26
Why California Is Reconsidering Its Decision to Shun Nuclear Power (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 4 hours ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Diablo Canyon Power Plant, which sits on a cliff on California’s Central Coast, has been the subject of ceaseless protests and political battles since it was proposed in 1963.

Now, the plant is at the center of yet another major debate. After shuttering all the state’s other nuclear power plants in recent decades, California is considering extending Diablo’s life and lifting a moratorium on new reactors.

That these decisions are even on the table in California is a testament to the substantial change in public views of nuclear energy, which for decades has been reviled by the liberal lawmakers and environmental groups that wield tremendous power and influence in the state.

Many of its leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, have expressed support for nuclear energy. The California Legislature last month passed a bill to commission a study on partly lifting the ban on new reactors.

...

all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Even as someone who is a proponent of expanding Nuclear power, California is not where I'd expect it to be needed. They're in a tropical climate, on a coast, and have mountainous terrain - practically the best possible conditions for renewables. At the same time the region is prone to earthquakes and (from my understanding) in desperate need for new power generation fast, which the current state of nuclear in the USA doesn't allow for. Is there a reason they're choosing to expand nuclear over renewables?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 hours ago*

    California is not a tropical climate. Solar resources in the winter can actually be quite poor in most areas due to low sun angle and high cloud cover. Of course the summer is the opposite but we do need power year-round.

    Most analyses show the cheapest way to fully decarbonize will include some baseline sources like nuclear. I'm skeptical with CA's bureaucracy challenges and its political unpopularity it will pencil out to be nuclear but we'll see. I think all options should be on the table in a climate emergency.

    Keeping the existing plant is a no-brainer though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 13 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    There is no reality in which nuclear is economically viable when solar, wind and hydro power as well as batteries exist, all with exponentially decreasing costs...

    The answer is always the same: people wanting those juicy multi-billion subsidies and politicians paid by them and their lobbyists spend a lot of money (but not that much compared to the amount of taxes you can get with that grift) on desinformation and straight out brain-washing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •