An about face from California’s long time liberal Senator.
"
California is a global model in the fight against climate change, but the balance necessary to achieve carbon neutrality is delicate and the obstacles many. Longer, hotter summers mean more electricity use, while worsening droughts limit hydropower. With the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant scheduled to close, state regulators project years of electricity shortfalls.
As these challenges converge, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. should reconsider its decision to close Diablo Canyon by 2025. The utility should get the plant relicensed instead, retiring it once the state can replace its production with clean sources.
…
"
The utility should get the plant relicensed instead, retiring it once the state can replace its production with clean sources.
So she still wants the plant shut down. Just not on the current schedule.
First of all, there is very little that Feinstein can do in the US Senate to save Diablo Canyon.
But extension of the current shut down schedule is not backing nuclear.
If she was to truly “back nuclear”, she and the governor would encourage the state legislature to revoke the ban on new nuclear power construction. She might introduce some sort of federal legislation to make it easier for power companies to build nuclear in exchange for shutting down coal plants, for instance.
Feinstein and the CA governor have come to recognize that the scheduled Diablo Canyon shut down in a few years could well result in power shortages. The governor, in particular, doesn’t want to be blamed for blackouts, so they are making a political scramble to cover their behinds. It doesn’t mean either of them have had a change of heart.
I’m not claiming she’s backing nuclear in any larger sense.
A very political article IMO. (in terms of what she says and doesn’t say)
She says she’s concerned about nuclear waste and is working for a better solution.
Really? Can she name one thing she’s done in this area?
More likely we are seeing the disaster of Germany’s nuclear shutdown decision as their dependence on Russia for “reliable” energy sources is faulty.
The folly of shutting down reliable low carbon sources is something she doesn’t want on her record.
Not mentioned is how the state talks big about solar but is trying to tax rooftop solar because it benefits the rich more than the poor. So, as I understand it, they want to disincentivize solar rather than provide more incentives for the poor…while there is a $100B surplus.
Germans, Japanese and Californians do not want nuclear power plants any longer. They are not economical, they are not safe, they generate toxic waste that must be handled with extreme care for hundreds of years.
They are not economical, they are not safe, they generate toxic waste that must be handled with extreme care for hundreds of years.
Even if all your statements were true, what is the argument for shutting down existing nuclear plants, especially BEFORE other zero CO2 is in place to prevent an increase in fossil fuels when the nuclear plants are shutdown.
Incremental storage of waste is not a significant argument, IMO.
They are not economical, they are not safe, they generate toxic waste that must be handled with extreme care for hundreds of years.
Even if all your statements were true, what is the argument for shutting down existing nuclear plants, especially BEFORE other zero CO2 is in place to prevent an increase in fossil fuels when the nuclear plants are shutdown.
=================================================
As I recall the people voted in California for politicians that promised to shutdown nuclear power plants. Californians do not want a core melt disaster in CA, they do not want to spend more money to upgrade, protect and keep nuclear plants operating in CA, and they do not want to deal with all the nuclear waste stored in CA.