the promises of replacing Diablo with an equal amount of renewable power were true, those renewables could have been used to replace fossil power generation instead. Thus, it still would amount to an indefensible choice of fossil fuels over (non-emitting) nuclear.
Over the last 15-20 years, the fraction of CA in-state power generation from fossil fuels has not declined much, despite a massive investment in solar and wind. The reason is that the renewable generation has mainly replace other non-emitting sources like nuclear, instead of replacing fossil generation. This belies any genuine concern about global warming. If we really were concerned, we would make sure that renewables are used to replace fossil fuels.
CA's huge renewables push is responsible for high power costs to a far greater degree than any expenses associated with Diablo Canyon. Continued nuclear plant operation is far cheaper than building and operating new renewable generation, especially after considering all the costs associated with their intermittentcy (storage and grid costs, etc...). Keeping existing nuclear plants open is the cheapest way to reduce emissions you'll find. Also, despite all the promises we've all heard, Diablo will be at least partially replaced with fossil generation. The result being higher CO2 emissions, more air pollution and higher power costs.
Also, nuclear plants are far more reliable than intermittent sources. Nuclear plants are up (operating at full power) over 90% of the time, and most of the (< 10%) downtime, for maintenance, etc.., is pre-planned, and scheduled for periods of low power demand. Solar and wind generate power only ~25% to 33% of the time, and they often are not producing when we need power the most. That was a factor in CA's recent blackouts. Nuclear makes the grid more reliable, which having too much solar and wind tends to undermine grid reliability.
This is a negligible issue (impact) in the grand scheme of things. The article fails to mention that if one replaced Diablo's output with *any* other source (gas, wind or solar) the environmental impacts would be *larger* than the effects discussed here. Air pollution and climate impacts from gas generation, huge amounts of habitat loss from solar or wind (which occupy over 100 times as much land area), a large-scale bird or bat kill from solar or wind.
Latte,
Um, nothing you said contradicts anything Mark said, i.e., that nuclear doesn't emit CO2 and provides a lot of local jobs and taxes. Or his main point that renewables should be used to replace fossil fuels, not nuclear.
The reason for nuclear plant closures is that they receive no financial benefit for their non-polluting, non-CO2-emitting nature, and are forced to compete directly with fossil generators that get to pollute the air for free. Renewables, OTOH, do NOT have to compete with fossil sources because they all receive large subsidies and outright mandates for use. If nuclear (e.g., Diablo) received the same subsidies that all renewables do, NO nuclear plants would be closing.
The nuclear waste "problem" has been technically solved for a long time. The long-term hazard from nuclear waste, in a repository like Yucca Mountain, would be *smaller* than that of most other waste streams, including those from wind and solar.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that shutting down a facility that produces massive amounts of pollution-free, CO2-free power, 24/7, is NOT good for the environment!
It is doubtful that Diablo Canyon's generation will be replaced entirely by renewable sources, but even if it was, its closure would remain an environmental crime. You see, all that new renewable generation could be used to replace fossil generation instead. Replacing also-non-emitting nuclear with renewables, while leaving polluting, CO2-emitting fossil generation intact is indefensible. Spending a huge amount of time, money and effort, to replace one non-emitting source (nuclear) with another (renewables), thus making no progress at all vs. global warming, are not the actions of a society that is genuinely concerned about global warming. The fraction of CA's power coming from fossil sources has remained roughly constant (and over 50%) for almost 20 years, despite massive efforts to build renewables.
Diablo was NOT closed for economic reasons! It's going forward power costs were much lower than those associated with new renewable generation. PG&E cried uncle in the face of massive political pressure from the anti-nuclear state government along with several anti-nuclear NGOs (including Mothers for "Peace" - note that continued dependence on fossil fuels tend to lead to wars).
It is true that PG&E may make more money by taking the higher cost path (i.e., replacing Diablo with new sources), due to the cost-plus-fixed-profit-margin system. Higher costs, higher profits. The ratepayers, of course, will be the losers. But CA institutions that normally would protect ratepayers from such profiteering (e.g., the PUC) are so horny to close down the state's last nuclear plant that they are willing to do the opposite, and essentially bribe PG&E with the ratepayers' money in order to do so. Political pressure indeed!
Re: “The story behind PG&E's decision to close”
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.