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."

29 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: 4, Informative

      California does not have any coal fired power plants.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:YAY for coal? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

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

      Under high pressure from CA to convert the coal plants to NG. Cali is very opposed to coal.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    4. 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."

    5. 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.

    6. Re:YAY for coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, they get a lot power from the US's largest nuclear plant in AZ.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Re:YAY for coal? by dwillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      And those surrounding states (or more specifically the power plants built in them to service the CA demand) need the power they produce to be purchased by CA or the plants shut down and people lose their jobs. It's not just a matter of oh let's sell it to someone else. Usually they can't just send the power elsewhere.

      Utah has one Large power plant I'm familiar with that produces exclusively for the CA markets, the Intermountain Power Plant (IPP). The high voltage transmission lines from the plant run to CA and nowhere else. They were flat out told to convert it or else and the conversion is on schedule to be completed by 2025. The plant currently has two coal fired units, the plan over time is to eventually bring on two additional units, the third one was supposed to be running by now but that was halted when LA, (the planned destination for the power from the unit) voted to go coal free in 2012.

      So yes CA the buyer is able to pressure the producers because more and more of their utilities are refusing to buy power produced by coal. When the plants are built and focused on supplying the CA markets, the Transmissions lines lead to the CA markets and other power plants already meet the needs of the state where they reside, then yes CA is able to dictate to the suppliers.

      Utah gets no power from the IPP.

      Meanwhile Utah's coal industry has been forced to go looking overseas for buyers of our very clean anthracite coal.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  2. Morons by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    California is run by morons.

    1. 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:Guess they were not serious about climate chang by plopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You sure about that? Germany's economy is larger than CA but using renewables they have more energy than they can use.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  5. Not really by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Natural Gas is still a lot safer and solar is cheaper. That probably wouldn't be true if American's political climate wasn't so crazy. The mad rush to privatize things that shouldn't be privatized coupled with our bad habit of looking the other way on regulation means nuclear power is risky. Government run enterprises tend to be very, very efficient unless they're being run as pork. e.g. the DMV and Post Office both do amazing things (as long as you don't live in the South, where the DMV massively underfunded). That means there really isn't much profit to be had privatizing it without cutting corners on safety and, well, look at Fukushima. A completely preventable disaster that nearly destroyed a city...

    And don't forget that we can't recycle the fuel because we're terrified some of it will get lost and turned into nukes. Not that it's ever stopped anyone from getting them (re: North Korea).

    TLDR; Get Americans to stop privatizing dangerous things and allow the waste to be recycled and we'll put nuclear back in rotation.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. 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.
    2. 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.

  6. Re:Rolling blackouts by AlanObject · · Score: 3, Informative

    California -- the only US state to experience rolling blackouts due to incompetent "central planning". More to be coming soon...

    Are you referring to the market manipulation conducted by the energy traders empowered in the Bush years?

    "Burn baby burn!" I still remember that recording. It sounded like a callow frat boy getting his first lap dance. But he had reason -- hundreds of millions were sucked out of the state but the combination of a fire and rigging the electricity supply.

    Once the "free market" was brought under proper regulation we have had no rolling blackouts.

  7. Are YOU sure about that? GR 35% from renewables. by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Germany's economy is larger than CA but using renewables they have more energy than they can use.

    Nope.

    During brief times of year, that MAY be true, as with the headline you are thinking of where German power pricing was negative on Christmas day in December.

    However most of the time Germans are importing power because they shut down all nuclear plants - they are currently producing about 35% of their power from renewables

    But all that importing and expensive renewable power facilities means that Germans pay some of the highest power rates in the world. Even if on Christmas you do get a break because the office buildings are shut down...
     

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. State regulators decided? by kwerle · · Score: 4, Informative

    Diablo canyon is down the road.

    I've got nothing against nuclear. I toured the plant last year or the year before. Super impressive.

    Anyway, it's my understanding that Diablo Canyon isn't being shut down by regulators so much as PG&E can't make a profit from it. Solar and Gas are too cheap for [heavily regulated] nuclear to be profitable.

    Here's the story from 18 months ago:
    http://beta.latimes.com/busine...

    News?

  9. Re:Are YOU sure about that? GR 35% from renewables by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

    The numbeds for power prices are wrong.
    I doubt anyone pays more than 25cents, on a remote north sea island, perhaps.
    I pay 18 cents, and could drop that perhaps to 18 or 14 if I was not to lazy to switch provider.
    The average is hardly above 22 cents.

    kW/h prices are hardly relevant anyway, relevant is the total amount you pay per month or the percentage of your income.
    And in that regard Germany is quite low. I pay 100Euro a month for electricity AND natural gas.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  10. Re:Are YOU sure about that? GR 35% from renewables by nierd · · Score: 5, Informative
    https://www.energy-charts.de/p...

    Looking at 2017 (expand the timeline to the year) - it sure does look like they export most of the time - with a few blips of import. Looking over other graphs I saw them import from France but on the *same* day they were exporting 10 times that amount to other countries - so end result.... a power grid working as designed to move power from one spot to another - that sometimes results in imports that wouldn't be needed if the country was in isolation?

  11. No problem by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    California can just outlaw air conditioning.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Re:He's referring to now by divide+overflow · · Score: 4, Informative

    1. No, we aren't seeing blackouts in California due to a lack of power generation facilities. California has been quite proactive in planning its energy needs. The vast majority of blackouts in California are due to wildfires and weather events.

    2. The site you reference is from the Institute for Energy Research, an organization started by Enron’s public policy analysis director. It is an advocacy organization and a fossil fuels lobbying organization. It has an agenda.

  13. Re:California is failing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Breitbart article has two links to the same census bureau report. The report is titled "Children of Foreign-Born Parents Generation More Likely to Be College-Educated Than Their Parents, Census Bureau Reports", and does not contain the info the Breitbart article says that it's citing. In fact, California isn't even mentioned in the report. Your other sources are not any more credible.

  14. False "facts" by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    That's a nice little unsupported bogus made up statistic you have there. California does spend the most on welfare overall but since they are the state with the largest population (and a high cost of living) that's hardly shocking. Per capita they are high but not wildly out of the norm - with around 4% of the population receiving some sort of assistance. California is among the least federally dependent states in the US.

    It has been losing population for the last 20 years

    You must be talking about a different California than the one on the west coast of the US. Population growth there has been steadily growing with no sign of that changing any time soon.

  15. Re:California is failing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

    If the Brietbart article links to the Census Bureau report, why didn't you link to the report directly? Let's click on it and see... Oh, it doesn't support the claim that 930k people left CA between the dates given in the Brietbart article!

    Wikipedia is a better source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    There are multiple sources in that data, and you can see that the population did not fall.

    Brietbart seems to have realized that it's easy for people to call bullshit on unsourced claims, so they started to throw in some sources that look authoritative but which don't actually support what they are saying. I guess their assumption is that most people won't bother to read the sources, they will just assume that they add credibility to the story.

    CA is dead last (50th out of 50) in economic freedom.

    Or put another way it has the best environmental and consumer protections.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  16. 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