Diablo Canyon needs to spend up to $12B to stay open

[kristopher]

Diablo Canyon faces state deadlines to change its cooling system
Published: November 2, 2013


This rendering shows what cooling towers might look like at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. COURTESY PHOTO

TRIBUNE SPECIAL REPORT: To extend the plant’s operating life, PG&E and regulators must find a way to halt or mitigate marine damage from its cooling system

By David Sneed — [e-mail]

...Plant manager PG&E and state officials will decide soon whether the plant will spend up to $12 billion to change its cooling system, which damages the ocean ecosystem by killing fish larvae and discharging billions of gallons of unnaturally warm seawater.

Some options, such as building 600-foot-tall cooling towers, would permanently alter the landscape around Diablo Canyon and certainly face stiff local opposition.

PG&E has until the end of 2024 to make required changes to the plant, but on Monday a review committee will hold a public meeting in Sacramento to discuss the issue. Then in December, that committee will make its final recommendations to the state Water Resources Control Board.

PG&E says the cost of any required changes will be passed on to its customers.

What’s at stake?

Every day, Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant circulates 2.5 billion gallons of seawater...

Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/11/02/2763083/diablo-canyon-faces-deadlines.html#storylink=cpy

[madrchsod]

1. 12 billion....!

12 billion invested in solar generation would create thousands of jobs and reduce pollution.

[kristopher]

2. I thought it was a typo, but nope...

I checked another article and read some comments, and it sounds like it's either correct or everyone has made the same mistake.

[FBaggins]

3. Which, of course, will never happen.

2024 is when the initial 40-year license runs out. In order to extend it, they would also need to perform some expensive maintenance (e.g., replace steam generators). $12 Billion plus those costs would be awfully close to the price of a pair of new reactors that would last for 60 years... so why would they even consider paying that amount for a mere 10-20 years?

Of course... even more likely is that they just agree on a far less costly alternative such as extending the pipes farther into the ocean and/or adding screens to the intakes. A few hundred million is cheap as part of a 20-year extension.

[PamW]

4. It's not like we didn't know..

It's not like we didn't know that Diablo Canyon would be heating a couple billion gallons of water a day...

That fact was in the original Environmental Impact Statement for the plant. At the time Diablo Canyon was licensed, our regulators made the trade-off that it was worth a small impact to a relatively small area of the environment in order to have the electric power provided by Diablo Canyon.

It seems that everyone now wants ZERO impacts of any kind or we can't have electric power.

The decision was made 30+ years ago to ACCEPT the small impacts of Diablo Canyon, as a condition for getting abundant electric power ( about 20-25% of the PG&E service area total ), in a relatively benign manner; no belching smokestacks, no CO2 emissions from the plant...

The option is always there to accept those impacts again, as we have been doing for the last 30 years.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

5. No, it will almost certainly never happen.

Spending $12B on cooling towers isn't probable. However, it isn't much more likely that the company will make the investments required to extend the operating licenses if they also have to cut back production, which would be the the only way they alternatives you've glommed onto are going to meet the standards required.

...Short of shutting down the plant or reducing its power output, there is no good solution to the once-through cooling problem, she said.

Her group recommends that the state allow the continued use of once-through cooling at Diablo Canyon until the end of 2025, then require the plant to shut down when its license expires.

“Many of the recommendations outlined in the Bechtel report are untried, and there’s a lot of time and money involved here,” she said. “I have grave concerns about underestimating the cost of doing any engineering project on the coast.”...

[PamW]

6. It won't be up to the State of California...

kristopher states
Her group recommends that the state allow the continued use of once-through cooling at Diablo Canyon

If there's one thing that the anti-nukes should have learned from the folderol of the recent Vermont Yankee court case and appeal, is that the law as reviewed by the Supreme Court is pretty settled law. If one considers the controlling legislation namely, The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (which created the NRC to do the AEC's regulation function ), and the US Supreme Court cases reviewing these laws, namely, Vermont Yankee vs. National Resource Defense Council, Baltimore Gas & Electric vs. National Resource Defense Council and Pacific Gas & Electric vs. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission that when it comes to nuclear power, Congress has the power to usurp all state regulatory power and has chosen to do so; with the exception of economic issues for plants not yet built ( from the PG&E case). In regard to operating plants, the Congress meant to vest virtually TOTAL regulatory responsibility in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The most recent federal court decisions with respect to Vermont Yankee, and the appeal of same; upheld the NRC's pre-emptory powers.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

Can say the same thing about Laws and US Supreme Court decisions.

