The decision by PG&E to mothball the last operating nuclear reactors in California has some people cheering—and other pounding their fists. On Significant Figures, Peter Gleick writes that the closure of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant "rankles those who see all non-carbon energy sources as critical in the fight against the real threat of climate change." Yet Gleick argues that with the pitfalls of nuclear energy and the high costs of retrofitting the plant, it is appropriate to shut it down and focus on developing wind and solar capacity. Meanwhile, Greg Laden considers the risk a major earthquake poses to the plant, which was built in the vicinity of four fault lines including the San Andreas. Diablo Canyon was upgraded to withstand a 7.5 magnitude quake, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that during a given year there is a 1 in 23,810 chance of an earthquake causing core damage to the reactors. They will continue operating until their licenses expire, in 2024 and 2025.
Another Nail in Nuclear's Coffin
Jonathan Schell has recently written a superb book about the history of the nuclear age, The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger.
Few technologies give rise to more spirited debates among environmentalists than nuclear power generation. So it was with some trepidation that I started to read an essay on the subject in last week's Washington Post.
From an Eco Politics listserv I see mention of an upcoming debate about Nuclear Energy: "Cradle to Grave: New Nukes and Old Radioactive Waste"
Because of the increased prices in gasoline and the perception of scarcity in terms of power, there has been a lot of talk about nuclear.
News of nuclear energy's death is a bit premature:
http://www.smartbrief.com/s/2016/07/report-66-nuclear-reactors-were-und…