7 ms·

California's Last Nuclear Power Plant to Be Shut Down

48 points by cmpolis 10y ago

elgabogringo 10y ago
Good news for frackers.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > Pacific Gas and Electric Company said in a statement that the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant's generating capacity will be replaced by "a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage." Good news for Tesla Energy and their new Solar City division. EDIT: Exelon is shutting two nuclear plants in Illinois over the next two years, Clinton and Quad Cities, and Fort Calhoun in Nebraska is set to close by the end of the year. Slowly but surely, we will retire every coal, natural gas, and (woefully aged) nuclear generator in the country.
- Zigurd 10y ago
  I'm not a market absolutist, but even after all the massive government support nuclear got, they could not make it pay. And if anything bad happens, it kills the profits from the next 20 plants, like the RMA from hell. When equity startup investors (not utility bondholders) get rich off a nuclear technology, then I'll believe it can solve some real-world problems and not just be showpiece technology.
  - rando18423 10y ago
    I work in energy research for a large financial institution and would love to see the data you're drawing this conclusion from.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      That even with the current plants in operation for over 40 years, surely having their capital costs paid for, they can't compete against the economics of wind and natural gas (which is pushing current plants into early decommissioning).
      - enjo 10y ago
        They can't compete politically with those alternatives at least.
    - Zigurd 10y ago
      Then maybe you could explain why customers should pay a dime for failed, uneconomical nuclear projects: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/26/us/millions-face-high-rates-because-of-nuclear-plants.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/26/us/millions-face-high-rate...
      - johncolanduoni 10y ago
        Note that the article itself says "either canceled or blocked from operating". You can't support politicking that locks nuclear plant development in endless NIMBY battles and then blame nuclear itself for it.
        rbanffy 10y ago
        You can't blame the tech, but the companies that rely on it should have better marketing.
        Zigurd 10y ago
        It's not NIMBY unless you count not tolerating shoddy construction as NIMBY: "Several more plants may run into difficulty when virtually complete because of questions of the quality of construction." It's not a marketing problem. It's that the plants are too complex to be properly built and operated.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      Maintaining old plants may be economical but even that is fraught with risk (e.g. the RSG debacle at San Onofre) but looking at the few new nuclear projects under way makes it seem highly unlikely that they'll ever be worthwhile. The Vogtle upgrade has been underway for 6 years and is already 3 years behind schedule, it will have taken over a decade by the time it sells it's first watt to the grid. The total investment over that time will be something like $20 billion. I can't imagine a scenario in which tying up $20B in capital for a decade to produce 2.2GW of power makes any financial sense at all. With the EPA cost estimate of $1,000/KW for a natural gas plant, you could literally build 20GW of natural gas capacity and probably save 5 years in construction time. Wind is ~2x more expensive per installed MW, so build 10GW of wind capacity, even with their shitty 30% capacity factors you come out ahead of the Vogtle project. Hopefully the modular reactors come with much better economics but large scale nuclear is dead for a reason.
s_q_b 10y ago
This is a bad idea. Wind and solar are simply not enough to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and fusion.[0] Shutting down the country's safest, cheapest, and most consistent method of power generation would be disastrous. [0]http://phys.org/news/2013-11-experts-nuclear-power.html http://phys.org/news/2013-11-experts-nuclear-power.html Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter... urges a crucial discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change. Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable energy will be able to power the world within the next few decades. That isn't realistic, the letter said. "Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and "with the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology" that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases. The letter signers are James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in Australia.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Math please? There is enough wind and solar potential in the United States to meet our energy needs several times over, even when including moving all light vehicles to electric.
  - jankiel 10y ago
    There's a big gap between potential and making it work risht now. How much would that cost?
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      A nuclear plant costs ~$9 billion (before cost overruns) per generating unit, and ~10 years to build. Whether that's less or more than solar isn't the point; there isn't time, and no one will finance one. Utility scale solar is ~$1/kw, and can be operational in a fraction of the time. Importantly, costs continue to decline. Planned utility scale generation coming online in the next year: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.... (note its almost exclusively solar and wind) Battery storage costs are falling as fast, if not faster, than renewables did: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_re... http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-about-ready-to-take-off/407096/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-... There is no other option other than wind and solar, full speed ahead.
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
This is the last state you want to shut these reactors down in. California has mountains of regulations that only apply to new things. Many (most?) buildings that exist today could never be built because of some violation. Once these plants shut down they will never be reopened.
ex3ndr 10y ago
In a half century there was ~4 major meltdowns in the world that affect people lives: 1) Kyshtym disaster (57')[1] - it was old production site after WWII - will never be again 2) Chernobyl (86') - stress-testing nuclear plant and disabling all levels of protection - will never be again 3) Fukushima Daiichi (11') - Obsolete block not stopped Other disasters are not affected anyone outside of the plant, for example Three Mile Island. And that's all! On the other side, hydro plants actually make things much worse to a nature and already killed big rivers in siberia. Fossil-fuel stations (67% of worldwide energy) are even worse. Nuclear plants are still the safest for environment and the only way to bring electricity to developing world because it can be very cheap. Take a look at B. Gates nuclear reactor: http://terrapower.com/pages/technology http://terrapower.com/pages/technology Building some nuclear plants will be able to feed anyone almost forever. Unlike solar energy that you need to keep in batteries for the night. And who say that batteries can't explode? It is looks like fear of flighting: no reason to fear planes and much much more people die in car accidents that in plane one. Same here - much more people die from other sources that from nuclear plant disaster. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
- colordrops 10y ago
  Please dont take this the wrong way, but I'm genuinely curious from a linguistic perspective. What is your native tongue?
  - ex3ndr 10y ago
    Russian
  - kidmenot 10y ago
    As a non-native speaker myself (Italian), I too often notice what seem to be patterns in other non-native speaker's English writing that seem to be typical of some larger geographical area (eastern Europe, northern Asia, southern Asia). Though I can't put my finger on it and say exactly what those patterns look like, nor pinpoint where the writer's mother tongue is, I can usually tell that something is off in a certain location-specific way. It's interesting and, to a certain extent, a fun exercise. It's a pity that I'm too lazy to sit down and compare samples of writing from different areas and come up with an organic and formal description of what I'm noticing, assuming that's even feasible without being a linguist and well-versed in all the languages involved. No offense intended for the author of the parent comment, I hope he won't take this the wrong way either!
marcoperaza 10y ago
It's amazing to me that the political groups fanning the flames of climate change panic are the same ones holding back the development of the single best alternative to fossil fuels that we have. Nuclear could power the world.
- linkregister 10y ago
  It would seem to me that the ones blocking nuclear power are a small subset of those concerned with humanity-induced climate change.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    A small subset? They've effectively won the policy debate. Nuclear is either banned or being phased out in most of the West.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      Your comment didn't link the two groups; you have effectively repeated yourself.

