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.
= new reply since forum marked as read