This conversation is closed.

Californians propose a ballot to issue a bond to buy out and decommision Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant from the Public Utility, PG&E.

Why don't we approach the Utility PG&E with a simple business proposition- We want to buy you out. PG&E is a business- this is a business proposition. PG&E can take the money ( though a third party) and replace Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant with a natural gas plant and solar/wind farm. The money will come from a State Issued bond measure.

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant is an old plant with a bad safety record. It is built on an active earthquake fault. Its a Fukushima in waiting.

The natural gas plant and/or solar plant will replace jobs, tax revenue for the affected area and electric production. The taxpayers are paying/subsidizing energy production either way.This way- we get to direct how our money is spent. With a buy-out, we don't have continued toxic waste production, risk cancer or another Fukushima. The longer any nuclear power plant stays- the higher the risk for all. Buy them out.

Anyone know an Environmental Economist?
1) What is the cost to buy out an aging plant?
2) What would it take to replace jobs and income to the area by producing a solar/alternative energy farm?
3) How do we convince public they are paying/subsidizing the Nuclear Plant either way. At least with a buy out they are safe?

  • thumb
    Nov 24 2011: California's present fiscal mess is in large part a result of the many huge bond issues over the past few decades. CA politicians have put expensive measures on the ballot as bond issues to get credit for having achieved something without having to fit it into the current budget. And an ignorant voting public has approved most of these, without thinking that they're simply passing the cost on to their kids. By now the servicing cost of these issues chokes the state budget. It's hard to imagine that the state could take on another huge bond issue to close down Diablo Canyon. I don't know what the cost of purchase would be, but the cost of closure would be even greater. It's very expensive to close down a nuclear plant.

    As you know, PG&E has applied for a 20 year relicensing of DC. The original 40 year licenses run out in about a dozen years. If extensions are not granted by NRC, PG&E will itself be responsible for shutting down the plants. Of course, with this expense and the additional cost of building replacement plants, CA rate payers will wind up footing the bill eventually. Convincing testimony before NRC, opposing relicensing, may be the most effective route of closing the plants, though it will be a dozen years before the current licenses expire.

    I agree that DC should never have been built. The marine environmental effects have been considerable, though these will in time be naturally restored after the discharge ceases. But the danger from earthquake and tsunami should have prevented its siting where it is located. To date, thousands of opponents have not been able to convince the authorities to shut it down. But that's no reason not to keep trying. Best of luck with your effort.
    • Nov 24 2011: Thanks for your input Paul- I had the chance to meet the State Senator from the area where Diablo Canyon operates. I put that idea out to him. He, at least seemed, genuine and responded that " He had never thought of that idea and maybe something like this could be tried".

      I am hoping that somehow all the financial and insurance subsidies that are currently being extended into the nuclear system can be quantified and compared against a bond issue or financing subsidy to build some other form on power generation.

      Maybe by keeping this idea alive- someone with more expertise than me can use the idea