Slashdot Mirror


California Will Close Its Last Nuclear Power Plant (sfchronicle.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the San Francisco Chronicle: California's last nuclear power plant -- Diablo Canyon, whose contentious birth helped shape the modern environmental movement -- will close in 2025, state utility regulators decided Thursday. The unanimous vote by the California Public Utilities Commission will likely bring an end to nuclear energy's long history in the state. State law forbids building more nuclear plants in California until the federal government creates a long-term solution for dealing with their waste, a goal that remains elusive despite decades of effort.

The decision comes even as California expands its fight against global warming. Owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Diablo Canyon is the state's largest power plant, supplying 9 percent of California's electricity while producing no greenhouse gases. "With this decision, we chart a new energy future by phasing out nuclear power here in California," said commission President Michael Picker. "We've looked hard at all the arguments, and we agree the time has come."

15 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. YAY for coal? by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do we have any rails coming in from West Virginia?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:YAY for coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, California energy will come from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon.

      "The problems always easier to solve when it's given to someone else."

    2. Re:YAY for coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No new coal plants are under construction or planned anywhere in America.

      California energy will come from gas, wind, and solar, with a tiny contribution from geothermal.

      Ah, so they have seven short years to figure out how they're going to generate 9% of California's electrical demand from gas, wind, and solar, while also dealing with growth and more demand between now and 2025?

      Yeah, good luck with that shit. This touchy-feely story is about as realistic as California balancing their budget. That power plant will get shut down alright; when it melts down.

    3. Re:YAY for coal? by dwillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the coal plants in question produce power for CA. If CA stops buying the power the plants get shuttered as there isn't sufficient market for the plants to sell their power elsewhere. And that puts people out of jobs. Thus the pressure. Convert or close.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    4. Re:YAY for coal? by sycodon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And CA doesn't get the power it needs.

      I don't think you get the dynamics here of supply and demand here. CA needs the power, the other states have the power.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:YAY for coal? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No new coal plants are under construction or planned anywhere in America.

      California energy will come from gas, wind, and solar, with a tiny contribution from geothermal.

      Heresy! Slahshdotters shall not let this go unpunished!

      For all of the bloviating about coal from it's fans and the Present Occupant, the supplies are running low, and much of what is left isn't very good. And getting to it can be pretty daunting, Spending money and effort to revive an industry that is just about played out makes no sense.

      Meanwhile here in PA, we're enjoying our wind power and natgas. I suspect the day will come when the natgas stations will serve as backup.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:YAY for coal? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And CA doesn't get the power it needs.

      I don't think you get the dynamics here of supply and demand here. CA needs the power, the other states have the power.

      A similar situation exists for cars. California sets standards for itself, and tells the manufacturers that it will not allow them to sell them in Cali if they don't meet those standards. So whenever possible, the automakers produce vehicles to the Cali standards because they don't want to have to make two versions.

      So if California gives purchase preference to NatGas produced electricity, it serves as an incentive to switch to NatGas.

      Nothing is stopping an outfit from sticking to their guns and remaining on coal. But the goal isn't coal, the goal is selling electrical power. About the only way to work that system in favor of coal is to radically reduce the selling price.

      In other words, lowering the supply price to increase the demand for it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. Morons by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    California is run by morons.

    1. Re:Morons by plopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is that why it is the 6th largest economy in the world? I'll hang with the morons thank you very much.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re: Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A 3rd of this country's welfare recipients are in California.

      What?! The rest of the country too poor to afford a decent welfare system?

    3. Re: Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say "a decent welfare system" is a fairly large warning sign things are going wrong rather than right. With a good economy, only a very small percentage of the population should ever need welfare. The goal of welfare should be to get off of welfare and be self sustaining. A healthy economy, coupled with the right laws and regulations, should promote jobs that pay sufficient to achieve and sustain financial stability. It seems California is in a downward spiral rather than leading the nation in social progression.

  3. Guess they were not serious about climate change by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No way are they going to be able to replace all of the energy lost from that plant from renewables. It's going to come from some other state, spewing coal and sulfur... or possibly they simply will increase the brownouts, but it's OK because all of the large cash cows have learned to have their own generation facilities for anything important.

    Nuclear energy is the cheapest form above all the others, it's a shame to see the world fold this away even as they scream the Earth needs saving. You were saving it friend, and now you are letting it go.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  4. Re:Not really by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Natural Gas is still a lot safer

    Natural gas plants leak methane like a motherfucker. And methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. After a few decades it decomposes into water and... CO2, but in the meantime it helps wrecking havoc of climate.

    I much prefer nuclear power to natural gas. It's safer for the planet.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  5. Re:Red states demand the most federal aid by davide+marney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The red state vs. blue state comparison is flawed because there are no purely red or blue states. What there is instead are urban and rural parts of the country. Urban areas are deeply blue and rural is deeply red.

    To see the truth of this, just look at an election map by precinct for your state. Compare it to a map of urban vs. rural.

    To truly compare, you need to cut across geographical boundaries. The Pew Research Center did that by correlating political party to food stamp usage. Democrats are TWICE as likely as Republicans to have taken food stamps.

    Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

    This makes good common sense, too. Democrats in the urban core are obviously much more supportive of a large, active government, and Republicans in rural areas want smaller government.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  6. Re:Not really by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, nuclear power in theory, can be perfectly safe. But in practice, it is not possible to reduce the risk level to zero. And a non-zero risk level with nuclear power means that once in some period of time, be it 50 or 100 or 200 years, there is a chance of a serious problem. With any other technology, the possible severity of a serious incident is limited by the nature of the technology, where nuclear is not as limited. It was thought the Titanic couldn't sink. it was thought the o-rings on the Challenger were sufficient. The original Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed at a time when engineers were unaware of the potential of aeroelastic flutter. It was thought that Fukushima could withstand the earthquake it was hit with and wouldn't be compounded with associated events. Risk assessment is an estimate of things that often can't be accurately quantified, and compound risks exist in all but the simplest risk calculations. Ultimately, evaluations of acceptable risk must include the magnitude of worst-case events, and not presume they can be avoided entirely.