By Rod Adams and Andrea Jennetta Diablo Canyon has joined the growing list of U.S. reactors to be prematurely shutdown as Pacific Gas & Electric announced a … [Read More...] about California Renewables Mandates And “Non-bypassable Charges” Make Diablo Canyon Closure Agreement A Winner For PG&E
David Brower had a profound influence on the Environmental Movement and its gradual transition from groups of outdoors enthusiasts and conservationists who focused on protecting public lands and establishing national parks to a powerful political movement with major influences on a variety of important industrial, economic and international policy arenas.
The Movement has had a huge impact on the world’s energy industry and helped to pick winners and losers among the various fuel and non fuel alternatives to powering our society. Though that influence, the Movement has indelibly altered the flows of vast sums of money between consumers and producers on an international scale over a period of at least 40 years.
David Brower: The Making of the Environmental Movement, by Tom Turner, tells the story of how a shy Berkeley boy who started off being fearful of heights grew up to be an accomplished mountain climber, captivating public speaker and leader of two of the most influential environmental organizations in the world. He was the first executive director of the Sierra Club, serving from 1956-1969 and growing the organization’s membership by ten fold from about 7,000 to 77,000 and the founder of Friends of the Earth, starting from a membership of zero and peaking at over 39,000 during his tenure.
He was also asked to resign from both organizations by boards of directors that felt he was a bit of a loose cannon who undertook his own projects without paying careful attention to budgetary impacts or listening to the restraining decisions of the board.
Brower’s own interpretation of his major contribution to the Environmental Movement was as its publicist. He was a creative and inspiring writer and had a knack for organizing projects to produce books and documentaries that stimulated people to take action to join organizations and to get involved in their activities. He was the creative force behind the Sierra Club’s Exhibit Format (never call them coffee table) books full of incredible photos that made people want to join the Club, visit and/or protect the places depicted.
Brower was also one of the first of the environmentalists to begin questioning the value of atomic energy, even though his initial response to the dawning of the Atomic Age was relief. He was in the Tenth Mountain Division, which was preparing to pivot from winning the battle in Europe to invading Japan in order to finally end World War II. He and his fellow servicemen believed that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki hastened Japan’s decision to surrender, making the invasion unnecessary.
Sometime in the mid 1960s, however, Brower began to believe that the risks from radiation to human genetic material along with the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities or diversion of nuclear materials from power programs to weapons programs outweighed any benefits that the new technology would provide to society. He began to speak out on the topic and to try to move the Sierra Club to an official position of opposing nuclear energy development.
Along with his propensity to spend outside of budgetary limits, the nuclear energy issue was one of the factors that led to his dismissal by the Sierra Club board. In 1969, the majority position on the board was still that atomic energy was better than damming rivers to fill scenic valleys with water that could fall through turbines to produce electricity.
His opposition to nuclear energy was well known before he left the Sierra Club and founded Friends of the Earth (FOE). As Turner acknowledged, FOE’s early success was greatly assisted by a major contribution from Robert O. Anderson, the CEO of the Atlantic Richfield Company, one of the largest oil and gas producers in the United States at the time. Turner wasn’t able to explain why Anderson provided the money; he did say that it wasn’t because of any personal relationship between him and Brower.
Turner also told me that Anderson didn’t provide additional support after FOE began working to halt the Alaskan Pipeline project, which was a major ARCO project. We did not discuss it on the show, but my understanding of the history of that project was that the delay from 1970-1973 wasn’t harmful to the company’s interest. The project could not have been financed without the dramatic shift in the world oil markets and future expectations that happened in 1973.
As described in his book, FOE believed that they achieved a partial victory in the unsuccessful attempt to halt the pipeline by forcing the companies involved to redesign the project for above ground installation instead of using a buried pipe that could harm the permafrost. I suspect that the companies were quite happy to use above ground construction; it tends to be quite a bit cheaper even though it is also uglier.
Underground fuel transportation pipes have largely been the norm in the US for many decades. On military bases and shipyards where there aren’t a lot of organized opponents, I’ve noticed numerous above-ground piping systems for both fuels and steam. They’re cheaper to install and easier to maintain.
During our conversation, I suggested to Turner that the fear of genetic damage from very low doses of radiation had been invented and purposely propagated with the sustained support of the Rockefeller Foundation with the purchased assistance of the National Academy of Sciences. He appeared intrigued and seemed to understand the explanation and implications of the information.
