Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (August, Palo Verde: how much, home, gated)

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

Avg kWh/month/customer - State name- cents/kWh in the Western Interconnect

• 639 California 16.89 ¢ per kWh
• 905 Colorado 10.17 ¢
• 1,034 New Mexico 8.99 ¢
• 1,068 Utah 8.24 ¢
• 1,237 Oregon 8.81 ¢
• 1,242 Montana 9.02 ¢
• 1,281 Washington 8.04 ¢
• 1,383 Wyoming 8.10 ¢
• 1,388 Arizona 10.52 ¢
• 1,401 Nevada 8.78 ¢
• 1,458 Idaho 7.89 ¢

Who in California is getting an average of 16.89 cents per kWh? We have been on solar for almost two years now but before we went on solar our base (lowest) amount was around 20 cents per kWh. And the tiers above 20 cents were set at like 27 cents and 35 or 40 cents.

[citizensadvocate]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

In California: Diabo Canyon nuclear power plant
Unit 1 went online on May 7, 1985, and is licensed to operate through November 2, 2024.
Unit 2 went online on March 3, 1986, and is licensed to operate through August 20, 2025.

In Arizona: Palo Verde nuclear power plant
Unit 1 went online on 28 January 1986
Unit 2 went online on 19 September 1986
Unit 3: went online on 8 January 1988
On April 21, 2011, the NRC renewed the operating licenses for Palo Verde's three reactors, extending their service lives from forty to sixty years.



California already needs to import more electricity to meet demand than any other state in the union. What is actually surprising is that California uses less kWh per customer than almost any other state in the union. Looking at the states that compromise the Western interconnect we see that California uses the least amount of kWh per customer, but pays by far the highest price for those kWh. Of course, EVs will almost certainly increase the use in California, and who knows what will happen to prices.

Avg kWh/month/customer - State name- cents/kWh in the Western Interconnect

• 639 California 16.89 ¢ per kWh
• 905 Colorado 10.17 ¢
• 1,034 New Mexico 8.99 ¢
• 1,068 Utah 8.24 ¢
• 1,237 Oregon 8.81 ¢
• 1,242 Montana 9.02 ¢
• 1,281 Washington 8.04 ¢
• 1,383 Wyoming 8.10 ¢
• 1,388 Arizona 10.52 ¢
• 1,401 Nevada 8.78 ¢
• 1,458 Idaho 7.89 ¢

The Western Interconnect cannot export or import electricity from the much larger Easter Interconnect.

While Diablo Canyon is the largest power plant in California of any fuel, Palo Verde in Arizona is the largest power plant in the United States of any fuel, and probably the 16th largest nuclear power plant in the world. It is 25% owned by California organizations and is one of the most critical sources of imported electricity. Although it was built around the same time as Diablo Canyon it is approved to operated for an additional 20 years.

Interesting to learn Diablo Canyon is the largest power plant in California does this mean that its bigger than SONGs? I always thought SONGs was bigger.

Its interesting California had long by policy largely pushed gas appliances as much as possible. Thus greatly reducing its dependence on electricity compared to neighboring states where many houses are all electric including furnace, heat pump, and water heating(This is a major year round power hug), regardless of whether a gas connection is available or not. Ironically California all of a sudden decided to reverse this course last year or so. I guess due to the proliferation of solar energy. So things may change in the near future particularly with this and the heavy push toward electric cars.

[wac_432]

To answer the OP's question; no, Diablo Canyon should not be shut down. More new (safer) nuclear powerplants should be stood up first.

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

Unfortunately without means to store the power, unless there are battery packs that store every kilowatt generated we will ultimately rely on generated power to get us over sunset to sunrise as well as gloomy days and short winter days. Thus its either nuclear, Hydroelectric, wind, or fossil fuels or importing power generated from such to cover such situations.

Having said that I be curious how many deals or back up batteries are available in California for those who have solar or wind in their homes but no backup battery? Those people may spin their meter backwards however they still add demand to light their homes after sundown which would require gird power.

This is what I did. I renovated the house to add an ADU (which I VRBO), and hook-ups for an RV (Which I Outdoorsy/RVShare). When I did that, I installed a LOT more solar than my previous usage as well as room for a very high capacity battery backup.

I did this because:
1. It's cheaper per kWh to install more, and my neighbor got me a great discount on a system (not Tesla) so I was able to get my "like to have" size for less than what I budgeted.
2. I'm planning on acquiring a PHEV, and when I sell the house BEV's will probably dominate what people drive.
3. I installed enough mini-splits to A/C the entire house and that's a power HOG. I still don't run the A/C most of the time, but I do allow guests to A/C the ADU. When I do A/C, I do individual rooms. Also, the startup power requirements of two mini-splits are lower than a central A/C, so I could run it at night if I wanted, without having to add battery capacity.
4. Climate change is making my coastal town warmer. It's not dramatic, but it is noticeable and there are a few uncomfortable days each year where I really want A/C. I expect the number of those days to increase.
5. The power grid has become exceptionally unreliable. The power is shut off for heat and wind (both of which are becoming more frequent), and it regularly just goes out due to old or faulty equipment, a little rain, etc.
6. Most appliances have hit their minimum power consumption. There won't be a technology that comes along and dramatically reduces power useage--like the LED light bulb, tablet computer replacing desktops, or LED TV's replacing CRT's.

