Hacker News Reader

Comment by mynameisash | Hacker News Reader

> Those units ... are licensed to operate through 2025. ... So, they're not being "switched off", they've hit end-of-life

But that's not necessarily accurate, either. My dad worked in the nuclear industry all his career and specifically within the licensing group for maybe five or ten years. His job was, for a time, to relicense the plant that he worked at so they could continue after their 40 year initial licensure period.

Maybe Diablo happens to be end of life due to other issues, but saying that the license is up is not the same as it being end of life.

View on HN

That's true. There are many nuclear stations that are more than 40 years old. PG&E announced in 2016 they weren't renewing the operating license because California has put emphasis on renewables and if the nuclear power station isn't guaranteed to provide base load then it's too expensive to operate. Otherwise there shouldn't be an issue of running the station until 2035 or 2045. I'm not a resident of California so I don't know the state politics and what all is driving this decision.

> if the nuclear power station isn't guaranteed to provide base load then it's too expensive to operate.

If nuclear can't guarantee baseload, then how is it a better investment than much cheaper renewables?

I don't believe they're saying that the nuclear plant can't provide the base load, it's that the California government won't commit to buying the base load from the nuclear plant.

Nuclear can guarantee base load, PG&E is arguing the preference for dispatching base load will be given to renewables which would cause Diablo to be dispatched at an expected rate of 50% of what it's being dispatched today. Such a scenario is financially untenable to continue further operation, hence the decision to not renew the operating license - or at least a factor in that decision anyway.

That makes sense. Thanks for the details.

> at least a factor in that decision anyway.

What were the other factors? Were the plummeting LCOE of renewables and storage part of it? Also what about the (previously low) price of natural gas?

Now that natural gas is expensive, it seems like keeping Diablo Canyon operational for another 20 years is back in the table if federal funds can be used to subsidize it:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/analysts-differ-on-feasibil...

Other factors I'm sure PG&E is considering:

* Cost to extend the operating license of the plant. The NRC will likely mandate modifications be made in order to keep the plant running safely for another 20-40 yers.

* Public Relations. There's strong public opposition to nuclear power. PG&E already has a poor image in California. Closing the plant would be expected to generate some goodwill toward PG&E.

* Soaring insurance costs/increased liabilities. California has made it abundantly clear to PG&E that if Diablo were to have any problems affecting the public in any manner whatsoever then they are totally on the hook for the financial impacts. Look at what happened with the wildfires caused by arcing transmission equipment. Now imagine the costs associated with a nuclear "incident." That's simply too much risk.

Between the high financial risk and decreased dispatch that's a one-two punch that makes continued operations untenable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com