Or are they holding out for SMEs that don't need large volumes of water?
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1119778975/california-lawmake...
A long time ago, once-through water cooling systems were banned in new generation, due to damage to water ecosystems. Retrofitting the cooling system was deemed to be in the 2010s, and other resources were planned to replace Diablo Canyon.
Since then, heat waves have gotten far far worse due to climate change, and climate change was not taken into account during the planning.
Since utility planning is typically at least five years lead time, there has been some adjustment, but not complete adjustment to the new reality we are facing.
California also suffered the disaster of the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak, which accelerated the shift away from natural gas generation.
It's unlikely that California will ever install SMRs, as they are far too away from deployment to be able to help with any problems. California needs new generation now, not in 2035.
Advanced geothermal is being deployed here, and in general I think geothermal has far far more potential on the future grid than SMRs.
I'm glad they fought back against the anti-nuclear industry trying to close it prematurely. Now they should extend it 20 more years.
The site is toxic anyway - locals dont mind it in 'their back yard', infrastructure is there, skilled workers are there, everything is there. Every existing nuclear site in the world should be thinking about sticking another couple of reactors on site!
It's not that toxic. I was just there a few months ago, hiking along the water in the Point Buchon Trail. It was beautiful, with wildlife everywhere. Pure unadulterated coastline teeming with life. At the very end you can catch a glimpse of the nuclear plant
https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/in-your-community/loca...
In my hometown we had an experimental nuclear plant powering my childhood. It shut down in the 1990s and today is total greenfield. Sadly, now my hometown is almost entirely fossil fueled.
DECON takes at least 7 years, SAFSTOR 50+ years. 50% of the decommionings in the US are the slow kind.
If you are going for the quick kind, you have to take everything off site somewhere and stick it in a hole in the ground (or probably store it on another nuclear plant site) - and then that hole in the ground is radioactive.
Its likely when they decommission Diablo Canyon, they will turn off the power and post a guard at the gate for 50 years and not touch anything.
I don't understand people's attachment to nuclear. We have far better tech now.
The large transmission lines at DC are incredibly valuable, however. There should be 4-5GW of floating offshore wind built there, and 10-100GWh of batteries at the old DC site.
I'm not aware of what that could possibly be?
Per unit of fuel it produces the most energy of any commercially available fuel source by a tremendously large margin. It produces extremely little waste compared to any commercially available fuel source. And the waste it does produce is, again by far, the cleanest and safest waste to manage.
Fusion is probably the only energy source that would, theoretically, provide better returns but is likely still decades away from commercial availability.
So... what technology are you referring to?
That is a myth based on only looking at the latest few Western builds and totally ignoring progress in the following designs/builds:
Hualong One
APR-1400
ABWR
VVER-1000
The world is moving forward with large LWRs.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
can anyone explain to me why cooling water is an issue for nuke plants? In areas with less water, can’t a coolant fluid be used with a compressor and fans powered by the reactor to cool the system down?
It would reduce energy yields but my intuition says the energy cost for cooling would be negligible compared to production.
Also, can’t coastal water be used for plants near oceans?
I just don’t understand how cooling is an issue.
from this article:
https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consump...
Away from the coast you can do dry cooling with almost no water, going straight to air. It's just more expensive so it's not done often.
In retrospect, bad planning.
You could build air-cooled power plants, but it's more expensive.
https://www.powermag.com/air-cooled-condensers-eliminate-pla...
You could build water-cooled systems with extra capacity, so that when the water in the river gets warm in the hot summer months, it would not cause problems for the for the cooling system. But it's more expensive than a capacity that is designed to be just-so.
But too many plants have gone offline and not been replaced; generating capacity appears to be flat for ten+ years or more.
There is an ocean along the California coast. Desalination is something they need anyways, so combo nuclear+desalination plants sound like a plan.