PamW

[kristopher]

7. Not even close.

Vermont Yankee doesn't apply. The operators of Diablo Canyon have to operate the plant within the guidelines of the environmental and water use plans. They have 3 options for doing that:
1) build the towers for $8-$12B and meet standards 100%
2) Install screening for system for about $500M AND reduce production of electricity
3) Pump water from offshore into the holding area ($500M) AND reduce production of electricity


The decision by the operators will be an economic choice on their part, but their 4th option, if none of those choices allows them to operate at a profit, is to close the plant.

[FBaggins]

8. Wrong

Those are far from the only options. Even the article laid that out pretty clearly... but there are loads of other options. Not the least of which is convince the powers that be that a few fish eggs are no larger a deal than a few birds killed on power lines. Lamentable, but not something you sacrifice billions of dollars to avoid.

You haven't presented anything but an anti-nuke campaigner's claim that the other options would involve reducing power. What reason would anyone else have for believing her? Whether it's seismic studies or fish eggs, her answer is always that the plant should not receive an extension. That's the reason she pushed to get on the comittee in the first place. Southern California Edison also has a committee member. Should we take his statements as a final word as well?

The policy specifically allows for "alternative requirements". The examples outlined in the article (somewhat like carbon offsets in design) are specifically included as examples of those "alternative requirements"

Vermont Yankee doesn't apply.

Not directly... but the driving force behind this is merely a state water board's policy intended to enact a federal law. They could receive federal clarification (from a court or directive)... or even a change to that act. Vermont Yankee's case (which, it's worth pointing out, you were entirely wrong about) may not be directly on point, but there is no precedent for applying the CWA to existing power facilities (the policy admits that they're flying blind there) - they may not have any authority to enforce the requirements.

In short... PamW is (as usual) far closer to correct than your fantasy that the only options are to spend billions of dollars, cut power, or shut down.

[kristopher]

9. Poor Baggins...

Still staking everything on shoot-the-messenger style arguments? You have a lot of gall considering your lone reason for being on DU is the promulgation of pronuclear propaganda - and in your efforts, you've never let the need for accuracy be a concern for you.

The three options I outlined are the three options from the Bechtel Report. Two of those options don't achieve the statutory requirements that have been set, that means if either of those options are selected, it will require the plant to reduce water use through reduced production.

If you want to posit the chance that the matter may be dealt with by changing the existing requirements, that is a different discussion and it doesn't impact either the accuracy of what I wrote nor the content of the discussion regarding Vermont Yankee; which is a totally different issue than exists in California.

Additionally, the points you raised about VY are less than accurate. The court didn't rule against Vermont because Vermont lacked the authority to regulate the plant as the attempted. The court recognized that right as legitimate. Their ruling was based on the court's perception that the law was a sham designed as an end run around the ceding of authority to the NRC on Nuclear Energy Safety Issues. If the legislators hadn't made safety arguments part of the discussion when debating the law, they would have won. That shows your assertion regarding the accuracy of Greg/Pam's comments about VY to be nothing but a product of your unceasing and unrestrained efforts to bolster nuclear power and its supporters on this board.

Finally, the ultimate decision regarding Vermont Yankee is to close the plant. Unless something dramatically changes in California, that same decision will be made about Diablo because the same pressures apply more strongly there than in Vermont.

The primary force affecting VY, Diablo and every other large coal and nuclear plant is the crumbling economic positioning of large-scale, centralized thermal generation in the face of cheap natural gas and a steadily increasing share of renewable generation. In past days, the "fixes" for the externalities of Diablo Canyon would have been weighed against a dependable, long-term income stream; that is no longer the case. Now operators of Diablo have not only substantial costs facing them, they also have rapidly increasing uncertainty regarding their income stream.

I don't know what their decision will be, but the circumstances don't support the optimistic predictions you are trying to frame.

[PamW]

11. 100% WRONG again

Last edited Thu Nov 7, 2013, 11:38 AM - Edit history (2)

kristopher,

WRONG again!!

kristopher states
If the legislators hadn't made safety arguments part of the discussion when debating the law, they would have won.