I generate all the power I need, and I have enough backup to make it through the night, but I stay on the grid because the batteries are expensive and discharging/recharging them presently costs more per kWh in degradation than the nighttime rates from the utility. So I only use them during an outage when the solar isn't generating enough to cover everything (at night, rainy days).

In reality, most people don't have anywhere near the funds to do what I've done. I did a quarter-million dollar renovation in cash through careful money management and starting a successful home side business. The Millionairs and Billionairs taking over California will be able to do the same without batting an eye. As for most of the rest of the working classes, more frequent power outages (like the ones that will result from closing Diablo Canyon) and more expensive power is going to be one more annoyance to squeeze them out of the state--making room for more rich people without building more housing.

And when they come back to visit the playground of the rich (or when my new wealthy neighbors want a staycation in paradise) I'll be happy to rent them an RV or put them up in my AirBnB.

[PacoMartin]

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is a permanently closed nuclear power plant located south of San Clemente, California, on the Pacific coast, in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV. The plant was shut down in 2013 after replacement steam generators failed; it is currently in the process of decommissioning. The 2.2 GW of electricity supply lost when the plant shut down was replaced with 1.8 GW of new natural-gas fired power plants and 250 MW of energy storage projects.

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

Interesting to learn Diablo Canyon is the largest power plant in California does this mean that its bigger than SONGs? I always thought SONGs was bigger.

SONGS had about 20% more capacity than Diego Canyon when it had three reactors. But the smallest one was decomissioned on November 30, 1992. After that SONGS and Diego Canyon had identical capacities.

There were no blackouts due to the lack of SONGS electricity but it led to higher utility bills.

Total greenhouse gas emissions from power plants in California increased by 35% from 2011 to 2012, according to figures from the California Air Resources Board, which per the World Nuclear News is partly due to the early closure of San Onofre.

There is no reason to think that the results from the closure of Diego Canyon will be any different, higher electric rates and more use of natural gas which results in more greenhouse gases.

When Diego Canyon is closed, Moss Power Plant that towers over Monterey Bay will then be the largest power plant in California.


The 2000–01 Western electricity crisis, involving Enron , cost between US$40 and $45 billion. Columbia Generating Station (CGS) in Washington State, is the sole remaining nuclear power plant in that state. "In 2001 alone the operation of Columbia Generating Station compared to the market saved Bonneville Power Administration ratepayers $1.4 billion" by producing a steady reliable supply of cheap electricity. CGS is much smaller than Diablo Canyon.

The Palo Verde nuclear station in Arizona is much bigger than Diablo Canyon, and will continue to operate until ~2046 when it will be 60 years old.

Palo Verde , Columbia Generating Station, and Diablo Canyon have 6 active reactors and are the last remaining nuclear power stations that operate that serve the Western Interconnect (11 US states, 2 Canadian provinces, and part of Baja Mexico). Comissioning Dates are fairly similar.
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (CA) - planned for 30 years
Unit 1: January 1, 1968
Unit 2: August 8, 1983
Unit 3: April 1, 1984
Columbia Generating Station (WA): December 13, 1984 - planned for indefinite years
Diablo Canyon (CA): - planned for 40 years
Unit 1: May 7, 1985
Unit 2: March 13, 1986
Palo Verde (AZ): - planned for 40 years | extended to 60 years
Unit 1: 28 January 1986
Unit 2: 19 September 1986
Unit 3: 8 January 1988
At the end of December 2020, the United States had 94 operating commercial nuclear reactors at 56 nuclear power plants in 28 states.

[PacoMartin]

The last new nuclear power plant in the 20th century began construction in January 1978, roughly 60 weeks before the incident at Three Mile Island. Only 2 of these plants were commissioned after 1990, one in 1993 and another in 1996.

In 2007 coal plants began to close and interest in nuclear power began to revive as the attraction of emission free nuclear power overshadowed fear of accidents.

In Tennessee there was a revived reactor projector that began construction on 1 Sep 1973 and was stopped in 1985. After a lull of 22 years, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Board approved completion of Unit 2 on August 1, 2007 and the unit was finally comissioned 4 June 2016.

Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, is in Georgia. Units 1 and 2 began construction in 1974 and 1976 and were commissioned in 1987 and 1989, respectively. Each unit has a gross electricity generation capacity of 1,215 MW, for a combined capacity of 2,430 MW. In 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) renewed the licenses for both units for an additional 20 years to 1/16/2047 for Unit 1, and 2/9/2049 for Unit 2.

Two additional units began construction in 2013. Upon completion of Units 3 and 4 in 2022-2023,Vogtle will become the largest nuclear power station in the United States.

[Bill the Butcher]

The tides of public opinion are changing on nuclear. Bright minds like Bill Gates strongly advocate for nuclear. I read the book Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. In the book he mentions one of the factors why nuclear was overlooked in California goes all the way back to the Governor Pat Brown and Govenor Jerry Browns first terms. They had some investments in oil and and by limiting or killing nuclear power reactor construction they could better ensure the status quo of oil, natural gas and coal providing the bulk of California's energy.

https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...n-clean-energy

Nuclear has often gotten it on both fronts over the last couple of decades from both environmentalist concerned about possible nuclear catastrophes and the oil and gas industry worried about a carbon free alternative that could truly replace oil and gas. The oil and gas industry knows that renewables like wind and solar will never be enough to meet demand on their own. But a combination of renewable wind and solar + nuclear has a much greater chance of being able to meet California and the nations demand for power. For this reason, if you follow some of the money you will actual find that some oil and gas money is funded to environmental groups that oppose nuclear.

But with the tides of public opinion changing on nuclear and with the only real way to reduce carbon emissions being through nuclear, I suspect that Diablo Canyon ultimately never closes as planned.

[PacoMartin]

The French built 34 reactors of 900 MWe of similar design. The commonality of design makes oversight much easier.

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

The tides of public opinion are changing on nuclear.

But with the tides of public opinion changing on nuclear and with the only real way to reduce carbon emissions being through nuclear, I suspect that Diablo Canyon ultimately never closes as planned.

The key to future nuclear power seems to be Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

Instead of 1138 MWe reactors like the ones at Diablo Canyon, Small Module Reactors (by definition under 300 MWe, but possibly much smaller) can be built in factories and driven to the site.

Of course many sites will have multiple SMRs and cooling systems will still need to be built.

“In fifteen years, nuclear power will provide electricity too cheap to measure its consumption,” the head of the American Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, prophesied in 1954.

• Pat Brown 32nd Governor of California In office (January 5, 1959 – January 2, 1967)
• Ronald Reagan 33rd Governor of California In office (January 2, 1967 – January 6, 1975)

1. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station construction began August 1964
2. Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station was planned in 1966, when 2,100 acres in southeast Sacramento County were purchaed for a nuclear power plant.
3. Diablo Canyon construction began Unit 1: April 23, 1968 Unit 2: December 9, 1970

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

The tides of public opinion are changing on nuclear. Bright minds like Bill Gates strongly advocate for nuclear. I read the book Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger. In the book he mentions one of the factors why nuclear was overlooked in California goes all the way back to the Governor Pat Brown and Govenor Jerry Browns first terms. They had some investments in oil and and by limiting or killing nuclear power reactor construction they could better ensure the status quo of oil, natural gas and coal providing the bulk of California's energy.

https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...n-clean-energy

Nuclear has often gotten it on both fronts over the last couple of decades from both environmentalist concerned about possible nuclear catastrophes and the oil and gas industry worried about a carbon free alternative that could truly replace oil and gas. The oil and gas industry knows that renewables like wind and solar will never be enough to meet demand on their own. But a combination of renewable wind and solar + nuclear has a much greater chance of being able to meet California and the nations demand for power. For this reason, if you follow some of the money you will actual find that some oil and gas money is funded to environmental groups that oppose nuclear.

But with the tides of public opinion changing on nuclear and with the only real way to reduce carbon emissions being through nuclear, I suspect that Diablo Canyon ultimately never closes as planned.

Heh. Excuse me for pointing out that Bill Gates championed desktop computing and the internet that have brought us the chaos and clusterfarque of social media too. Soooo, I’m not turning much to the visions of bright minds like his.

What humanity needs is simplicity. Not increasing reliance on technology. Roll back population and there’s no need for nuclear energy and all the complexity and toxic waste that goes with.

Imagine people applying the same degree of thought and effort to simplifying sustainability that we do to farquing things up worse and worse

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Roll back population ...

It's frightening how many people think rolling back population which seems like code for killing billions of people is the cure-all.

Germany is closing the last of it's nuclear plants by the end of next year. The decision is in stark contrast with France who is still deriving 70% of it's electricity from nuclear power plants.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

It's frightening how many people think rolling back population which seems like code for killing billions of people is the cure-all.

What’s frightening is how many people interpret “roll back population” as meaning “killing billions of people.”

Rolling back population can occur over several generations simply by de-incentivizing growth. De-incentivize having more than a couple children at most … and up-incentivizing those who can’t, as well as those who don’t want, to have children - to live that status without stigma or penalty.

If this sane approach to envisioning the future were to take hold in the collective human psyche, all manner of “growth” conceived efforts and expense could be redirected to healthy sustainability as demands for energy, food, housing, clean fresh water, clean air, etc etc etc would all gradually lessen as we find ways to be happy within our means and limitations.

You know: like every other life form besides homo sapiens.