48 points by cmpolis 10y ago

elgabogringo 10y ago

Good news for frackers.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Pacific Gas and Electric Company said in a statement that the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant's generating capacity will be replaced by "a cost-effective, greenhouse gas free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage." Good news for Tesla Energy and their new Solar City division. EDIT: Exelon is shutting two nuclear plants in Illinois over the next two years, Clinton and Quad Cities, and Fort Calhoun in Nebraska is set to close by the end of the year. Slowly but surely, we will retire every coal, natural gas, and (woefully aged) nuclear generator in the country.
Zigurd 10y ago
I'm not a market absolutist, but even after all the massive government support nuclear got, they could not make it pay. And if anything bad happens, it kills the profits from the next 20 plants, like the RMA from hell. When equity startup investors (not utility bondholders) get rich off a nuclear technology, then I'll believe it can solve some real-world problems and not just be showpiece technology.
- rando18423 10y ago
  I work in energy research for a large financial institution and would love to see the data you're drawing this conclusion from.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    That even with the current plants in operation for over 40 years, surely having their capital costs paid for, they can't compete against the economics of wind and natural gas (which is pushing current plants into early decommissioning).
    - enjo 10y ago
      They can't compete politically with those alternatives at least.
  - Zigurd 10y ago
    Then maybe you could explain why customers should pay a dime for failed, uneconomical nuclear projects: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/26/us/millions-face-high-rates-because-of-nuclear-plants.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/26/us/millions-face-high-rate...
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      Note that the article itself says "either canceled or blocked from operating". You can't support politicking that locks nuclear plant development in endless NIMBY battles and then blame nuclear itself for it.
      - rbanffy 10y ago
        You can't blame the tech, but the companies that rely on it should have better marketing.
      - Zigurd 10y ago
        It's not NIMBY unless you count not tolerating shoddy construction as NIMBY: "Several more plants may run into difficulty when virtually complete because of questions of the quality of construction." It's not a marketing problem. It's that the plants are too complex to be properly built and operated.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    Maintaining old plants may be economical but even that is fraught with risk (e.g. the RSG debacle at San Onofre) but looking at the few new nuclear projects under way makes it seem highly unlikely that they'll ever be worthwhile. The Vogtle upgrade has been underway for 6 years and is already 3 years behind schedule, it will have taken over a decade by the time it sells it's first watt to the grid. The total investment over that time will be something like $20 billion. I can't imagine a scenario in which tying up $20B in capital for a decade to produce 2.2GW of power makes any financial sense at all. With the EPA cost estimate of $1,000/KW for a natural gas plant, you could literally build 20GW of natural gas capacity and probably save 5 years in construction time. Wind is ~2x more expensive per installed MW, so build 10GW of wind capacity, even with their shitty 30% capacity factors you come out ahead of the Vogtle project. Hopefully the modular reactors come with much better economics but large scale nuclear is dead for a reason.

