Part Two of Two Parts (Please read Part One first)
Setting all these questions and concerns aside, there is the big question of whether or not the electricity produced by Diablo Canyon will even be needed in the middle or the long term. California has about forty percent more electricity available than it currently needs. Some energy analysts say that the continued operation of Diablo Canyon will slow down the expansion of renewable energy sources in California. The output of Diablo Canyon is inflexible because it is very difficult to raise and lower. This base load supply reduces demand for alternative and more flexible low carbon energy sources. If PG&E delays a decision on relicensing, alternative sustainable energy sources may not be strongly supported. If PG&E then decides not to relicense, there could be a future shortfall of low carbon electricity available.
PG&E says that continued operation of Diablo Canyon for twenty years beyond current licensing would save the residents of the area as much as sixteen billion dollars. Such estimates are questionable at best in light of the rapidly changing energy market and the falling cost of renewable sustainable energy sources. In addition, critics of Diablo Canyon say that the cost of upgrading Diablo Canyon to meet environmental and seismic mandates may not be worth it. PG&E has been very quiet about its plans for Diablo Canyon. Some critics of the company think that it may be looking for an excuse to shut the plant down even before the current licenses expire.
In 2007, the California Public Utilities Commission demanded that PG&E make a decision about renewing the licenses at least ten years before the licenses expired. They said that this was necessary in order for energy planners to have time to figure out how to replace the two gigawatts that the plant generates in case PG&E decided to close it before the original licenses expired. Critics of PG&E have voiced suspicions that PG&E has deliberately held off making any decision as the ten year deadline passed because they hope to make opposition difficult when they do apply for license renewal. The shorter the time that planners have to find alternative energy sources, the easier it will be for PG&E to get their licenses renewed.
PG&E has countered with a statement that it was working on license renewal in 2010 but suspended those activities after the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and has not yet set a timeline for continuing with the licensing process.
In 2010, there was an explosion in a pipeline owned by PG&E that resulted in eight deaths and two billion in state fines. Dozens of criminal charges were filed by the federal government. This explosion and its aftermath called the competence of PG&E into question. Critics of the company fear that it has been less than rigorous in the management of Diablo Canyon and worry that extending the licenses may be an invitation to future serious accidents at the plant.
Perhaps it is time for the NRC and the people of California to make a decision independent to PG&E. There are a lot of good reasons shut down Diablo Canyon permanently even before their currently licenses expire. It would be best for California to end their use of nuclear power as soon as possible.
