9 ms·

California regulators vote to keep Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open 5 more years

140 points by philipkglass 3y ago

gedy 3y ago
This is great news if we are serious about CO2 emissions, vs NIMBY in the guise of "environmentalism"
- chuckadams 3y ago
  I agree in principle, but it's also sitting right next to several fault lines. PG&E claims it's engineered to withstand quakes, but given PG&E's history, I'm not inclined to take them at their word on anything.
  - ChadNauseam 3y ago
    Is there a government body who examines these claims that we could trust instead?
    - chuckadams 3y ago
      That would be the CPUC, which is apparently siding with PG&E. I can actually see CPUC's side here, there really aren't any good alternatives that are ready to go in any reasonable timeframe, but I do hope they're actually doing some independent verification of PG&E's claims.
      - kelnos 3y ago
        The CPUC is so completely captured by PG&E that I don't really trust much of what they say when they agree with PG&E on things. That's not to say that they aren't correct, but I refuse to give them any kind of blanket trust.
gustavus 3y ago
Wahoo! I mean it'd be nice if we could start not building nuclear reactors on fault lines, but I think this is a good start. One of the things people underestimate in physical systems is the amount of tribal knowledge there is and how it actually takes skill and training for a country to become good at something. One of the biggest challenges facing us right now is the fact that we've been reducing nuclear power and if we want to expand it we're going to need capable professionals to be able to do it, those won't spring out of thing air. Keeping existing facilities open will allow us to start training up new engineers that can work in new installations. b/c tbh ramping up nuclear work is probably one of the most important and pressing issues facing not just America but most countries to an extent right now.
- dylan604 3y ago
  > Wahoo! I mean it'd be nice if we could start not building nuclear reactors on fault lines, but I think this is a good start. It'll be okay, since when the big one hits and CA falls into the ocean, it'll just take the plant with it. So the rest of us will be just fine.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Chinese or French nuclear power engineers should be in abundant supply, maybe we could just import the knowledge? When I was graduating from high school, I did the navy recruiting thing just for kicks, and after taking the asvab, they said I had a promising career in navy nuclear. But that scared me away from the military, since my dad had a career in nuclear power, we even got a DOE settlement after he died of cancer, they don’t put nuclear power plants in nice places, it’s not the career I wanted. Towards the end of my dad’s career, many of the engineers were Central American (??? Not sure why) or Indian already. We can totally import the expertise in the future, especially if we are will big to build out French or Chinese designs.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    No actually not the same thing. There’s a lot of local cultural expertise that you can’t import (ie regulatory environment and knowing how to work within it). You can import some technical knowhow but that’s only a fraction of the experience problem. Also re cancer, nuclear power plants emit no radiation. All the radiation exposure risk comes when you’re doing certain kinds of maintenance (eg refueling). Nuclear subs are a different matter. I don’t know the safety standards there and the military is typically a lot more loosy goosey with safety.
fasthands9 3y ago
Happy to hear the state is making a wise decision here, instead of bowing over to conservation groups who only consider climate goals when it aligns with their larger conservation focus https://www.sierraclub.org/michael-brune/2016/06/nuclear-power-renewables-diablo-canyon https://www.sierraclub.org/michael-brune/2016/06/nuclear-pow...
linuxhansl 3y ago
I think this is problem with nuclear power... You can never get a new project started without a public outcry. So instead of new, safe, carbon neutral nuclear power (like thorium reactors, passive cooling, etc), we're are continuing to running literal old-timer nuclear plants (Diablo Canyon was built in 1981). Most folks would not drive a car from 80s, but somehow we're cool with running powerplants that old. IMHO The best for our carbon footprint with safety would be new nuclear plants.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  My knee jerk reaction to the headline was "YES"! Then your healthy dose of reality had to bring me down
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  The Diablo Canyon plant construction is closer to WWII than it is to today.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelnos 3y ago
    So what? How long are power plants "supposed" to last?
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Design lifespan for a nuclear plant is typically 30-40 years or so.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  There are still many old nuclear plants running just fine and produce electricity at decent prices. Not that I am opposed to new nuclear construction but its a completely wrong to suggest these old plants are to old.
- idopmstuff 3y ago
epistasis 3y ago
> the cost to maintain the plant an additional five years could reach $6 billion. This does not appear to be a serious attempt to help the environment with carbon-free electricity. It looks more to be a PR move to satisfy people who have been boosting nuclear, without regard to costs. $6B for a mere five years is highway robbery. Installing $4B of solar and $2B of batteries will result in 20-40 years of carbon-free electricity, and far far far more of it. Those who have been boosting nuclear without a hard nosed look at the costs of technologies have a lot to answer for here. This is just a PR game.
- koolba 3y ago
  > $6B for a mere five years is highway robbery. Installing $4B of solar and $2B of batteries will result in 20-40 years of carbon-free electricity, and far far far more of it. How would you install $6B overnight? That alone would take years. And where do you buy it from? China?
