7 ms·

Yeah, this seems really stupid. I can see an argument for prioritizing renewables for new capacity (and can also see the argument for not), buy if the nuclear p

Yeah, this seems really stupid. I can see an argument for prioritizing renewables for new capacity (and can also see the argument for not), buy if the nuclear plants are already built, why de-prioritize dispatching their power now?

dv_dt 5y ago
Because Diablo canyon is also built on an earthquake fault.
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand an earthquake of shaking amplitude ten times larger than that which the Shoreline fault is capable of triggering, based on an analysis by plant owner Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_earthquake_vulnerability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_earthquake_vul...
  - petschge 5y ago
    Plants owners will always say that they analyzed their own plant being safe...
    - heisenbit 5y ago
      And that is before they start storing spent fuels on site.
    - CameronNemo 5y ago
      NRC's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Diablo Canyon was 1 in 23,810 according to an NRC study published in August 2010.
    - Beldin 5y ago
      Indeed. This sort of thing should be called "toilet ducking", in recognition of the (Dutch) brand whose ads poked fun at this very idea in the 90s. "Therefore, we of Toilet Duck recommend ... Toilet Duck!" ("Toilet duck" is a transliteration of their name.) Moreover, it sounds suitably silly to be used for such silly nonsense.
      - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        Toilet Duck is sold as such in the US.
  - adanto6840 5y ago
    Just note that PG&E is the entity who has stated the Shoreline fault is only capable of a 6.5 magnitude earthquake - while the plant is designed to be capable of handling [after post-construction updates] an earthquake up to 7.5 magnitude (10X since it's a log scale). Also note, the linked page states there are four "nearby" faults -- it doesn't state the distance to them, but included is the San Andreas fault, and I'm relatively confident we know it's capable of producing >= 7.5 magnitude earthquakes. I don't know, nor claim to know, much of anything about how susceptible [or not] this plant is to seismic events -- and I'm generally quite pro-nuclear -- but it's worth noting that there are other seismic concerns here, and potentially some questionable incentives for PG&E who is the one attesting to the capabilities of the area & this specific plant.
    - CameronNemo 5y ago
      The first part of what you say is not valid: outside groups have estimated the capabilities of the close Shoreline fault. The rest of your comment I agree with. Although I would point out that if San Andreas quaked at (eg) 8, it would not be 8 when it reached Diablo Canyon. According to USGS seismologist, Jeanne L. Hardebeck, the Shoreline Fault has potential to trigger an earthquake of 6.4–6.8 magnitude
      - SkittyDog 5y ago
        Your point is clear enough, but both the parent & grandparent comments are misuing the terminology. Earthquake sizes are usually expressed via Richter scale or Moment Magnitude Scale values, which both attempt to quantify the total energy released by the quake. These scales do NOT quantify the force experienced at any particular location, which depends heavily on distance from the epicenter and local geology. For that kind of quantity, you would use a seismic intensity scale (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_intensity_scales https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_intensity_scales). So it's wrong to say that a quake "...would not be 8 when it reaches Diablo Canyon" because the value '8' is an MMS or Richter value. Instead, you could say that "...the damage potential would be reduced by the distance to Diablo Canyon."
      - SkyMarshal 5y ago
  - newbamboo 5y ago
    Do you trust pg&e after the whole French laundry lobbyist thing? https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/abc10-originals/newsom-pge-protection/103-65ca1d41-8efe-45b4-87bc-0cdecc714378 https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/abc10-originals/new...
    - CameronNemo 5y ago
      No, I would definitely support an audit of their claims. With my comment, I intended to point out that a seismically active location may not be game over for a nuclear plant if proper consideration is taken.
    - dv_dt 5y ago
      The same PG&E also fell behind on maintenance of vegetation around power lines, causing wildfires. As well as gas pipe infrastructure, causing a neighborhood scale explosion.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        On the other hand, distributed, statewide maintenance (vegetation, gas pipelines) is very different than centralized maintenance (nuclear power plant). It doesn't speak well to their competence, but "inspect and maintain 1,000s of miles of line" is different than "inspect and maintain 1,000 items in one place."
        dv_dt 5y ago
        If the risks were equivalent, but it’s maintain many more than 1000 items to at a tolerance 1000 times more sensitive with a outcome 1000 times worse than a wildfire or gas explosion.
7thaccount 5y ago
Probably because they're not. It's just the offer cost of nuke in the market is substantially higher than the juggernaut of solar, so the "invisible hand" is pushing it's capacity factor (how often it runs) down considerably to where it can't make enough money to stay in business. Of course this isn't 100% due to free markets as the subsidies of renewables allow them to offer in extremely cheaply, but it exacerbates the problem. Even without the subsidies, this would happen with current designs. Now of course there is "resiliency" value to having a nuke plant (example: when the sun doesn't shine) that is a value by itself, but it isn't being priced and paid for.
- hguant 5y ago
  I mean, the quote and the article disagree with what you're saying - it's not the "invisible hand of the market", it's a policy choice by California to prioritize buying from renewables over "dirty" power. Oil and coal can eat that because they have lower operating costs and fill a different need than nuclear does. Implying that this is due to the superiority of "the juggernaut of solar" seems incorrect to me. I get there's this utopian vision of solar, and the gains in the industry have been impressive, but those gains are backed by some really deep market subsidies and policy choices - which, to be fair, were needed to get the technology off the ground. However, it's not there yet, and it didn't get there under its own power. What we're seeing here is a repercussion of those policy choices, not the a market stabilization in favour of a superior player.
  - short12 5y ago
    Are not all forms of generation heavily subsidized? I feel if you could generate electricity by killing kittens and baby seals you would instantly get a subsides
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    It's sad really. There is an alternative reality where anti nuclear activist [1] never succeeded and we continued to make great progress on reactors. Ultimately, reducing fossil fuel use and corresponding GHG levels. One of the very things the environmental groups fought against was one of the things that could have saved us. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
KorematsuFredt 5y ago
Shutting an existing plant without having an alternative in sight is just plain stupid even if it was coal powered power plant. Higher energy prices and lack of energy also kills people and damages environment. Do you really want people to run diesel generators in their backyard when power goes off ? Do you really prefer people to buy gas powered gadgets or cars because they don't trust electric grid ? In the absence of reliably grid electricity, people might opt for alternatives that are much more damaging. My local solar company advertises itself as "alternative to unreliable PG&E", it is expensive and not many can afford it but I can see why some people might spend their healthcare or education budget on buying those expensive solar panels.
- CalChris 5y ago
  Diablo Canyon was commissioned in 1985 with a planned decommission date of 2015. 36 years is on the upper end for how long nuclear power plants last. The alternative is to buy/import electrical power. Of course, the power grid needs upgrading. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf

dv_dt 5y ago

Because Diablo canyon is also built on an earthquake fault.

CameronNemo 5y ago
Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand an earthquake of shaking amplitude ten times larger than that which the Shoreline fault is capable of triggering, based on an analysis by plant owner Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_earthquake_vulnerability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_earthquake_vul...
- petschge 5y ago
  Plants owners will always say that they analyzed their own plant being safe...
  - heisenbit 5y ago
    And that is before they start storing spent fuels on site.
  - CameronNemo 5y ago
    NRC's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Diablo Canyon was 1 in 23,810 according to an NRC study published in August 2010.
  - Beldin 5y ago
    Indeed. This sort of thing should be called "toilet ducking", in recognition of the (Dutch) brand whose ads poked fun at this very idea in the 90s. "Therefore, we of Toilet Duck recommend ... Toilet Duck!" ("Toilet duck" is a transliteration of their name.) Moreover, it sounds suitably silly to be used for such silly nonsense.
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
      Toilet Duck is sold as such in the US.
- adanto6840 5y ago
  Just note that PG&E is the entity who has stated the Shoreline fault is only capable of a 6.5 magnitude earthquake - while the plant is designed to be capable of handling [after post-construction updates] an earthquake up to 7.5 magnitude (10X since it's a log scale). Also note, the linked page states there are four "nearby" faults -- it doesn't state the distance to them, but included is the San Andreas fault, and I'm relatively confident we know it's capable of producing >= 7.5 magnitude earthquakes. I don't know, nor claim to know, much of anything about how susceptible [or not] this plant is to seismic events -- and I'm generally quite pro-nuclear -- but it's worth noting that there are other seismic concerns here, and potentially some questionable incentives for PG&E who is the one attesting to the capabilities of the area & this specific plant.
  - CameronNemo 5y ago
    The first part of what you say is not valid: outside groups have estimated the capabilities of the close Shoreline fault. The rest of your comment I agree with. Although I would point out that if San Andreas quaked at (eg) 8, it would not be 8 when it reached Diablo Canyon. According to USGS seismologist, Jeanne L. Hardebeck, the Shoreline Fault has potential to trigger an earthquake of 6.4–6.8 magnitude
    - SkittyDog 5y ago
      Your point is clear enough, but both the parent & grandparent comments are misuing the terminology. Earthquake sizes are usually expressed via Richter scale or Moment Magnitude Scale values, which both attempt to quantify the total energy released by the quake. These scales do NOT quantify the force experienced at any particular location, which depends heavily on distance from the epicenter and local geology. For that kind of quantity, you would use a seismic intensity scale (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_intensity_scales https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_intensity_scales). So it's wrong to say that a quake "...would not be 8 when it reaches Diablo Canyon" because the value '8' is an MMS or Richter value. Instead, you could say that "...the damage potential would be reduced by the distance to Diablo Canyon."
    - SkyMarshal 5y ago
- newbamboo 5y ago
  Do you trust pg&e after the whole French laundry lobbyist thing? https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/abc10-originals/newsom-pge-protection/103-65ca1d41-8efe-45b4-87bc-0cdecc714378 https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/abc10-originals/new...
  - CameronNemo 5y ago
    No, I would definitely support an audit of their claims. With my comment, I intended to point out that a seismically active location may not be game over for a nuclear plant if proper consideration is taken.
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    The same PG&E also fell behind on maintenance of vegetation around power lines, causing wildfires. As well as gas pipe infrastructure, causing a neighborhood scale explosion.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      On the other hand, distributed, statewide maintenance (vegetation, gas pipelines) is very different than centralized maintenance (nuclear power plant). It doesn't speak well to their competence, but "inspect and maintain 1,000s of miles of line" is different than "inspect and maintain 1,000 items in one place."
      - dv_dt 5y ago
        If the risks were equivalent, but it’s maintain many more than 1000 items to at a tolerance 1000 times more sensitive with a outcome 1000 times worse than a wildfire or gas explosion.