I also probed to find out if he had heard much discussion in the Movement about the harmful environmental impact of large wind and solar projects. He told me that there wasn’t much during most of the time that he was involved, but he noted that there is a growing level of concern as more large projects are being developed. He pointed me to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that appeared just last weekend titled Mojave Desert at stake in far-reaching federal energy plan and agreed that perhaps the sources that everyone wanted to believe were going to save the future weren’t quite as free of impact as they had been led to believe.
We talked about Amory Lovins, Mark Jacobson and the 100% renewable movement.
I think you’ll enjoy the show and want to share it widely. As always, comments are welcome.
By Rod Adams and Andrea Jennetta
Diablo Canyon has joined the growing list of U.S. reactors to be prematurely shutdown as Pacific Gas & Electric announced a closure plan negotiated with a veritable who’s who of anti-nuclear groups captured in a joint proposal that will be filed with California regulators for approval.
If that joint proposal is accepted by the state’s Public Utilities Commission, PG&E will withdraw, with prejudice, the twin-unit plant’s operating license renewal application it submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2009.
Agency spokesman Scott Burnell explained the “with prejudice” phrase. “If applicants submit correspondence to the NRC using that term, the NRC expects that they would not resubmit the same application at a later date,” said Burrell.
But he declined to speculate whether the legal term would be binding to a new plant owner, saying it contained too many variables to answer. Without the renewal, the operating licenses for Diablo Canyon’s two reactors, which annually generate 16,000-18,000 GWh, 20% of PG&E’s generating capacity and 9% of California’s electricity, will expire in 2024 and 2025.
The deal to stop the renewal was negotiated by PG&E with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Friends of the Earth (FOE), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 (IBEW-1245), Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, Coalition of California Utility Employees and Environment California.
The utility put relicensing efforts on hold in 2011 after Fukushima to study the earthquake faults surrounding the plant. According to the joint proposal PG&E has spent $50 million to get approval to run both reactors an additional 20 years.
As clarified during a Tuesday, June 21 press conference, there were no state or federal agencies, or any consumer group representatives, involved in the bargaining process.
Bloody Land Lease Fight Anticipated
One issue affecting the timing of the announced deal was the near-term need for lease extensions for state-owned tidelands occupied by the plant’s cooling water structures.
Those 49-year leases expire before Diablo Canyon’s licenses expire because the construction project took 15 years instead of the allotted nine.
Without an extension the state had a legal hammer with which to force units to stop running in 2018 and 2019. Normally, continuing already existing uses of similar leased land is a routine, non-contentious matter.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), former mayor of San Francisco who is now running for governor, is a Diablo Canyon opponent.
“I just don’t see that this plant is going to survive beyond 2024, 2025,” Newsom told the Cal Coast News in January. “I just don’t see that. Now, I absolutely may be wrong, but that’s my punditry. And there is a compelling argument as to why it shouldn’t.”
Aside: It’s not “punditry” when an influential member of a decision-making body makes a public statement about the merits of a legal request whose fate is still under discussion. It is something else entirely. End Aside.
Several of the parties involved in the closure deal had been actively pressuring the state to use the leases as a way to extract new commitments from PG&E. But under the joint proposal, the parties agreed to write a joint letter to the California Lands Commission to express support for the extensions to match up with current operating licenses without environmental reviews.
During the press conference Friends of the Earth official Erich Pica said that the letter has already been sent and expressed confidence that the recommendation will be accepted by the commission, which is scheduled to discuss the matter on June 28.
Mothers for Nuclear, Environmental Progress, Thorium Energy Alliance, Energy for Humanity, Pandora’s Promise and Californians for Green Nuclear Power have said they would attend that meeting to support the extension.
They have also organized a four-day March for Environmental Hope! that arrives in Sacramento in time to sign up for the meeting comment period.
In response to the private party deal, Environmental Progress and Mothers for Nuclear issued a press release that said, in part, “ the back-room Diablo Canyon deal—-negotiated by corrupt institutions behaving unethically and perhaps illegally—-will fail….
“It will fail because when people understand that the proposal is based on a big lie—-that Diablo can be closed without increasing fossil fuel use, methane emissions and carbon emissions—-they will reject it, and the leadership of the institutions who negotiated it.”
