Yet, none of those “better ways” are ready to go, but, hey, let California be the experimental group so we can see what happens. And lets start by requiring the LA Times building to run solely on renewables
California is approaching an energy crossroads. In three years, its last nuclear plant will begin to power down and the state will lose its largest single source of emissions-free electricity.
A 2018 law requires state regulators to “avoid any increase in greenhouse gases” as a result of closing the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant on the Central Coast. But if they don’t move more quickly to replace its electricity with renewable energy from wind, solar and geothermal, the void will almost certainly be filled by burning more natural gas, which increased last year to account for nearly half of California’s in-state electricity generation.
California can’t allow the retirement of Diablo Canyon’s nuclear reactors to prolong its reliance on gas plants or increase planet-warming and health-damaging emissions. But the state’s preparations for shutdown of an around-the-clock power source that supplies more than 8% of California’s in-state electricity generation have not inspired confidence; there have been no assurances that an uptick in carbon emissions will be avoided.
That uncertainty has created an opening for a new push to extend Diablo Canyon’s life. A recently launched campaign, whose supporters include former U.S. Energy secretaries Steven Chu and Ernest Moniz, and fashion model and nuclear influencer Isabelle Boemeke, wants California to abruptly reverse course and keep Diablo Canyon operating for another 10 or even 20 years.
8% doesn’t seem like a lot, but, what does it get replaced with? They need energy from somewhere
But the idea is misguided, and at this point remains largely divorced from reality. The plant’s closure should instead serve as an impetus for California do more to accelerate the shift to renewable energy and set a realistic course to meet the state’s target of getting 100% of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045.
So, the better idea is to close it, not replace with natural gas, and just wait another 25 years for “renewables” to be operational. Great plan!
Nuclear power plants are retired for a couple of reasons: Like every other thing 1) the components of nuclear plants wear out and are less safe and 2) economics – natural gas power is much cheaper right now.
It would help if the US had a long-term energy plan independent of short-term market forces.
No, there actually aren’t. Not if you want reliable electrical power.
Let all of CA become “Jewish Mothers” and sit in the dark.
Nuclear power is currently the only thing that fits the bill. And CA wants to get rid of it.
The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant has a capacity of 2200MW. A large wind turbine might do 3MW, assuming a 20mph wind. Do the math… 2200/3 = 733. Cover the Pacific Coast Highway with windmills…. no thanks.
If California couldn’t just buy electricity from neighboring states, they wouldn’t have so many foolish ideas about it. Solution is to cut off those interstate grid lines. Then if Californians wanted to power their grid internally by harnessing the stationary bikes in Planet Fitness gyms, it would be their choice.
And as the Pyrite State is about to lose 8% of its electric generating capacity, the government also wants people to increase their demand for electricity, by going to plug-in electric cars.
What could possibly go wrong?