Diablo Canyon is closing, but here’s why that’s not a surprise

[Ksheed]

Another One Down: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article84994177.html


More info here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article84993992.html

[hamsamich]

I wouldn't call 2024/5 exactly "down".  They all go down eventually.  That is almost 10 years away.   I'm sure they will enjoy buying even more "carbon free" power from Arizona, aka Palo Verde power.  Maybe when the price of power doubles on the open market they will realize the folly, but scapegoats are easy to find (see Venezuela).  Enjoy your rolling blackouts and low natty gas prices for now, that's about as good as it will get, California.

[Ksheed]

Second article lines out the agreement with the Kalifornia Tree Huggers. If PG&E pull their application for a license extension then the KTH will back the request to extend Diablo's water rights through the State Lands Commission that expires in 2018. Bottom line is the pressure from all angles is to great. I'd call it down, because if they didn't pull their application they would likely have been renewed for another 20 years. Of course it doesn't mean much if the state won't let you use the water. Time to add them to the growing list of plants with dates set.



Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article84993992.html#storylink=cpy

[Marlin]

Too lazy to look for it right now but I posted an article about Diablos desalination plant a while back it is/was the largest on the west coast. I wonder if that would make any difference in it's license renewal. Water shortages are a big thing out west.

[Ksheed]

Water shortages are a big thing out west.

Only to farmers and general public who can't afford the "excessive usage" fines. I could post some reference articles, but this is a nuke forum (also feeling to lazy to dig for it).

[Marlin]

OK easier to find than I expected.

Can Diablo Canyon's desal plant help ease SLO County's water crisis?

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39536280.html

[hamsamich]

I think all nuclear plants in the United States should extend to 80 years if the inspections and evaluations go thru so if you are thinking like that then most of them are "going down".  No matter what the terminology, it's a sad time for the future of our diverse electricity producing infrastructure, energy security and middle class jobs.  Except in GA, TN, and SC!!! 

[Rerun]

I think they should serve their primary purpose first. Make money

[Ksheed]

I think they should serve their primary purpose first. Make money

That is true and important. However, if you read the articles about the decision to close Diablo, it clearly states that the choice to shut down at the end of the license is not solely based on low profit margins. The large amount of political pressure has a great deal to do with it.


As has been the case elsewhere, if the community and local government doesn't support it your nuke plant isn't going to last much longer. I would bet there are many others that are on the brink financially, and anti-nuke pressure from the local community (like in the Socialist Republic of Vermont or Kalifornia) would push it over the edge.

[Ksheed]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-diablo-canyon-closing-20160621-snap-story.html


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nuclear-decommissioning-20160621-snap-story.html

[hamsamich]

We will see what happens when the price of natty gas goes up again.  Then you've got a natty gas unit costing more to run than a nuke plant, providing hardly any jobs, and spewing carbon.  What a great combination.

[hamsamich]

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11989030/diablo-canyon-nuclear-close?yptr=yahoo     even the liberal websites are starting to get it more and more

[Ksheed]

And then you get this from Forbes:


Closing Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Will Save Money And Carbon
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2016/06/22/close-a-nuclear-plant-save-money-and-carbon-improve-the-grid-says-pge/#68a24dd44cea

[hamsamich]

That sounds like alot of the other articles that talk about swapping this for that and you could do this then that.  Sure there are alot of things you could do to replace Diablos output eventually.  So why are they buying power from AZ and why are they having problems with blackouts right now and who is going to guarantee all this magic happens?   The fact is, when solar goes away at night, you have to run the peaking natty gas units which emit booku carbon.  And the price of natty gas could sky rocket you never know.  I also question the price per MWhr, many different sources say many different things.  They throw a thin veneer over the jobs aspect.  Then they talk about the environment and cooling towers, but its ok to frack the world looking for cheap natty gas?  I'm calling BS.  There are 1500 jobs at stake that will go away when those plants are gone.   A diversity of power production including nuclear won't leave the US so open to natty gas price increase and solar/wind inflexibility.  We have 2 perfectly good well run nukes that may cost more NOW to run than some other energy sources but those energy source prices have historically gone up and down OR aren't always available.  Our country dumped billions maybe trillions into "job production" and "economic stimulus" but we want to throw 2 perfectly good nuke plants into the meat grinder because the price of power they put out is high for now?  Say what?  I haven't read anything that even comes close to convincing me nuclear doesn't have for a case to provide a good percentage of the US total power output, and I have nothing against the proper use of Renewables and peaking units.  Every article I read, while providing some good points, seems like it has an ax to grind by bring up other points that reek of BS; seems like every writer wants to cover all their bases with good info and BS, and the mix is stinky.  Reminds me of the $h!!t sandwich I used to have to eat in the Navy at times; sure it might be loaded with yummy condiments on a deliicious bun, but it still smelled unmistakable.

[Ksheed]

Didn't you read the articles? They're not going to use fossil fueled peaking plants. 

[hamsamich]

oh yeah my bad.  everything will be just ducky.

[hamsamich]

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_30049794/pg-e-monthly-gas-bills-set-jump-about

what, people's bill up 11% due to wonderful cheap natural gas?  it just can't be!

[Ksheed]

California's heavy reliance on natural gas for more than half of its electricity generation has created vulnerabilities for the state, especially during the summer months. In particular, problems at Aliso Canyon — a key natural gas storage facility and site of the nation's worst gas leak — have become a concern for Southern Californians.

To reduce the risk of rolling blackouts, the South Coast Air Quality Management District — the air pollution control agency for major portions of Southern California — last Thursday agreed to temporarily allow LADWP to burn diesel fuel at three of its four diesel power plants.

Overall, approximately 61 percent of the electricity generated in California comes from natural gas, according to the California Energy Commission. As of 2014, nuclear power represented almost 9 percent of in-state generation. Renewables were nearly 23 percent of in-state generation that year, with wind power the largest, followed by geothermal and solar power.

[/size]

[/size]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/nuclear-power-fades-in-california-as-energy-grid-gets-stressed.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=103735804&yptr=yahoo[size=78%]


Really blazing the way for a 50% renewable portfolio.

[Ksheed]

So many articles, so little time...


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-diablo-canyon-closing-20160623-snap-story.html


Good comments section on this one.

[Ksheed]

Still more: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-diablo-nukes-20160623-snap-story.html

[hamsamich]

Not a bad article, but I just don't think renewables are as far along as the greenies think they are.  we will see.

[Bonds 25]

Renewables (unreliables) cannot replace base load Nuclear Power. This, once again is a FACT......even that slutty, unattractive fossil fuel cheerleader Rerun knows that......although he will spew, spit up and vomit some nonsense that says base load isn't important.

Let's replace clean reliable power with renewable, unreliable power that requires fossil fuel back up (and a sh*t ton of real estate).......this doesn't make ANY fu*king sense and those individuals who are responsible for this anti-environmental idiocracy need to be brought to the front of the room and punished.

[Ksheed]

4. Please learn to be respectful, tolerate and support each other.  NukeWorker.com's goal is to help others, not see how many people we can annoy. Do not initiate arguments or tension. This will only cause the triggering of other members and make this site less professional.

[Ksheed]

Requirement for an environmental impact assessment magically goes away and the State Lands Commission lease has been granted through the end of the original license. http://www.sltrib.com/home/4060884-155/californians-sign-off-on-closing-nuclear

[hamsamich]

shocking!