  - epistasis 3y ago
    $6B is not a ton of money when it comes to solar and batteries, these are technologies on massive scales. Using round numbers of roughly $1/W for solar and $500/kWh, my off-the-cuff split buys 4GW of solar and 4GWh of batteries. For comparison, 6.5GW of solar was installed Q3 2023 in the US, and this is a tiny tiny fraction of the global market. The challenge with large installs is the interconnection queue and permitting, not any industrial capacity limitation. And these could be solved by CPUC with a snap of their fingers, like they snapped their fingers to extend Diablo Canyon.
    - 7thaccount 3y ago
      As someone who has worked closely with those running the Interconnection studies, this sounds overly rosey. The ISO (in this case CAISO) runs those studies for a reason to maintain grid reliability. The reason they're slow is that it involves a crazy amount of simulations to determine grid upgrades and it is difficult when things must be done recursively and when the renewables developers speculate so much. If the state regulator could snap their fingers, they would have done so in California, New York, the Midwest... everywhere. They made some changes to speed things up in Texas, but honestly they're kicking the can down the road.
SnooSux 3y ago
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant sounds like something out of a video game.
Lammy 3y ago
Previously shut down: — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Pla... in 1976 because of "BE AFRAID!!!" — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallecitos_Nuclear_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallecitos_Nuclear_Center in 1977 because of "BE AFRAID!!!" — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating... in 1989 because gas generation was artificially cheap (tell that to my current power bill) Canceled during construction, and you can go see the big hole in the ground: — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant Never started: — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundesert_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundesert_Nuclear_Power_Plant (two units) — Corral Canyon (Malibu) — San Joaquin Nuclear Project (four units) — Stanislaus (two units) — Vidal Valley (two units)
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  "BE AFRAID"? Both of those links indicate they discovered seismic faults below the two facilities after construction. That seems like a reasonable thing to be wary of.
  - Lammy 3y ago
    https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/earthquake-early-warning-overview https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/ear... “The speeds of today’s data telecommunications systems are many times faster than seismic waves.” https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2012/12/28/what-is-a-reactor-trip-and-how-does-it-protect-the-plant/ https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2012/12/28/what-is-a-rea... “A reactor trip causes all the control rods to insert into the reactor core, and shut down the plant in a very short time (about three seconds).” Yawn.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Japan has automatic shutdown systems during earthquakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident > The proximate cause of the accident was the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which resulted in electrical grid failure and damaged nearly all of the power plant's backup energy sources. The subsequent inability to sufficiently cool reactors after shutdown compromised containment and resulted in the release of radioactive contaminants into the surrounding environment. Yawn?
adfm 3y ago
What steps are being taken to transition to other forms of sustainable power generation beyond 2030? Solar and wind are pricing coal out of the market and modern nuclear options seem viable, yet we keep hearing “five more years.”
shrubble 3y ago
If my math is right on the "$6 billion over 5 years" then that is 2250 MW capacity * 720 *12 to get a bit more than 19000 Gwh per year. So what is the annual, billable power generation for this nuclear plant?
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  At most $6 billion, this is obviously a listing of the worst case, not best or expected cost.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Has there ever been a case of a nuclear project that came in under the worst case projection? I'm sure there have been one or two. But typically nuclear is known for blowing past the cost estimates, not staying within them.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Yes, all the time. Also, we aren’t talking about building a new plant here, just maintaining an old one.
beders 3y ago
That doesn't make sense. Especially not at the price point we are talking. The money is better spent elsewhere. Just look at this and draw your own conclusions: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
- kelnos 3y ago
  Ok, so if we shut off 8.5% of the electricity supply today(ish), where do we make up for that shortfall while we spend 2-3 years building a solar+battery farm to replace it? Most likely we'd make up for the lack of that plant by burning more natural gas, at least in the short/medium term. Also not sure why you think that price point is out of whack. Seems well in line with current CA electricity prices. This plant should not run forever, but extending its life another 5 years seems entirely prudent.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Not to mention that this is all baseload power and therefore comes out way cheaper than similar solar once you include battery costs. And ignoring the fact that nuclear is 92% efficiency of nameplate power compared with 30% for solar but people keep comparing nameplate power.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
How much does a 2 GW Solar + (2 GW?) battery cost compared to a new nuclear plant? It's disingenuous to compare solar to nuclear without the equivalent storage.

