California Gov. Gavin Newsom has opened up to the possibility of extending the operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, according to multiple reports, despite past opposition. That’s a positive development. We encourage the governor to resist ideological or special interest pressure to shutter the facility, which provided 6% of the state’s power last year.
Six years ago, Pacific Gas and Electric, which owns and operates the plant, agreed to close Diablo Canyon by 2025.
According to The Associated Press, PG&E stated at the time that the decision to close Diablo Canyon was made as part of an agreement with environmental and labor groups, with PG&E saying its decision was out of “recognition that California’s new energy policies will significantly reduce the need for Diablo Canyon’s electricity output.”
But, fast forward to today and it’s apparent that Diablo Canyon’s carbon-free energy is still as needed as ever while the state continues its long, expensive march toward a green future.
“The governor is in support of keeping all options on the table to ensure we have a reliable (electricity) grid,” spokeswoman Erin Mellon told The Associated Press last Saturday. “This includes considering an extension to Diablo Canyon, which continues to be an important resource as we transition to clean energy.”
Newsom reportedly has suggested PG&E seek a portion of the $6 billion in federal funding the Biden administration is making available to keep nuclear power plants open.
It’s a bit of a reversal from Newsom, who supported the shuttering of Diablo Canyon and remains opposed to nuclear power in the long run because of the admittedly unsolved problem of nuclear waste.
But his newfound openness to keeping Diablo Canyon open is a sensible approach.
Last year, researchers at Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that keeping Diablo Canyon open until 2035 would reduce the state’s “power sector carbon emissions by more than 10% from 2017 levels and reduce reliance on gas, save $2.6 billion in power system costs, and bolster system reliability to mitigate brownouts.”
The researchers further noted that if the facility were to be paired with a desalination facility and hydrogen plant, the benefits would become even more pronounced.
Doing this would not only provide tremendous amounts of water, but “produce clean hydrogen to meet growing demand for zero-carbon fuels, at a cost up to 50% less than hydrogen produced from solar and wind power, with a much smaller land footprint.”
These are ideas that merit nonpartisan discussion. The issues at hand — power and water — are practical issues about which all sensible approaches should be openly considered.
While what to do from here is ultimately PG&E’s call, with the governor’s resistance to the plant now out of the way, keeping the plant open is a logical thing to do.
———
