Ralston, M., Wasserman, H., Wasserman, H., Wasserman, H., Trump, LaDuke, W., … Progressive Radio Network. (2020, March 1). California’s Primary Season Comes Amid a Dramatic Battle Over Nuclear Energy. Retrieved from https://truthout.org/articles/californias-primary-season-comes-amid-a-dramatic-battle-over-nuclear-energy/

Super Tuesday will impact the Green New Deal and California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. The Diablo Canyon reactors have become a symbol of everything the global No Nukes movement opposes, provoking more civil disobedience arrests (over 10,000) than any other U.S. reactor site. The reactors sit in the heart of the green tech development area. Renewables have generated 3/4ths the power both reactors have together. PG&E own the reactor, but they are receiving push back on this because of the issues they have created in the past (shoddy wires causing fires or unattended pipes exploding under peoples’ homes). PG&E is still in hot water and dozens are suing for millions which ultimately drove PG&E to file bankruptcy. Almost ALL of the reactors in the U.S. are over 30 years old! All of them release radiation, heat, and some carbon. In California, renewables are the name of the game.

California has set its goal of using carbon free energy in the future but nuclear ain’t a part of that dream. Billions of dollars come from the support of private investors and none of them want nuclear energy. It’s looking like PG&E might be making some changes but it’s doubtful that they will completely disappear from our lives. They are just another power company that handles powerful stuff and we have to assume that they don’t have our best interest in mind (at least that’s what they have shown us so far). It’s going to be a long process developing and implementing new renewables, so I am open to using the nuclear plant we have now; and if the tech gets more developed or receives more funding, then I would want to see nuclear be taken to its full potential.

San Onofre was the second to last plant to operate in California, but there was a minor radioactive leak that was its reason for closure back in 2012. The place has been sitting for years, but now is being taken down. The only thing that will remain will be the dry storage. The twin domes are going to be taken down in 2024-25. All the steel and concrete that makes up the plant will be assessed for radioactivity and then shipped out of state. Most of the waste will go to Utah, but the higher level stuff will go to Texas at a facility. All of this trash is going out via the railway and the non radioactive components are being thrown in landfill in Arizona and other states. The decommission cost estimate is about 4.4 billion in 2014 dollars. All of it is covered by the ratepayers who pay for power. The transfer of fuel into canisters is still going on (wet storage to dry storage) should be done transferring soon. 

I am fairly certain that I have driven past the domes before. It is weird to think that something that was decommissioned almost 9 years ago is still giving us problems today. Many of the people advocating for the use of thick-walled canisters to avert leakage don’t realize that these canisters are not licensed in the U.S. and it isn’t a simple change. I personally think nuclear is a good idea and has great potential for reaching our goals, but after listening to this, I have more questions. Is it this expensive because it is an older plant (second gen) and so it wasn’t built to be easily taken down. Will all future plants be as difficult to decommission? It’s also crazy to think that this one plant will be broken up into all of its primary materials and shipped all over the country and maybe even internationally.

Ramos, J. (2020, February 13). PG&E Offer Of Free Electricity From Nuclear Power Plant Raises Ethical Dilemma. Retrieved from https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/02/13/pge-offer-of-free-electricity-from-nuclear-power-plant-raises-ethical-dilemma/

Community choice energy companies or CCA’s have been taking business away from PG&E for a few years now.  So it came as a surprise to East Bay Community Energy when the utility recently offered up to $11 million worth of carbon-free energy. The catch was that all the power was coming from the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. The community is a part of a nuclear free zone as many of the people don’t want to be a part of creating nuclear waste. The plant (the only plant) is expected to close in 2025, but this deal was possible going to postpone that. The main dilemma is do they follow PG&E and hope they have their best interest in mind? Or do they stay true to their philosophical goal.

There was a video attachment to this article which interviewed many residents. One of the older residents (who wasn’t in favor of nuclear power) said that the waste produced lasts for thousands of years. Although this is true, the resident seemed to be conforming with the rest of the ‘nuclear-free’ residents with little evidence to back up her stance. PG&E are already under enough scrutiny and trying to ‘lowkey’ give ‘free’ energy to Berkley people didn’t go the way they expected. I do understand the business standpoint as well. It is a billion dollar plant and to not use it to its full capacity is not very smart. The waste itself is already pretty handled and structured as its only one plant in the state. 

