FOE continues promoting fossil fuel by trying to force Diablo Canyon closure

As a literature major during my undergraduate years, I was fascinated by the variety of stories that can be told about the same topic depending on the author’s selected point of view.

Here is a brief example. Friends of the Earth (FOE) has a page on its web site titled Shutting down Diablo Canyon. The first couple of paragraphs tell a brief story about the organization, its founding, and its position on Diablo Canyon that has been widely promoted and is probably accepted by many of its dedicated members.

Concerns over the proposed construction of nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon were an impetus for David Brower to found Friends of Earth in 1969. Since then, more information about the seismic activity near the two aging reactors has made it increasingly clear that Diablo Canyon should never have been built on its current site. The tremendous and unnecessary risk these reactors pose to public health and the environment necessitates that they be shut down.

At the time of construction, our knowledge about earthquakes was relatively basic. Nonetheless, it was known that Diablo Canyon, the nuclear reactors operated by Pacific Gas & Electric, was at risk from two earthquake faults: the San Andreas, 45 miles inland and the Rinconada, 20 miles inland. Since then, as our understanding of earthquakes and ground motion has grown, it has become increasingly clear that Diablo Canyon is surrounded by faults capable of creating ground motion beyond that for which the reactors and their components were tested and licensed.

I would tell the same story in a different way because I have a different set of experiences, research and personal opinion lenses through which I view the world. Here is my version.

Concerns over the construction and operation of nuclear reactors that do not consume any hydrocarbon products were a call to action on the part of those whose business was to sell hydrocarbons. Though their products would continue to be useful in a world with a rapidly increasing quantity of power supplied by atomic fission, the unit sale prices would be negatively impacted by the resulting change in the balance between energy supply and demand. The industry’s profitability and long-standing ability to dominate international politics would be dramatically reduced.

Robert Anderson, the CEO of Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) and a recognized leader in the petroleum industry, went looking for a credible spokesperson with an established following who could criticize nuclear energy and initiate action to mitigate some of its obvious competitive advantages. Anderson learned that David Brower, a prominent environmentalist and influencer at the Sierra Club, was involved in a leadership struggle at his organization, partly because he wanted to take a more aggressive stance against the use of nuclear energy.

Anderson made contact with Brower. He soon provided the initial donation of $200,000 that enabled Brower to found a new, more focused antinuclear environmental group, Friends of the Earth. Other people involved in the hydrocarbon business provided additional ammunition in the battle to increase the cost of nuclear energy construction by performing additional seismic surveys of the area near the Diablo Canyon construction site. They timed the release of information raising questions about the site stability so that the revelations resulted in substantial plant redesign work and years/billions worth of project delays.

Not surprisingly, Anderson did not publicly oppose nuclear energy himself. That would have been easily identified as special interest pleading by a competitor. It was much more effective to publicly proclaim support of nuclear energy while quietly providing the funds to enable “environmental” activists to attack and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the technology and the industry that was developing it.

It’s worth mentioning that there has never been a case anywhere in the world in which a nuclear power plant sustained enough damage from an earthquake to cause it to endanger the public. They are exceedingly resilient facilities.

Despite the efforts by its well-heeled and motivated opponents, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was completed and licensed to operate. It now produces between 17 and 18 terawatt-hours of electricity every year. It has done so for decades and has the capability to continue doing so for numerous additional decades.

Replacing that amount of electricity with the best available natural gas power plant technology would result in the release of at least 6.2 million tons of CO2 every year. It is not possible to replace that steadily produced, grid stabilizing, adjustable power factor, smooth frequency AC power with a combination of wind turbines and solar panels.

Shockingly (not really), one of the prominent allies in the still active antinuclear movement effort to close Diablo Canyon and replace it with power mostly produced by burning products of the petroleum industry — in this case, natural gas — was a petroleum industry geologist, former California state senator Sam Blakeslee.

Additional evidence

This is supplemental information aimed at supporting the assertions made in my version of the history of opposition to Diablo Canyon.

