Friday, February 5, 2016

Comments needed for Diablo Canyon

Diablo Canyon (from Wikipedia)
The California Energy Commission is asking for comments on its Integrated Energy Policy Report.   Somehow, this slipped by is the last day for comments.

I urge you to comment and to defend Diablo Canyon.

 The comment link:

Here's the link for comments:

Within the link, you can see the whole report.  Since this is the last day for comments, I will make your life easier by quoting relevant sections.

 On page 238 of this document, you can see the following few sentences: Diablo Canyon continues to generate power under the current licenses, which are set to expire in 2024 and 2025., even as Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) works is working to address several regulatory and policy issues at both the state and federal levels in preparation for a possible relicensing of the plant in the near future. At the state level, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California State Lands Commission will be making critical decisions regarding Diablo Canyon’s use of once- through cooling and its land leases, respectively.....

 And on page 248, this: In May 2015 CPUC President Michael Picker sent a letter to Christopher Johns, president of PG&E, reminding PG&E that “review and approval of PG&E’s request for ratepayer funding related to license extension of Diablo Canyon at the California Public Utilities Commission...will involve a thorough assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the license extension for Diablo Canyon considering the plant’s reliability and safety especially in light of the plant’s geographic location regarding seismic hazards and vulnerability assessments.”...

What to say?

Oddly, despite the usual endlessly-long-energy-planning report, you can say something simple:

If Diablo Canyon closes, there will be more greenhouse gases in California.

Shellenberger response:

Where to get information for your comment? Michael Shellenberger has submitted an excellent comment on this subject, and you can easily mine his work for information.

You can also see his material at this website, where it is easier to download.

In his section on Environmental Consequences of Diablo Canyon closure, Shellenberger notes that:

Closing Diablo Canyon would be the equivalent of putting two million more cars on the road.   From the Shellenberger presentation:

Ahem. Do not be intimidated by the depth and quality of this presentation.  Diablo Canyon needs voices in its favor, and short posts are also important!

There are other pro-nuclear comments out there.  I encourage you to find posts by Gene Nelson, for example. In a few minutes, my own post should be up. 

However, don't worry.

Just get your post out there.  Select "Nuclear Power Plants" in the select menu at the right, and go forward. Support Diablo Canyon!


Anonymous said...

Any thoughts on also submitting using the "climate change" docket? Anyone also doing this?

Meredith Angwin said...

Good idea. I'd say: "Go for it!"
I was just getting my post up there. I always try to be accurate, but I can't be complete.

jim said...

Nationwide mutual support among nuclear plant localities should be (should've long been) their self-preservation motto. Had Maine Yankee to VY gotten such grass-roots and media campaign support from sister nuclear localities all over, their fates might've been a lot different than their hanging in the wind all alone.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

Kirk Gothier said...

Thanks Meredith!