140 points by philipkglass 3y ago

gedy 3y ago

This is great news if we are serious about CO2 emissions, vs NIMBY in the guise of "environmentalism"

chuckadams 3y ago
I agree in principle, but it's also sitting right next to several fault lines. PG&E claims it's engineered to withstand quakes, but given PG&E's history, I'm not inclined to take them at their word on anything.
- ChadNauseam 3y ago
  Is there a government body who examines these claims that we could trust instead?
  - chuckadams 3y ago
    That would be the CPUC, which is apparently siding with PG&E. I can actually see CPUC's side here, there really aren't any good alternatives that are ready to go in any reasonable timeframe, but I do hope they're actually doing some independent verification of PG&E's claims.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      The CPUC is so completely captured by PG&E that I don't really trust much of what they say when they agree with PG&E on things. That's not to say that they aren't correct, but I refuse to give them any kind of blanket trust.

gustavus 3y ago

Wahoo! I mean it'd be nice if we could start not building nuclear reactors on fault lines, but I think this is a good start. One of the things people underestimate in physical systems is the amount of tribal knowledge there is and how it actually takes skill and training for a country to become good at something. One of the biggest challenges facing us right now is the fact that we've been reducing nuclear power and if we want to expand it we're going to need capable professionals to be able to do it, those won't spring out of thing air. Keeping existing facilities open will allow us to start training up new engineers that can work in new installations. b/c tbh ramping up nuclear work is probably one of the most important and pressing issues facing not just America but most countries to an extent right now.

dylan604 3y ago
> Wahoo! I mean it'd be nice if we could start not building nuclear reactors on fault lines, but I think this is a good start. It'll be okay, since when the big one hits and CA falls into the ocean, it'll just take the plant with it. So the rest of us will be just fine.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Chinese or French nuclear power engineers should be in abundant supply, maybe we could just import the knowledge? When I was graduating from high school, I did the navy recruiting thing just for kicks, and after taking the asvab, they said I had a promising career in navy nuclear. But that scared me away from the military, since my dad had a career in nuclear power, we even got a DOE settlement after he died of cancer, they don’t put nuclear power plants in nice places, it’s not the career I wanted. Towards the end of my dad’s career, many of the engineers were Central American (??? Not sure why) or Indian already. We can totally import the expertise in the future, especially if we are will big to build out French or Chinese designs.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  No actually not the same thing. There’s a lot of local cultural expertise that you can’t import (ie regulatory environment and knowing how to work within it). You can import some technical knowhow but that’s only a fraction of the experience problem. Also re cancer, nuclear power plants emit no radiation. All the radiation exposure risk comes when you’re doing certain kinds of maintenance (eg refueling). Nuclear subs are a different matter. I don’t know the safety standards there and the military is typically a lot more loosy goosey with safety.

fasthands9 3y ago

Happy to hear the state is making a wise decision here, instead of bowing over to conservation groups who only consider climate goals when it aligns with their larger conservation focus https://www.sierraclub.org/michael-brune/2016/06/nuclear-power-renewables-diablo-canyon https://www.sierraclub.org/michael-brune/2016/06/nuclear-pow...

linuxhansl 3y ago

I think this is problem with nuclear power... You can never get a new project started without a public outcry. So instead of new, safe, carbon neutral nuclear power (like thorium reactors, passive cooling, etc), we're are continuing to running literal old-timer nuclear plants (Diablo Canyon was built in 1981). Most folks would not drive a car from 80s, but somehow we're cool with running powerplants that old. IMHO The best for our carbon footprint with safety would be new nuclear plants.

passwordoops 3y ago
My knee jerk reaction to the headline was "YES"! Then your healthy dose of reality had to bring me down
kelseyfrog 3y ago
The Diablo Canyon plant construction is closer to WWII than it is to today.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 3y ago
  So what? How long are power plants "supposed" to last?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Design lifespan for a nuclear plant is typically 30-40 years or so.
panick21_ 3y ago
There are still many old nuclear plants running just fine and produce electricity at decent prices. Not that I am opposed to new nuclear construction but its a completely wrong to suggest these old plants are to old.
idopmstuff 3y ago

epistasis 3y ago

> the cost to maintain the plant an additional five years could reach $6 billion. This does not appear to be a serious attempt to help the environment with carbon-free electricity. It looks more to be a PR move to satisfy people who have been boosting nuclear, without regard to costs. $6B for a mere five years is highway robbery. Installing $4B of solar and $2B of batteries will result in 20-40 years of carbon-free electricity, and far far far more of it. Those who have been boosting nuclear without a hard nosed look at the costs of technologies have a lot to answer for here. This is just a PR game.