The above is a poor parroting of the losing argument from the State; that the
case revolved around whether the legislature had strayed from any legal basis for
passing the laws they did. Evidently, kristopher doesn't understand that the Appeals
Court DISMISSED that line of reasoning.

WRONG - they would NOT have won. The US Supreme Court recently decided a case
National Meat Association v. Harris which concerned a California law that regulated
the meat industry. California argued that they had a legitimate right to pass laws that
regulated the humane treatment of animals.

Justice Elana Kagan who wrote the decision agreed that California had the power to
regulate humane treatment of animals; but nonetheless even when a state has
a legitimate power that power is TRUMPED by federal law if the state law
conflicts with federal law. She stated that to not uphold federal trumping of state
law would make a mockery of the US Constitution's supremacy clause; she said a
state could always find some legal basis for doing what they did. Nonetheless, it
DOESN'T MATTER if the state is on firm legal footing; if they pass a law
contrary to the federal law, the US Constitution says federal law TRUMPS

http://www.vermontlaw.edu/News_and_Events/News/Prof_Hanna_Picks_US_Supreme_Court_Cases_Vermonters_Should_Watch.htm

Professor Hanna of the Vermont Law School SUCCESSFULLY predicted the outcome of
the VY Appeal; something that kristopher got 100% WRONG.

PamW

[PamW]

12. Another "forecast" from kristopher; that will NOT come true ( keeping his record intact )

kristopher states
Unless something dramatically changes in California, that same decision will be made about Diablo because the same pressures apply more strongly there than in Vermont.

I don't see anything of the sort happening in California.

Unlike Vermont; opposition to Diablo Canyon has basically winnowed away; and I live in northern California.

Diablo Canyon is about 25% of the PG&E service area that serves northern California. It would be extremely difficult to replace that amount of power with anything that would be considered acceptable.

If anything, one could always lengthen the intake / outlet pipes to the plant so that the only region affected by the plant would be a patch of ocean way off the coast, that is indistinguishable from many billions of other patches of ocean.

The energy is going to be dumped somewhere; and if the coastal areas are too frail; then there's somewhere in that massive heat sink called the Pacific Ocean that will be acceptable.

Again, the regulators made the decision many years ago that the environmental impacts of the plant were a small price to pay for having the power supplied by the plant. That will probably be the decision for the re-licensing.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.

PamW

[PamW]

10. WRONG!!!!

kristopher,

Once again you've given us a bunch of BALONEY!!!

As FBaggins points out, you were WRONG about the outcome of the
Vermont Yankee case; both the original case and the appeal. You don't
look at the science for the scientific issues, and you don't look at the
law for legal issues. You base all you prognostications on what you
want to happen for your own political reasons; but that's not how
major issues are decided.

Vermont Yankee DOES apply! Vermont passed laws that effectively said that
Vermont Yankee could not continue operating.

The Federal judge ruled that Federal Law TRUMPS State Law and those
State laws were unenforceable and the plant continues to operate.

Congress was very clear when it wrote the Atomic Energy Act and the
Energy Reorganization Act; and that is they took advantage of Article VI
Section 2 of the US Constitution, called the "Supremacy Clause", which
means that Federal law trumps State laws and mandated that the Atomic Energy
Act, in particular; TRUMPS all State laws to the contrary.

The States can only regulate what Congress specifically says they can,
like economics for as yet to be built plants.

Besides, the environmental regulation of water off the coast of California
is also a FEDERAL regime, and not the State's.

PamW

[kristopher]

14. We can only wonder at the source of your delusions

The claim of Entergy was specifically based on the point as I related it above:

Count One seeks a permanent injunction and declaration that three Vermont enactments governing Vermont Yankee, title 10, section 6522 of the Vermont Statutes3 (added by Act 74), Act 160, and Act 189,4 are grounded in nuclear safety concerns and therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution because they are preempted by the Atomic Energy Act.

The supremacy clause only applies when there is actually a Federal statute that conflicts with a State law. The NRC is given authority to regulate safety. That isn't carte blanche to do anything they want or to override any and all state laws.

Murtha's decision on Vermont Yankee spends 20 or so pages recounting the debate when the state law was passed, and his focus was incident after incident of legislators expressing concerns over safety.

Where in the hell do you come up with all the bullpucky you spew?