Robert Stone, the director of Pandora’s Promise, said, “It’s a mathematical certainty that closing nuclear plants results in more fossil fuel burning and emissions.”
50% RPS Excludes Nuclear
Tony Earley, CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric, clarified during Tuesday’s press conference that SB350, a state law enacted last October, is the driving force behind the company’s decision to sit down with a group of parties with whom it has been in conflict for years.
“Last year, when SB350 was being developed, our going-in position was instead of a renewable standard it should be a greenhouse gas free standard,” he said. “We actually do believe that we could have had a lower cost strategy that way. And that we would have been using nuclear. But that argument didn’t prevail and we’ve got a state policy in place. Given the current state policies, this is the best solution for us.”
The law mandated an increase in the share of electricity from qualified renewable sources to 50% and a doubling of energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end use by 2030.
As a result, Earley explained, PG&E would be able to use less and less electricity from Diablo Canyon as it took additional action to achieve its portion of the target, leaving the plant operating at a capacity factor of about 50%.
Since virtually all of the cost of owning and operating the facility is fixed, reducing output would increase the cost for each remaining kilowatt-hour, doubling the cost of its electricity even before any other cost increases due to inflation, seismic requirements or cooling water regulations.
When compared to that new cost, renewables and energy efficiency investments appear to be cost competitive, Earley told reporters.
“The reality is that as we looked at the usage of Diablo Canyon going forward, it’s capacity factor is going to fall, but since most of its costs are xed, as you get down, let’s just take a number. As the capacity factor drops to 50%, that effectively doubles the cost per kilowatt-hour.
“And then you calculate the cost of the whole package including the renewable energy and all of the other provisions, our conclusion is that it’s going to cost less overall as a total package than if you just continued to operate Diablo Canyon going forward—-under the assumption that it’s going to operate less under the energy policies that are in place.”
As additional contributing factors to the shutdown decision PG&E cited the challenge of managing overgeneration and intermittency conditions under a resource portfolio increasingly influenced by solar and wind production, the growth rate of distributed energy resources, and the potential increases in the departure of PG&E’s retail load customers to Community Choice Aggregation.
Replacement Costs Are Unknown
The agreement specifies three “tranches” of procurements. The first two, one for 2,000 GWh of energy efficiency and a second for another 2,000 from greenhouse gas free resources through an all-source solicitation, will provide a total of 4,000 GWh per year by 2031.
The third calls for PG&E to buy “incremental RPS eligible resources through competitive solicitations to voluntarily achieve a 55% RPS,” 5% higher than the state mandate. The utility will keep the 55% commitment through 2045.
When Lauren Sommer from KQED asked for some math help to understand how the targets replace the 17,000 GWh produced by Diablo Canyon, PG&E president Geisha Williams volunteered to explain.
“You have to remember that we don’t really believe that we need full output of Diablo,” Williams said. “ at’s part of the whole use case that Tony mentioned earlier, that whole capacity factor being somewhere around 50%. So there’s not a need to replace the full output of Diablo because you don’t need it.
“There’s been so much energy efficiency, there’s been so much power being generated by customers using their own private solar rooftops as well as community choice aggregation, so when we look at the net need it’s much, much less than the 16,000 (GWh), which, by the way is the number from Diablo today.”
PG&E representatives deflected even ballpark cost questions on several occasions. Jim Polson of Bloomberg News pressed that issue with the last question. “You’re wanting cost recovery for this. How much will that be?”
“I have a couple of numbers,” said Williams. “For example, we’re estimating about $350 million that’s going to be associated with workforce retention, training and redevelopment costs associated with keeping our qualified workforce in place so that they can continue to operate the plant safely.”
“We talked about the $50 million associated with the community of San Luis Obispo. But the remaining costs are really all about replacement power costs. And that is to be determined, depending on what types of procurement power costs we might actually end up doing.”
One of the reasons for the lack of clear costs is that the joint proposal, which will be filed with California regulators within 60 days and possibly okayed by the end of 2017, is just the first step in the process to close Diablo Canyon, most of which depends on public utility commission decisions.
For example, it will need to approve specific plans to replace the plant’s output using the three procurement tranches.
As the utility noted in a written statement, “Any resource procurement PG&E makes will be subject to a non-bypassable cost allocation mechanism that ensures all users of PG&E’s grid pay a fair share of the costs.”