koolba 3y ago
> $6B for a mere five years is highway robbery. Installing $4B of solar and $2B of batteries will result in 20-40 years of carbon-free electricity, and far far far more of it. How would you install $6B overnight? That alone would take years. And where do you buy it from? China?
- epistasis 3y ago
  $6B is not a ton of money when it comes to solar and batteries, these are technologies on massive scales. Using round numbers of roughly $1/W for solar and $500/kWh, my off-the-cuff split buys 4GW of solar and 4GWh of batteries. For comparison, 6.5GW of solar was installed Q3 2023 in the US, and this is a tiny tiny fraction of the global market. The challenge with large installs is the interconnection queue and permitting, not any industrial capacity limitation. And these could be solved by CPUC with a snap of their fingers, like they snapped their fingers to extend Diablo Canyon.
  - 7thaccount 3y ago
    As someone who has worked closely with those running the Interconnection studies, this sounds overly rosey. The ISO (in this case CAISO) runs those studies for a reason to maintain grid reliability. The reason they're slow is that it involves a crazy amount of simulations to determine grid upgrades and it is difficult when things must be done recursively and when the renewables developers speculate so much. If the state regulator could snap their fingers, they would have done so in California, New York, the Midwest... everywhere. They made some changes to speed things up in Texas, but honestly they're kicking the can down the road.

SnooSux 3y ago

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant sounds like something out of a video game.

Lammy 3y ago

Previously shut down: — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Pla... in 1976 because of "BE AFRAID!!!" — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallecitos_Nuclear_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallecitos_Nuclear_Center in 1977 because of "BE AFRAID!!!" — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating... in 1989 because gas generation was artificially cheap (tell that to my current power bill) Canceled during construction, and you can go see the big hole in the ground: — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodega_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant Never started: — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundesert_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundesert_Nuclear_Power_Plant (two units) — Corral Canyon (Malibu) — San Joaquin Nuclear Project (four units) — Stanislaus (two units) — Vidal Valley (two units)

ceejayoz 3y ago
"BE AFRAID"? Both of those links indicate they discovered seismic faults below the two facilities after construction. That seems like a reasonable thing to be wary of.
- Lammy 3y ago
  https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/earthquake-early-warning-overview https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/science/ear... “The speeds of today’s data telecommunications systems are many times faster than seismic waves.” https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2012/12/28/what-is-a-reactor-trip-and-how-does-it-protect-the-plant/ https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2012/12/28/what-is-a-rea... “A reactor trip causes all the control rods to insert into the reactor core, and shut down the plant in a very short time (about three seconds).” Yawn.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Japan has automatic shutdown systems during earthquakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident > The proximate cause of the accident was the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which resulted in electrical grid failure and damaged nearly all of the power plant's backup energy sources. The subsequent inability to sufficiently cool reactors after shutdown compromised containment and resulted in the release of radioactive contaminants into the surrounding environment. Yawn?

adfm 3y ago

What steps are being taken to transition to other forms of sustainable power generation beyond 2030? Solar and wind are pricing coal out of the market and modern nuclear options seem viable, yet we keep hearing “five more years.”

shrubble 3y ago

If my math is right on the "$6 billion over 5 years" then that is 2250 MW capacity * 720 *12 to get a bit more than 19000 Gwh per year. So what is the annual, billable power generation for this nuclear plant?

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
At most $6 billion, this is obviously a listing of the worst case, not best or expected cost.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Has there ever been a case of a nuclear project that came in under the worst case projection? I'm sure there have been one or two. But typically nuclear is known for blowing past the cost estimates, not staying within them.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Yes, all the time. Also, we aren’t talking about building a new plant here, just maintaining an old one.

beders 3y ago

That doesn't make sense. Especially not at the price point we are talking. The money is better spent elsewhere. Just look at this and draw your own conclusions: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

kelnos 3y ago
Ok, so if we shut off 8.5% of the electricity supply today(ish), where do we make up for that shortfall while we spend 2-3 years building a solar+battery farm to replace it? Most likely we'd make up for the lack of that plant by burning more natural gas, at least in the short/medium term. Also not sure why you think that price point is out of whack. Seems well in line with current CA electricity prices. This plant should not run forever, but extending its life another 5 years seems entirely prudent.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Not to mention that this is all baseload power and therefore comes out way cheaper than similar solar once you include battery costs. And ignoring the fact that nuclear is 92% efficiency of nameplate power compared with 30% for solar but people keep comparing nameplate power.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

How much does a 2 GW Solar + (2 GW?) battery cost compared to a new nuclear plant? It's disingenuous to compare solar to nuclear without the equivalent storage.