7thaccount 5y ago

Probably because they're not. It's just the offer cost of nuke in the market is substantially higher than the juggernaut of solar, so the "invisible hand" is pushing it's capacity factor (how often it runs) down considerably to where it can't make enough money to stay in business. Of course this isn't 100% due to free markets as the subsidies of renewables allow them to offer in extremely cheaply, but it exacerbates the problem. Even without the subsidies, this would happen with current designs. Now of course there is "resiliency" value to having a nuke plant (example: when the sun doesn't shine) that is a value by itself, but it isn't being priced and paid for.

hguant 5y ago
I mean, the quote and the article disagree with what you're saying - it's not the "invisible hand of the market", it's a policy choice by California to prioritize buying from renewables over "dirty" power. Oil and coal can eat that because they have lower operating costs and fill a different need than nuclear does. Implying that this is due to the superiority of "the juggernaut of solar" seems incorrect to me. I get there's this utopian vision of solar, and the gains in the industry have been impressive, but those gains are backed by some really deep market subsidies and policy choices - which, to be fair, were needed to get the technology off the ground. However, it's not there yet, and it didn't get there under its own power. What we're seeing here is a repercussion of those policy choices, not the a market stabilization in favour of a superior player.
- short12 5y ago
  Are not all forms of generation heavily subsidized? I feel if you could generate electricity by killing kittens and baby seals you would instantly get a subsides
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  It's sad really. There is an alternative reality where anti nuclear activist [1] never succeeded and we continued to make great progress on reactors. Ultimately, reducing fossil fuel use and corresponding GHG levels. One of the very things the environmental groups fought against was one of the things that could have saved us. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement

KorematsuFredt 5y ago

Shutting an existing plant without having an alternative in sight is just plain stupid even if it was coal powered power plant. Higher energy prices and lack of energy also kills people and damages environment. Do you really want people to run diesel generators in their backyard when power goes off ? Do you really prefer people to buy gas powered gadgets or cars because they don't trust electric grid ? In the absence of reliably grid electricity, people might opt for alternatives that are much more damaging. My local solar company advertises itself as "alternative to unreliable PG&E", it is expensive and not many can afford it but I can see why some people might spend their healthcare or education budget on buying those expensive solar panels.

CalChris 5y ago
Diablo Canyon was commissioned in 1985 with a planned decommission date of 2015. 36 years is on the upper end for how long nuclear power plants last. The alternative is to buy/import electrical power. Of course, the power grid needs upgrading. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/29402043133.pdf