Hosgri Fault Zone USGS

Exploration of the offshore Santa Maria Basin began in the 1960s with regional seismic surveys, marine gravity surveys, and aeromagnetic surveys designed to identify the limits of the basin and the major structural features. In 1971, geologists from the Shell Oil Company published a paper in which they were the first authors to identify a major fault zone offshore south-central California (Hoskins and Griffiths, 1971). Their interpretation of the fault was based on analyses of widely spaced CDP seismic reflection data. Figure 2 in their report is a small-scale map that shows a continuous offshore fault trace extending from south of Point Sal approximately 140 km to the north end of the Piedras Blancas Structure. They do not characterize the nature of the fault nor provide any indication of the recency of activity.
Source: US Geologic Survey (USGS) Characterization of the Hosgri Fault Zone and Adjacent Structures in the Offshore Santa Maria Basin page 4

This screenshot (click to enlarge) shows a damning page from a book titled Environmentalism: Ideology and Power by Donald Gibson, published by Nova Science Publishers in 2002.

Environmentalism Ideology and Power

Atomic Show #239 – Sarah Laskow and the LNT model

In March 2015, Foreign Policy magazine published an article by Sarah Laskow titled The Mushroom Cloud and The X-Ray Machine. The article described the controversy over the radiation protection model known as the linear, no-threshold dose response. Ms. Laskow conducted some admirable literature research and talked with a number of well-known people. The ones that […]

Read more »

Participation opportunity – Turkey Point EIS public meeting

One of the most prolific anti-nuclear activist groups, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), is distributing posts encouraging their followers to oppose FP&L’s plan to build two new reactors at the Turkey Point Power station. SACE is encouraging people to submit negative comments via the public comment process for the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) […]

Read more »

Atom and the Fault

I came across a fascinating little book by Richard Meehan titled The Atom and the Fault: Experts, Earthquakes and Nuclear Power. It was published in 1984 by MIT University Press. Meehan is a geotechnical engineer who participated in several controversial nuclear plant projects in California, including Bodega Head, Malibu, and Diablo Canyon. Though the book […]

Read more »

Time to stop consuming precious resources to harmonize occupational dose limits

Pressure groups and interested individuals have been striving for more than two decades to force the U. S. to reduce its occupational worker radiation protection limit from 50 mSv/year to 20 mSv/year. The primary justification for this effort is that in 1991 the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) issued publication 60 and provided their […]

Read more »

SMRs – lots of noise but DOE budget that’s 1% of annual wind tax credit

I’ve been spending some time watching, rewatching and clipping interesting excerpts from the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water subcommittee hearings on the FY2016 Department of Energy budget. It’s not everyone’s idea of entertainment, but it’s fascinating to me to watch publicly accessible discussions about how our government makes decisions, sets priorities and spends the money […]

Read more »

Lewis Strauss was no fan of useful atomic energy

Every once in a while, I feel the need to share some of the historical research I’m conducting. This serves multiple purposes; it provides me with an easily searchable log of interesting tidbits and it enables me to continue working on my mission of sharing as much information as I can find about atomic energy […]

Read more »

Today Show cheers nuclear power by chanting “Go Nuke!”

Before readers get too excited, I need to acknowledge that the Today Show in the below video is broadcast from Sydney, Australia, not New York City. However, it is still kind of exciting to have a TV newscaster chanting “Go Nuke!” The broadcaster’s excitement is based on an announcement by Liberal Party Senator Sean Edwards […]

Read more »

NRC RIC 2015 – Day one observations

On March 10, 2015, I attended my first ever Regulatory Information Conference (RIC), which is an annual event hosted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I had heard from various associates that everyone who is anyone in the nuclear industry should plan to go to the RIC whenever possible. They were right. First of all, the […]

Read more »

NRC FY2016 budget hearing – Sen Alexander and Sen Feinstein

On March 4, 2015, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development held a hearing about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s FY2016 budget. The video archive is available for review. The only senators from the subcommittee who took part in the hearing were Sen Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) with an invited […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #235 – Energy and Empire by George Gonzales

Energy and Empire cover

Dr. George Gonzales is an associate professor of political science at the University of Miami. In 2012, he published a book titled Energy and Empire: The Politics of Nuclear and Solar Power in the United States. In his book, Professor Gonzales recognizes that the development of nuclear energy poses an obvious threat to the continued […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #234 – Update from South Australia

Ben Heard of Think Climate Consulting and joined me for a discussion about the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. In early February, the South Australian government announced the formation of a royal commission to investigate the state’s future role in the nuclear fuel cycle. As Ben explained, royal commissions are fairly rare and only […]

Read more »