Possible closure could end nuclear power era
With many alternatives available, PG&E weighs options for aging plant
LOS ANGELES — Six years ago, the company that owns California’s last operating nuclear power plant announced it would seek an extended life span for its aging reactors. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. envisioned Diablo Canyon as a linchpin in the state’s green energy future, with its low-carbon electricity illuminating homes to nearly midcentury.
Now, with a much-changed nuclear power landscape, the company is evaluating whether to meet a tangle of potentially costly state environmental requirements needed to obtain renewed operating licenses.
If it doesn’t move forward, California’s nuclear power age will end.
That prospect is remarkable considering it was once pre-
dicted that meeting California’s growing energy needs would require a nuclear power plant every 50 miles along its coast. But vast fields of solar panels, wind turbines that in places are as common as fence posts and developments in power storage speak to changed times.
“We are not talking about either go dark or go nuclear. There are clearly now so many alternatives,” said former California Environmental Secretary Terry Tamminen, a green energy advocate who served under Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The issues in play at Diablo Canyon range from a long-running debate over the ability of structures to withstand earthquakes — one fault runs 650 yards from the reactors — to the possibility PG&E might be ordered by state regulators to spend billions to modify or replace the plant’s cooling system, which sucks up 2.5 billion gallons of ocean water a day and has been blamed for killing fish and other marine life.
When PG&E announced its intention to keep the plant running an additional 20 years, to 2044 for the Unit 1 reactor and 2045 for Unit 2, company officials said it would help slash greenhouse gas emissions while contributing to the economic health of California, which has been setting ever-higher ambitions for using solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.
Without new operating licenses, the plant can’t run past 2025. Renewing a nuclear power license is a lengthy proposition, and so even with years to go, it’s fast becoming a late hour.
The uncertainty around PG&E’s three-decade-old plant comes at a challenging time for the U.S. nuclear industry, once thought on the verge of a renaissance.
The construction of new nuclear plants in the South has come with costly delays, while proposals for others around the U.S. have been scratched.
An abundance of inexpensive natural gas has owners of older nuclear plants wondering if the money needed to keep them on line will pay off. Those plants — typically decades old — can make cheap power but face expensive repairs and maintenance from age.
Southern California Edison’s San Onofre nuclear plant, between San Diego and Los Angeles, was shut down permanently in 2013 after a $670 million equipment swap failed. The same year, Duke Energy announced it would close the Crystal River Nuclear Plant in Florida after a botched repair job left it facing potentially billions of dollars in additional work.
“You put together the potential for high capital costs and political hesitation and we’re not surprised PG&E would take pause before going forward with any significant investments,” Morningstar energy analyst Travis Miller said.
For years, environmentalists have pressed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to close Diablo, given its proximity to faults in a seismically active state. If the plant shut down, it would be a blow to the local economy — it’s a major employer in its home county — but state energy experts say it would not pose longterm problems for California’s power supply, though they’ve recommended more study.
California banned nuclear plant construction until the nation finds a permanent disposal site for the plants’ radioactive waste.
Gov. Jerry Brown, a onetime nuclear power critic who has moderated his position as he’s become more ardent about the dangers of carbon emissions, has been quiet on the plant’s future.