nuclear-news

Some, including the Mothers for Peace in San Lois Obispo, are still working to close Diablo sooner. The administrative law judge in these PUC proceedings has agreed that considering closing the plant earlier than 2025 is a legitimate issue that can be addressed.

Pro nuclear groups have suggested such an early closure would be a blow to our state’s fight against global warming. However, even assuming nuclear power may be needed globally while transitioning from fossil fuels, Diablo itself has no impact on global warming and, as the most dangerously situated nuclear power plant in the U.S., according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the California Energy Commission (CEC), it is not worth the risk to California……..

Contrast these minimal potential contributions to climate change with the fact that PG&E’s recent NRC required studies (2015) show that nearby faults can subject Diablo to double the ground shaking that occurred at Fukushima, well beyond what Diablo is currently licensed for. The NRC has meetings scheduled this year to consider these new findings.

And there’s more. PUC President Michael Picker in 2015 requested a cost effectiveness study from PG&E detailing “the costs, benefits and safety issues of cycling the Diablo Canyon units to mitigate over-generation problems on the grid.”

According to the energy commission, this means “… if renewable sources and DCPP are running at capacity then there is a risk that the load on the grid may exceed specifications making it necessary to curtail GHG free renewable generation.”

California has an over generation problem in which nuclear power is actually competing with renewables for grid space, making it necessary to curtail renewables when we have too much energy— thus contributing to global warming.

To date, PG&E has not replied to Picker’s information request.

Furthermore, Diablo uses ocean water for cooling, a practice being phased out because it is devastating to ocean life, and Diablo is the largest such plant in the state, larger than all the rest combined.

Thus we have a dangerously situated, minimally insured nuclear power plant killing marine life to contribute a small amount of energy to a state with a large surplus, while competing for grid space with renewables.

The need for accurate, balanced information in considering our energy future is precisely why I support both the Mothers for Peace in calling for an early closure of Diablo Canyon in current PUC proceedings, and the current legal actions of the World Business Academy to require the State Lands Commission to complete an Environmental Impact Report before allowing continued operation of Diablo Canyon.

When the public is presented with balanced environmental/economic information it will be eminently clear that nuclear power is not worth the risks to California.