s_q_b 10y ago

This is a bad idea. Wind and solar are simply not enough to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and fusion.[0] Shutting down the country's safest, cheapest, and most consistent method of power generation would be disastrous. [0]http://phys.org/news/2013-11-experts-nuclear-power.html http://phys.org/news/2013-11-experts-nuclear-power.html Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter... urges a crucial discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change. Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable energy will be able to power the world within the next few decades. That isn't realistic, the letter said. "Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and "with the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology" that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases. The letter signers are James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in Australia.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Math please? There is enough wind and solar potential in the United States to meet our energy needs several times over, even when including moving all light vehicles to electric.
- jankiel 10y ago
  There's a big gap between potential and making it work risht now. How much would that cost?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    A nuclear plant costs ~$9 billion (before cost overruns) per generating unit, and ~10 years to build. Whether that's less or more than solar isn't the point; there isn't time, and no one will finance one. Utility scale solar is ~$1/kw, and can be operational in a fraction of the time. Importantly, costs continue to decline. Planned utility scale generation coming online in the next year: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.... (note its almost exclusively solar and wind) Battery storage costs are falling as fast, if not faster, than renewables did: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_re... http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-about-ready-to-take-off/407096/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-... There is no other option other than wind and solar, full speed ahead.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

This is the last state you want to shut these reactors down in. California has mountains of regulations that only apply to new things. Many (most?) buildings that exist today could never be built because of some violation. Once these plants shut down they will never be reopened.

ex3ndr 10y ago

In a half century there was ~4 major meltdowns in the world that affect people lives: 1) Kyshtym disaster (57')[1] - it was old production site after WWII - will never be again 2) Chernobyl (86') - stress-testing nuclear plant and disabling all levels of protection - will never be again 3) Fukushima Daiichi (11') - Obsolete block not stopped Other disasters are not affected anyone outside of the plant, for example Three Mile Island. And that's all! On the other side, hydro plants actually make things much worse to a nature and already killed big rivers in siberia. Fossil-fuel stations (67% of worldwide energy) are even worse. Nuclear plants are still the safest for environment and the only way to bring electricity to developing world because it can be very cheap. Take a look at B. Gates nuclear reactor: http://terrapower.com/pages/technology http://terrapower.com/pages/technology Building some nuclear plants will be able to feed anyone almost forever. Unlike solar energy that you need to keep in batteries for the night. And who say that batteries can't explode? It is looks like fear of flighting: no reason to fear planes and much much more people die in car accidents that in plane one. Same here - much more people die from other sources that from nuclear plant disaster. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

colordrops 10y ago
Please dont take this the wrong way, but I'm genuinely curious from a linguistic perspective. What is your native tongue?
- ex3ndr 10y ago
  Russian
- kidmenot 10y ago
  As a non-native speaker myself (Italian), I too often notice what seem to be patterns in other non-native speaker's English writing that seem to be typical of some larger geographical area (eastern Europe, northern Asia, southern Asia). Though I can't put my finger on it and say exactly what those patterns look like, nor pinpoint where the writer's mother tongue is, I can usually tell that something is off in a certain location-specific way. It's interesting and, to a certain extent, a fun exercise. It's a pity that I'm too lazy to sit down and compare samples of writing from different areas and come up with an organic and formal description of what I'm noticing, assuming that's even feasible without being a linguist and well-versed in all the languages involved. No offense intended for the author of the parent comment, I hope he won't take this the wrong way either!

marcoperaza 10y ago

It's amazing to me that the political groups fanning the flames of climate change panic are the same ones holding back the development of the single best alternative to fossil fuels that we have. Nuclear could power the world.

linkregister 10y ago
It would seem to me that the ones blocking nuclear power are a small subset of those concerned with humanity-induced climate change.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  A small subset? They've effectively won the policy debate. Nuclear is either banned or being phased out in most of the West.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Your comment didn't link the two groups; you have effectively repeated yourself.