4 ms·
The die was cast a few years ago when the decision was made not to pursue relicensing. The dates when the units will be shut down have already been written on t
by aerostable_slug 5y ago
The die was cast a few years ago when the decision was made not to pursue relicensing. The dates when the units will be shut down have already been written on the calendar in ink.
Actual decommissioning timelines are more uncertain, largely because PG&E could choose to sell the site to a company that specializes in decommissioning and remediating nuclear power plant sites in a profitable manner.
- Ericson2314 5y agoRight, but could we relicense a place whose license lapsed, if they didn't start physically decomissioning it?
- aerostable_slug 5y agoI suppose you could, but I'm pretty sure it would be financially ruinous. Relicensing is a multiyear process, and since it hasn't been started you'd have an enforced outage with both units for months to years. That would hemorrhage cash at an eye-watering rate. Even just having one unit down for an refueling outage is financially a big deal, which is why utilities bring in contract workers in droves to get as much work done as possible during the scheduled outage. If a nuke plant isn't running at 100% you're almost certainly going to lose money, which when combined with California's renewables policy is the biggest region PG&E is closing the plant.