[PamW]

15. Cherry-picking as ALWAYS!!!

kristopher,

You always do this; you cherry-pick ONE of the faults, and then claim that is the ONLY one.

Why don't you read the REST of the VY decisions; particularly the appeal. as well as the US Supreme Court case National Meat Association v. Harris penned by Justice Elana Kagan.

The NRC is NOT charged with just safety. The NRC sets and enforces ALL regulations with regard to nuclear power plants; safety, environmental, financial stability of the operator; EVERYTHING about a nuclear power plant.

The "bullpucky" comes from actually doing some scholarly research. All of the Laws of Physics that I talk about, you also call "bullpuckey"; even when I give you references to the Physics Departments at Universities. Unlike you, I've ACTUALLY READ the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the Vermont Yankee v. NRDC, Baltimore Gas & Electric v NRDC, PG&E v State Energy Commission Supreme Court decisions, as well as Murtha's VY ruling, and the VY Appeals ruling.

Evidently your definition of "bullpuckey" has nothing to do with whether something is true or not; but merely whether YOU agree with it.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

16. Cherry picking is one of your favorite pastimes.

You cherry picked what the National Academy of Sciences wrote to make claims that are in direct opposition to their findings. You even went so far as to create out of thin air a fictional NAS report that you pretend no one can find but you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112711618 and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11277405

You cherry picked what the California Energy Commission wrote to make claims that are in direct opposition to their finding.
You originally claimed

"The California Energy Commission released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels"

You then extracted a short passage in the paper that appears to support your statement while omitting the context. Your cherry pocked quote:

"If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x296568#296587 post #5

Now, here is the very next sentence; you remember it, the one that you chose not to share?

"Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero-emisions load balancing (ZELB) to avoid these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieved with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology."

And this is what it looked like in the report when you made your choice:

If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy. Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero-emisions load balancing (ZELB) to avoid these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieved with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology.

Those posts and many, many, many others that you've made can be construed as nothing but a deliberate effort to deceive.

[PamW]

17. Where is ZELB technology???

kristopher,

It says quite plainly that "a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomittant development of zero-emissions load balancing technology"

Where is the ZELB technology - we DO NOT have it.

It's like saying for a given scheme to work; we need nuclear fusion technology.

We do NOT have that technology.

Just because you can give the MISSING technology a name doesn't mean you have it.

PamW

[kristopher]

18. It takes a lot of nerve to keep misrepresenting something when you've been nailed for it

I suppose you are saying that storage and smart grid technology (specifically named) are the same as fusion technology.

That's about par for you.

[PamW]

19. Scientists insist on QUANTITATIVE answers; not just qualitative.

kristopher,

It's nice to say "storage" and "smart grid" - but where are they???

There no "storage" that has ANYWHERE NEAR the capacity required.

The only energy storage technology that comes close is "pumped hydro" and we don't have anywhere NEAR the amount of pumped hydro storage that would be required to run the grid on renewables.

Instead of building pumped hydro; the "greenies" are all having wet dreams about such anemic technologies as Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technologies.

Show me where we have a several gigawatt-days worth of V2G storage.

SHEESH!!!

PamW

[jpak]

21. What's an eksojewel?

[PamW]

13. WRONG, as per usual

kristopher,

One of my friends from graduate school works for the NRC and I asked him about the Diablo Canyon situation.

When the NRC considers a re-licensing petition; their rules state that they "grandfather in" all previous decisions about the plant.

Only issues that have to do with the aging of the plant; such as how much neutron exposure the pressure vessel has received, which affects vessel embrittlement will be considered.

Issues that are unrelated to the aging of the plant are grandfathered in.

So when Diablo Canyon was first licensed, there was a decision to accept the local environmental degradation due to heated water being released and larvae being ingested. That is; the decision was made that the degree of environmental degradation due to heated water / larvae ingestion was NOT severe enough to stand in the way of the plant operating at full power. Nothing has changed in that regard. It's the same environment, and the reactor is at the same power level.

So the NRC will consider that issue settled when the license comes up for renewal, and will NOT ACCEPT any petitions from environmentalists to over-rule the decision at the first licensing back in the 1980s.

All those issues brought up by kristopher are NON-STARTERS for the NRC; and no State law can force the NRC to change its stand; because Congress was very clear in the Atomic Energy Act; all other considerations including state laws are NOT to interfere with the AEC or its successor the NRC.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW