3 ms·

Diablo Canyon can easily work for another 20 years, at least. Nuclear plants around the country have been getting license extensions. It makes 10% of the state'

Diablo Canyon can easily work for another 20 years, at least. Nuclear plants around the country have been getting license extensions. It makes 10% of the state's electricity, and nuclear fission is a zero-carbon process. I'm glad they fought back against the anti-nuclear industry trying to close it prematurely. Now they should extend it 20 more years.

blitzar 4y ago
No they should build two new reactors on site and eventually retire old and inefficient hardware. The site is toxic anyway - locals dont mind it in 'their back yard', infrastructure is there, skilled workers are there, everything is there. Every existing nuclear site in the world should be thinking about sticking another couple of reactors on site!
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  > The site is toxic anyway It's not that toxic. I was just there a few months ago, hiking along the water in the Point Buchon Trail. It was beautiful, with wildlife everywhere. Pure unadulterated coastline teeming with life. At the very end you can catch a glimpse of the nuclear plant https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/in-your-community/local-environment/diablo-canyon-trails/point-buchon-trail.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/in-your-community/loca... In my hometown we had an experimental nuclear plant powering my childhood. It shut down in the 1990s and today is total greenfield. Sadly, now my hometown is almost entirely fossil fueled.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 DECON takes at least 7 years, SAFSTOR 50+ years. 50% of the decommionings in the US are the slow kind. If you are going for the quick kind, you have to take everything off site somewhere and stick it in a hole in the ground (or probably store it on another nuclear plant site) - and then that hole in the ground is radioactive. Its likely when they decommission Diablo Canyon, they will turn off the power and post a guard at the gate for 50 years and not touch anything.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Building new large reactors is a terrible idea. All the data shows that large reactors are obsolete, too difficult to build in modern economies, and without a good design to build. France's EPR has pretty much failed, and good luck finding any US utility foolish enough to try an AP1000. I don't understand people's attachment to nuclear. We have far better tech now. The large transmission lines at DC are incredibly valuable, however. There should be 4-5GW of floating offshore wind built there, and 10-100GWh of batteries at the old DC site.
  - agentultra 4y ago
    > We have far better tech now. I'm not aware of what that could possibly be? Per unit of fuel it produces the most energy of any commercially available fuel source by a tremendously large margin. It produces extremely little waste compared to any commercially available fuel source. And the waste it does produce is, again by far, the cleanest and safest waste to manage. Fusion is probably the only energy source that would, theoretically, provide better returns but is likely still decades away from commercial availability. So... what technology are you referring to?
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    > All the data shows that large reactors are obsolete That is a myth based on only looking at the latest few Western builds and totally ignoring progress in the following designs/builds: Hualong One APR-1400 ABWR VVER-1000 The world is moving forward with large LWRs. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...

blitzar 4y ago

No they should build two new reactors on site and eventually retire old and inefficient hardware. The site is toxic anyway - locals dont mind it in 'their back yard', infrastructure is there, skilled workers are there, everything is there. Every existing nuclear site in the world should be thinking about sticking another couple of reactors on site!

acidburnNSA 4y ago
> The site is toxic anyway It's not that toxic. I was just there a few months ago, hiking along the water in the Point Buchon Trail. It was beautiful, with wildlife everywhere. Pure unadulterated coastline teeming with life. At the very end you can catch a glimpse of the nuclear plant https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/in-your-community/local-environment/diablo-canyon-trails/point-buchon-trail.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/in-your-community/loca... In my hometown we had an experimental nuclear plant powering my childhood. It shut down in the 1990s and today is total greenfield. Sadly, now my hometown is almost entirely fossil fueled.
- blitzar 4y ago
  https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792 DECON takes at least 7 years, SAFSTOR 50+ years. 50% of the decommionings in the US are the slow kind. If you are going for the quick kind, you have to take everything off site somewhere and stick it in a hole in the ground (or probably store it on another nuclear plant site) - and then that hole in the ground is radioactive. Its likely when they decommission Diablo Canyon, they will turn off the power and post a guard at the gate for 50 years and not touch anything.
epistasis 4y ago
Building new large reactors is a terrible idea. All the data shows that large reactors are obsolete, too difficult to build in modern economies, and without a good design to build. France's EPR has pretty much failed, and good luck finding any US utility foolish enough to try an AP1000. I don't understand people's attachment to nuclear. We have far better tech now. The large transmission lines at DC are incredibly valuable, however. There should be 4-5GW of floating offshore wind built there, and 10-100GWh of batteries at the old DC site.
- agentultra 4y ago
  > We have far better tech now. I'm not aware of what that could possibly be? Per unit of fuel it produces the most energy of any commercially available fuel source by a tremendously large margin. It produces extremely little waste compared to any commercially available fuel source. And the waste it does produce is, again by far, the cleanest and safest waste to manage. Fusion is probably the only energy source that would, theoretically, provide better returns but is likely still decades away from commercial availability. So... what technology are you referring to?
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  > All the data shows that large reactors are obsolete That is a myth based on only looking at the latest few Western builds and totally ignoring progress in the following designs/builds: Hualong One APR-1400 ABWR VVER-1000 The world is moving forward with large LWRs. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...