The previous and the long run collided at a digital Public Participation Listening to held by the California Public Utilities Fee (CPUC) on July 25. The topic: the potential extension of operations at Diablo Canyon nuclear energy plant.
Over 100 commenters spoke. The vast majority of them (by a 61 % to 39 % margin) vigorously opposed continued operations on the plant. As Justin LeBlanc of Sustainable Transit El Dorado put it, “The way in which of the long run just isn’t legacy monoliths.”
Diablo Canyon’s two reactors had been scheduled to close in 2024 and 2025 when their working licenses expire. A shock, and really energetic, push by Governor Newsom has led to a last-minute governmental scramble to think about continued operations to 2030 or past. The State Legislature has already given a conditional go-ahead.
The CPUC is predicted to take a place on the matter earlier than the top of this yr. That call may facilitate or block the extension. Of the 5 appointed members, a single CPUC commissioner, Karen Douglas, attended the listening to.
Proponents and opponents of the extension positively didn’t see the long run in the identical manner. They didn’t agree on the previous, both.
Supporters of the extension most steadily cited what they mentioned had been ongoing low prices and secure, carbon-free nuclear operations. The mayor of Arroyo Grande, Caren Ray Russom, famous jobs and mentioned that her metropolis is “a direct beneficiary” of the plant’s operations. Jeff Luse, of Era Atomic, a bunch that describes itself as “the guts of the pro-nuclear motion,” said that the radioactive waste saved on web site is “safely dealt with.” A number of proponents even advocated including extra nuclear reactors to the positioning and working them indefinitely.
Administrative Decide Patrick Doherty, who presided on the listening to, twice needed to remind members to chorus from private assaults on different audio system. This got here after two proponents of the extension referred to these with totally different views as “eco-terrorists,” “superstitious,” and “propaganda peddlers.”
These against the extension didn’t have to name-call to make their factors. The lengthy record of operational issues of PG&E, Diablo’s operator, didn’t instill confidence. Elizabeth Brooking of San Francisco, who voiced considerations about how the radioactive waste shall be dealt with for the centuries it is going to exist, commented that PG&E “doesn’t have an exemplary monitor document for upkeep.” That’s placing it mildly, as others famous. Including some darkish historic context had been Scott Rainsford and Bob Rowen, who described their firsthand experiences with PG&E’s Humboldt Bay nuclear reactor #3, which, they mentioned, skilled a nuclear accident in 1970 that contaminated staff and was coated up by PG&E and the regulatory businesses.
As for persevering with Diablo operations past the ’24 and ’25 shutdown date, the explanations in opposition to that had been many and assorted. Listed here are a number of that had been introduced up:
• Underneath-reported earthquake risks that downplay the seismic threat to the plant.
• The alarming embrittlement of the metalurgical materials contained in the reactor vessel of Diablo’s Unit 1: Bruce Severance of San Luis Obispo gave a abstract of his findings from reviewing 4,000 pages of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Fee paperwork.
• The precise unreliability of the plant’s scheduled operations: Donna Gilmore of SanOnofreSafety.org said that the 2 reactors at Diablo had been down 40 % of the time previously two years.
• The growing availability of battery storage in its place baseline provide of vitality that already exceeds what Diablo gives and can seemingly exceed it by 3x within the coming two years.
• The uranium mining and transporting that endangers communities close to it and contributes considerably to the carbon footprint of nuclear energy.
• The monetary prices of getting Diablo sufficiently able to function any longer than the already agreed upon shutdown: A research by the Environmental Working Group was cited, which states the prices may very well be as excessive as $45 billion.
• The absurdity of spending a lot to prop up Diablo as a substitute of deploying these funds as quickly as doable for photo voltaic, wind and different renewables: Rooftop photo voltaic, specifically, was urged by quite a lot of commenters.
• The hazard to the ocean and marine creatures from the once-through cooling system that might apparently be allowed to proceed, though it’s not an accepted course of.
• And at last, the unthinkable loss {that a} catastrophic failure at Diablo would trigger.
This final merchandise appears to be one thing that the proponents of extension need to whistle previous, whereas the opponents of extension do what they’ll to sincerely sound the loudest doable alarm.
Adrianne Davis of Santa Barbara summed up the Diablo downside succinctly, calling the growing old plant a “actually deadly dinosaur.”
And Myla Reson of Santa Monica concluded her remarks with this: “Take a second to suppose the way you’ll really feel if there’s a meltdown and also you didn’t do something to close it.”
There may be nonetheless time to submit written feedback on-line to the CPUC at apps.cpuc.ca.gov/c/R2301007.
Lauren Hanson and Mary Jones reside in Santa Barbara.
