200 nuclear reactors across the world are scheduled to be decommissioned by 2040.  The International Energy Agency is estimating more than $100 billion in total costs, with “considerable uncertainties.” With the recent shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Plant, the world can begin to get an accurate estimate of the cost of shutting down an individual reactor. The entire process should cost around $4.4 billion, and includes waste disposal, whereas the IEA report does not.

With the exception of immediate threats to the environment or the surrounding populace, it seems rushed to decommission all these nuclear power plants in such a short period of time. Based off San Onofre, there are extreme costs associated with safely disassembling these plants, and that is without considering the drop in power supply or waste storage. On the other hand, decommissioning so many plants so quickly dramatically increases the need for a permanent waste storage, which could spark more innovation and solutions.

Despite fears that the shutdown of the San Onofre nuclear power plant would cost Riverside at least $79 million, residents should not worry about increasing electricity rates. The plant supplied 15% of Riversides power, and thus far, reserves of money have covered increased costs. Removing all the plant’s radioactive waste will take multiple years, and is expected to billions of dollars. Riverside is looking towards geothermal energy as a long term power solution in the future.

The shutdown of San Onofre reveals some of the challenges cities face when they try to transition away from nuclear power. Despite being an abundant and clean source of energy, going nuclear is a long term investment. Erecting and maintaining a plant is very costly, and one of its primary attractive features is the long term power it provides. To abandon such an endeavor comes with a considerable economic strain, but switching to forms of energy that do not produce waste could be worth it.

A waste storage company in Dallas is looking for approval to take on nuclear waste from the San Onofre plant. At San Onofre, spent fuel rods have been building up for more than forty years, and officials are eager to being removing some of the waste. As of now, the operators are transferring fuel from pools to dry casks. If the NRC approves the proposal, the Texas site could begin taking on waste immediately.

A major problem with storage at the Texas facility is that it is not a permanent solution. Eventually, even if it takes decades, that spent fuel will have to be moved again. However, temporary storage would relieve some of the pressure on California to deal with all the waste from San Onofre, especially when the money could be better spent helping along the plant’s decommissioning process.

Californian scientists have released more energy from a nuclear fusion experiment than they put in. This is a major milestone in an attempt to one day create a sustainable nuclear fusion reaction. Nuclear fusion is the process by which the sun produces energy, and there are currently two competing methods. One is to use lasers to compress pellets of fuel, and the other is to use a magnetic container to hold fuel in place.

The prospect of a working nuclear fusion reactor is an exciting option in the search for renewable, clean energy.  Fusion uses fuel based on hydrogen, so there are no concerns over radioactive waste, and it has far more potential for energy output than fission. However, after making sure the process produces more energy than it consumes, the main obstacle is how to reliably contain the intense heat.

A nuclear expert from the Federal Government recommended that Diablo Canyon nuclear plant be shut down until regulators can figure out whether the reactors can withstand potentially powerful earthquakes in the area. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and PGE claim that the plant, which supplies 3 million people a year with electricity, is safe.  However, controversy remains over whether the NRC accurately estimated the amount of ground movement nearby quakes could trigger.

Especially in light of the Fukushima catastrophe, it is important to make sure existing nuclear plants are prepared to withstand natural disasters. Despite the loss of electricity caused by shutting down plants, making sure a nuclear meltdown does not occur during the next big earthquake is arguably more important. Still, even an expert can be wrong, especially when his findings contradict extensive studies by the NRC.