3 ms·
Realistically, decommissioning a 4 decade old plant that has been neglected and is built in a earthquake prone location is probably the right choice. The real m
by NineStarPoint 5y ago
Realistically, decommissioning a 4 decade old plant that has been neglected and is built in a earthquake prone location is probably the right choice. The real mistake is that over those 4 decades California didn't continue to build more Nuclear plants. They started decommissioning the plant a decade ago, long after climate change was known to the public, and at the very least at that point it should have been obvious that they should start to build more.
I can't believe ruby red Tennessee is the only state to have finished a new Nuclear plant in almost three decades.
- samsolomon 5y agoWell, hot testing has started on reactor 3 at Vogtle in Georgia. I wasn't sure if the plant would ever be finished, but it seems like it is actually on track to start operating next year. https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/overcoming-delays-hot-functional-testing-on-vogtle-nuclear-unit-3-progressing-successfully/ https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/overcoming-delays-hot-func...
- aerostable_slug 5y agoDiablo Canyon Power Plant may be a lot of things, but neglected is not one of them. I've been onsite for pentests and not only did I feel safe then, I'm typing this from home, just a few miles from the plant's exclusion zone. Re: decommissioning, I believe you are conflating DCPP with San Onofre. I completely agree we should have started building more years ago. One interesting idea was (strong emphasis on was) adding units to DCPP. The site can take up to four more units (I've seen the drawings). The major problem with that was the fact that California would require the plant to switch from seawater cooling to cooling towers, which was financially difficult.