Nikolewski, R. (2020, March 3). Should California classify nuclear power as renewable? Retrieved from https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/story/2020-03-03/should-california-count-nuclear-power-count-as-renewable

The California standard has been updated currently calling for 60 percent of California’s electricity to come from renewables by 2030 and 100 percent from carbon-free sources by 2045. We are not on track for these goals without the use of some other energy source, but nuclear could be the answer. Nuclear power is still not on the portfolio of renewables and California’s only plant (Diablo Canyon) is expected to stop producing power by 2025 with no other plant to replace it. This could change though if a bill is accepted that lists nuclear as a renewable allowing for more funding. PG&E owns the plant and says that they are closing it out of the interest of the people who are moving to other clean renewable ways and aren’t interested in nuclear in the slightest.

Californians have very strong opinions about a lot of things and I think I would be lying if I said they weren’t biased. Major catastrophic shutdowns have been pasted all over news sites and media without much knowledge to go along with it; for instance the HBO Chernobyl show which greatly increased the threat for the shows plot and dramatic effect. Nuclear power is more essential than people realize, and we are only making it harder on ourselves by not listing it as renewable. If it were listed as such, then private investors could come in and further develop the tech which has crazy potential. 

Symon, E. S. E. V., & California Globe. (2020, March 7). New Assembly Bill Could Save Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Retrieved from https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/new-assembly-bill-could-save-diablo-canyon-nuclear-power-plant/

Nuclear power is coming close to an end in California. Recently, Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham is trying to pass Assembly Bill 2898 which would help classify nuclear power as a renewable resource. This is essential for PG&E who are already struggling with meeting the lowered carbon emission goals by 2030. Nuclear power would prove to be a valuable asset in lowering emissions. California’s energy consumption was about 19% which has dropped to half that since San Onofre was closed back in 2012. Still California’s consumption is about a third of fossil fuels which isn’t really reaching for our goals. Many people want the Diablo Canyon reactor to close down as they believe there are better renewable ways and too many risks associated with running these large plants.

This hits close to home, sort of. For all I know, some of the power charging my computer could be coming from this power station at Diablo Canyon. I have read a lot of fear mongering based arguments that rely heavily on past accidents. Of course there is always a concern of a large scale ‘mess up’ happening which is no joke with nuclear power. Since starting the unit on trash, I wonder where all of this nuclear waste is being driven too; it’s going somewhere far away and the waste produced usually is other heavy metals that tend to leak out of their containers. With correct regulation and close monitoring, nuclear power could be more helpful than we realize in lowering emissions, while also giving us more time to develop other renewables.

Zaremba, H. (2019, June 17). America Has Enough Uranium To Power Country For 100 Years. Retrieved from https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/America-Has-Enough-Uranium-To-Power-Country-For-100-Years.html.

The U.S. will be looking for ways to reduce carbon emissions in an effort to reach the goals set by the Paris agreement. Although the U.S. has since backed out of the agreement, many of the people still agree that emission levels need to be reduced. Nuclear power has proven to be an effective source of power, but the bigger question is “where will the fuel come from?”. Research has shown that the U.S. has enough uranium to power the country for hundreds of years; but the U.S. generally doesn’t mine or refine its low-concentrated ore. Australia and Canada have high grade mines as well as Russia who are putting up large reactors once a year for the next ten years. The U.S. is still one of the largest users of nuclear fuel, but we are steadily falling back. 

While nuclear power does seem like the solution to this carbon problem, we still are faced with the issue of drilling for uranium fuel. Drilling into grounds can throw ecosystems out of balance and destroy habitats. It is not a race to see who can create the most carbon efficient energy, but more to see who can create energy with the least environmental impact. It is not as easy as saying nuclear power is the complete solution to our energy issues, but it is a step in the right direction. Mining in our own country could prove to be the most effective energy source for producing low carbon energy and removing the reliance on other countries for fuel. 

Dunlevy, L. (2019, April 5). A Majority of Americans Oppose Nuclear Power. How Does Nuclear ‘Dread’ Affect Their Perceptions? Retrieved from https://psmag.com/news/americans-oppose-nuclear-power-how-does-dread-affect-perceptions.

A majority of Americans oppose the use of nuclear power in the United States. There was a study done by San Diego’s Center for Energy Research and Deep Decarbonization Initiative, which analyzed the actual risk of nuclear power compared to the preconceived risks. Two groups were tasked with creating a U.S. electrical system that cut emissions by 12%; one groups energy options listed the name of the source and percent risk, while the other group only got the percent risk. The results showed that respondents were more likely to choose nuclear power as apart of their system when it’s name was not mentioned. There is a silver lining, as these perceptions have proven to be malleable; so education and overall awareness can prove to be beneficial in growing nuclear power. 