PG&E said it will also ask regulators to confirm that its investment in Diablo Canyon will be recovered by the time the plant closes, including the $1 billion needed in funds to reach the projected $3.8 billion price tag for decommissioning, and allow the recovery of the costs for employee and community transition actions.
That means it will be up to the state to decide how much ratepayers will pay to buy replacement power and amortize PG&E’s investment in building Diablo Canyon.
Bloomberg Estimate: At Least $15B
According to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts, the closure plan would cost $15 billion if all its output is replaced with solar-generated electricity at current prices.
Actual costs could be lower because the company expects to account for reduced demand and replace only part of the plant’s production, energy policy analyst Rob Barnett said in a June 22 interview.
California’s goal to get half its power from carbon-free sources by 2030 will be challenging without nuclear, although few states can match the wind and solar resources of California, said Kit Konolige, co-author of the analysis.
“If you were to take all the energy from Diablo Canyon and say, ‘I want to replace that with solar,’ this is an estimate of that investment,” Barnett said.
Diablo Canyon’s two reactors account for 20% of annual power production in PG&E’s territory, according to the utility owner’s agreement to shut the plant.
Based on current prices and generating capacity for solar power, the company would need 10,500 MW of new solar installations to replace all of Diablo Canyon’s output, the research concluded.
“Gas-power plants will probably be needed for backup when wind and solar plants aren’t available,” Barnett and Konolige wrote. “Greater use of natural gas may make California’s emission goals more challenging to meet.”
The $15 billion Bloomberg Intelligence estimate excludes decommissioning costs, new transmission lines, back-up resources for solar or potential tax credits from renewable energy investments.
Note: A version of the above was first published in Fuel Cycle Week (FCW) Vol 15 No 667 dated June 23, 2016. It is reprinted here with permission. All rights reserved.
The California State Lands Commission meeting on June 28, 2016 included a number of articulate, knowledgable, rational and emotional talks by people who took time to attend the meeting and to deliver their public comments. Some had carefully prepared remarks, others spoke directly from their hearts. Some had a prop or a graph, others relied […]
Some people who are not well versed in human history believe that fossil fuels are inherently evil, costly and harmful to human health. They ignore the side of the accounting ledger that documents the incredibly beneficial effects concentrated fuels have provided to overall human freedom, happiness, self actualization and reduction of dependence on nature. Those […]
Computed tomography (CT) scans may be able do more than just take high resolution pictures inside human bodies. They might provide a useful treatment modality for certain neurodegenerative diseases. A recently published case report suggests that the adaptive response of a human immune system stimulated by a short series of standard, painless, simple to administer […]
During the holiday weekend, I finally got around to watching “The Martian.” Though it was a terrific, suspenseful drama, its treatment of the radioisotope thermal generator (RTG) was wrong on a number of levels. That was disappointing in the context of a high budget movie that has received numerous kudos for the significant effort its […]
Kirk Gothier is one of the skilled former public servants that has joined Californians for Green Nuclear Power. He is putting his deep experience as a community development planner to good use during his retirement years. A brief summary of his experience can be found here. Like other members of CGNP, Kirk is passionately concerned […]
When the dust has had a chance to settle, effects of the UK voter decision to leave the EU on the UK nuclear energy and climate change mitigation programs will become evident. In the meantime, bloggers and other observers will continue to do what they do, which is to offer opinions in spite of enormous […]
British voters have spoken; they want to leave the EU by a margin of 52% to 48%. The split should provide a boost for the UK’s nuclear energy program. It should also improve the UK’s energy resiliency and improve the effectiveness of its effort to reduce CO2 emissions. As an island nation, the UK doesn’t […]
The first indication I had of the agreement to destroy Diablo Canyon in the prime of its life came from a press release issued by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). It stated that they had signed a deal with PG&E, IBEW local 1245, the Coalition of California Utility Employees, Friends of the Earth, Environment […]
Biological Theory has published the equivalent of a “bunker buster” salvo in a decades-long war of words between scientists. On one side are people who believe that there is no safe dose of radiation. They assert that radiation protection regulations should continue using a linear, no threshold model. The other side includes those who say […]
Ken Silverstein posted a thought-provoking piece on Forbes.com titled Being ‘Good Neighbors’ And Staying Out Of Print Motivates Companies To Be Environmental Stewards. The following quote stimulated me to provide a slightly different interpretation and expansion on the reasons why companies and investors large and small are often actively involved in the environmental movement. And […]