Ellie Ripley’s letter of Dec. 21, 2017 (“Safe, clean, and reliable“), is filled with misleading and inaccurate information about the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. I wish to correct her most glaring errors.
First, Ripley says, “There are no dirty emissions released into the air that can spread freely into the atmosphere.” In reality, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows all commercial nuclear power plants to routinely release radioactive gases and liquids.
Second, Ripley claims there are no safety issues at the plant. In 2013, the NRC identified Diablo Canyon Unit 1 as the third most embrittled reactor in the United States. This means it’s less likely to be able to handle the stress of a sudden shock, such as the rapid water-cooling of the reactor in an emergency. A Fukushima-like earthquake-tsunami could cause a core meltdown.
Ripley characterizes closing Diablo Canyon as “environmental hypocrisy.” In fact, Diablo’s antiquated cooling system sucks in 2.5 billion gallons of water daily and discharges it back into the ocean, killing 1.5 billion fish larvae annually. That’s environmental hypocrisy!
Finally, she claims renewables will not be ready by 2025 to replace Diablo’s lost power. PG&E affirms it can replace Diablo Canyon with 100 percent renewable energy by then.
Jerry B. Brown
director, Safe Energy Project
Santa Barbara
This article appears in Mar 29 – Apr 8, 2018.
Thanks Jerry. March 5, 2018 was an energy history milestone for California; the first time that over 50% of the state’s electricity was generated by solar power. Why do these fossils want to cling to dirty, dangerous outmoded methods so desperately? The may have legitimate reasons, like jobs in those industries, but usually it seems they are just shills for corporate interests.
Thank you for your well-written and apparently thoroughly researched rebuttal, Jerry.
Renewable energy sources, if they are ever made financially viable without heavy sudsidization, would provide an appreciable amount of amount of electricity assuming the infrastructure is established.
What should the energy industry do to accommodate the grid on days when perhaps the wind doesn’t blow, or the sun’s energy cannot provide ample power at ground level due to cloud cover? What should the energy industry do on days when both of the aforementioned scenarios occur simultaneously?
What should the energy industry do to accommodate the demands we put on the grid during peak summer hours when everyone and their mothers are running their air conditioning system at home? Should we build an overexcessive amount of solar farms to ensure that even the electricity generated for the most demanding summer days is solely renewable?
The answer the energy industry has for my all but my last question is to provide on-demand, as-needed electricity. Nuclear power has the ability to satisfy both baseline needs and this on-demand power I speak of, because the amount of power generated is controllable.
In contrast, California already pays other states to receive its excess solar electricity to prevent damage to its own infrastructure on some days. So, if we already sometimes have too much solar electricity, does it really make sense to build more solar infrastructure?
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/
When our ancestors discovered fire, is it not safe to assume they burned their hands a few times before figuring out that even though it was dangerous, it also had many benefits for man?
-Stuart B.
P.S. Please no batteries talk; if anyone thinks batteries are the answer, he probably also thinks lithium, nickel, cobalt, and aluminum mining are sustainable industries with low emissions!
Jerry, why should the general public trust your conclusions instead of years worth of research and analysis by experts in each of the topics you attack? This is an example of the anti-science fearmongering that is running so rampantly in our society, prompting us to make fear-based reactionary decisions instead of allowing us to evaluate the data and make decisions that minimize risk and maximize benefit for people and the environment.
Nuclear energy produces a large amount of low-emission power on a small land footprint – which means action on climate, action on air pollution, and land conservation for the protection of our planet. No energy source is perfect, but all things considered nuclear is one of the very best.