We have only recently begun looking for renewable resources as climate change wasn’t in the public’s eye until the late 70’s. It’s going to be difficult finding a solution if we keep throwing out these technologies we already have. There have been issues in the past with nuclear power; and the famous meltdowns have only worsened it’s reputation with the public. There is failure expected with any science, but that is how new technologies are found and upgraded. If we truly want to start effectively reducing our carbon emissions we have to fund the ‘most’ promising solution, nuclear energy. We can see that this won’t be easy with the stigma against nuclear power. The first step must be education and awareness; support from the people is truly what drives change.

Zaremba, H. (2019, June 25). Nuclear Energy Just Isn’t Competitive In The U.S. Retrieved from https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Energy-Just-Isnt-Competitive-In-The-US.html.

The U.S. is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world at about 30% of the worlds nuclear energy. These numbers are declining rapidly with cheap energy alternatives becoming more readily available. The decommissioning of plants out numbers the construction of new ones; this can be attributed to the high costs of matiances, but more importantly, construction. Nuclear plant construction never was really standardized, leading to an array of different plants with different capabilities and different costs. Still, nuclear power has proven to be an effective solution to climate change; we need to focus on smaller plants that can be constructed in a factory and shipped to an installment area.

We have yet to try new approaches to the construction of nuclear plants, which is why we haven’t seen much development in the past years. The plants that are still active in the U.S. provides a majority of the clean power we use, but the waste the produce costs taxpayers more and more each year. I believe this is the energy solution, or at least part of it. Focusing our efforts and finances on these smaller reactors would be the wisest choice in terms of where to put our money. Of course, more research is always needed, but we cannot drop this energy source completely just because it wasn’t perfect from the start. 

Gellerman, B. (2019, September 17). To Combat Climate Change, Do We Need The Nuclear Option? Retrieved from https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019/09/17/nuclear-power-future-history-controversy.

Massachuests shutdown a nuclear reactor known as Pilgrim. This shutdown is following a trend that is sweeping across the U.S.; the decommissioning of reactors/premature shutdowns. Even with all of the problems that come with nuclear reactors, the carbon-free energy produced is more than wind and solar combined. The issue lies within the economics of building and running a reactor. Natural gas the cheaper option and it is being widely utilized for our electric appliances. Continuing this use of natural gas will make solving climate change more difficult. The resistance from investors to continue funding plants is due to the cheaper renewable options like wind and solar; still none of the existing solutions can compare to nuclear in terms of carbon-free energy.

Nuclear power has proven its effectiveness at producing clean power, but the technology is still lacking. Decreasing pollutants -more specifically carbon- in the atmosphere is the ultimate goal, but not for companies or investors. We have seen changes that have pushed towards renewable energy, but it isn’t more than just publically appealing for companies. This trend of moving away from nuclear energy will be detrimental in the push against climate change; it is not easy to get support for technology that is unreliable an unresilient. For now we must focus on constructing smaller plants that have a small build time; thus building the credibility of nuclear power.

Hewitt, H. (2019, September 2). Opinion | Trump’s crucial decision on nuclear power. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/02/trumps-crucial-decision-nuclear-power/.

President Trump has issued a memo demanding a review on the domestic nuclear supply chain. Nuclear power and fuel refining have been both been neglected by the government and by extension, the people. Nuclear power is one of the feasible energy options that lowers our carbon input; supporting these builds and research is an essential step towards clean power. After the Fukushima scare, the last U.S. uranium refinery was shut down out of fear. We have since out-sourced for refined fuel creating a system that is dangerously dependent on foregin supplies. Our solution for now has been to use our own uranium reserves; but this solution is not financially effective or sustainable at the least. Our stockpiles could maybe last until 2040, but that is without any change in demand.

President Trump is likely more concerned with the ‘dependency’ the U.S. has rather than the environmental effects of burning coal; still the outcome of refining uranium domestically will be good for both issues. We are now relying on our stockpiles which, from an environmental scientist perspective, can lead to the tragedy of the commons. There needs to be more education about how uranium can be safely refined, this would ultimately end the stigma against nuclear power in the U.S. or at least calm it. Our solutions to this energy crisis are just delaying the effects rather than solving the problem at the core. We need to put money back into our refineries, finding effective ways to concentrate the ore with creating pollutants.