Included in the 2023 recap edition of the publication Nuclear News was the 2024 Energy Quiz – a general knowledge test to check readers’ energy issues literacy. The 20-question quiz included themes of 2050 decarbonization goals, health effects of different forms of energy generation, and energy requirements for different demographics, among other topics. Readers with zero to five correct answers were encouraged by the article to read up to improve their understanding of energy issues, while a score of 16-20 meant, “you should be advising Congress.” 

The goal of the rhetoric, as stated by the article, is to get readers to pay attention to energy issues. However, seeing as the article was published by a strongly pro-nuclear magazine, a subtler purpose of the rhetoric is to get readers to pay attention to the safety of and need for nuclear energy. This can be seen with specific questions such as, “According to the recent UN Economic Commission for Europe report, which energy source has the lowest life cycle impact on human health and the environment?” the answer to which was “nuclear,” and “When did the earliest known fission reactor (not just fission reactions) begin operation?” the answer to which was, “2,000,000,000 BC, the natural reactors at Oklo in Africa.” Such questions highlight the safety of nuclear energy in a way that one might not expect in an energy quiz published in say, an environmental advocacy magazine. While the statistics used to support the safety nuclear energy are true, in my opinion it does skew the quiz away from focusing on “energy issues” and more towards focusing on “nuclear energy issues.” 

However, if the goal of the rhetoric is to improve knowledge of nuclear energy, I do not think that it was all too effective. While it did get me to think about different facets of energy issues and nuclear technology, I think a shortcoming of this quiz was its delivery. The quiz was published in Nuclear News, which is a magazine with a rather niche demographic of nuclear energy enthusiasts. A large majority of readers are already familiar with the benefits of nuclear energy, and thus don’t gain much by completing the quiz. The rhetoric would be a lot more effective were it published for a more diverse demographic, one that would include a larger proportion of readers against or neutral towards nuclear energy. Unfortunately, while the quiz was made available online, it was only available for magazine subscribers, not the public. While this rhetoric does have the good intentions to educate the public on the benefit of nuclear energy, it falls a bit short in its purpose since it does not reach an optimal audience.  

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant (Image: NS Energy)

California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant has caused controversy among the public since the beginning of its operation in 1985. Amidst particularly strong opposition to its operation, in 2016 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) reached an agreement to shut down both of the plant’s reactor units by 2025. However, PG&E is now seeking to extend Diablo Canyon’s operating license for up to 20 more years, for operation until 2045.  

Proponents of the plant and nuclear energy in general argue that the Diablo Canyon Plant is essential for California’s green energy goals, that it will remain more efficient and reliable than renewable energy sources. However, other groups argue that continued operation of the reactor will end up in a net cost for taxpayers, while causing environmental and health risks. 

Cheap, Clean Energy 

Currently, Diablo Canyon is responsible for producing 9% of California’s electricity and 17% of California’s zero-emission electricity (Briscoe). Since nuclear energy is primarily used for baseload generation, generation of power that is constantly produced and constantly used, renewable energy like solar and wind would not be consistent enough to perfectly replace the power lost should Diablo Canyon shut down. Much of this baseload generation would have to be replaced by fossil fuels.  

Similarly, even if battery storage or similar technologies could be developed to an extent to extract baseload generation from wind and solar energy, the footprint of these renewables would be much greater than that of Diablo Canyon. The nuclear plant requires a mere 750 acres, whereas an equivalent power output from solar energy would require 108,918 acres, and wind 397,688 acres (Boisvert).  

The stable baseload Generation of Diablo has also been credited as a factor in the prevention and management of California’s summer blackouts, particularly by Governor Gavin Newsom (Nikolewski), however the Environmental Working Group points out that these blackouts could also force Diablo Canyon to temporarily shut down, decreasing the cost-effectiveness of the plant (Lacey and Smith).  

A Risky Cost 

Nuclear power, while providing low-cost power once operational, requires some of the largest up-front and maintenance costs of any power generation method. In order for Diablo Canyon to be recertified to operate past 2025, it will have to pass a federal inspection and perform maintenance to address safety concerns, maintenance which will presumably only increase in proportion as the plant ages. The state utilities commission estimates this cost to be around $6 billion (Briscoe), while more anti-nuclear groups estimate the cost will amount to between $20 and $45 billion (Lacey and Smith).  

Additionally, public fear of nuclear disasters plays a role in opposition to the plant’s operation. Of particular concern is Diablo Canyon’s proximity to both the Shoreline and Hosgri fault lines, prompting worry of a Fukushima-reminiscent seismic event. Although surveys by PG&E, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other seismologists have concluded that an earthquake capable of damaging the plant is unlikely for the plant’s remaining lifespan, there remains the slight possibility of an earthquake-induced accident at the plant, causing health concerns for nearby residents (Boisvert).  

Furthermore, although modern safety systems in nuclear reactors would mitigate the severity of radiation release in the event of a catastrophic seismic event, cost remains an ever-present factor. Plant damages could increase expenditures by millions, further increasing the burden on taxpayers and PG&E customers to keep Diablo Canyon operational.  

The Current State 

As of December 2023, California energy officials have voted to allow Diablo Canyon to operate until 2030. However, since the plant’s operating license will expire in 2025, PG&E still must obtain the necessary permits from the NRC to continue operation past that point. This will likely be a time and money intensive process, and to further complicate matters anti-groups such as the Environmental Working Group and Friends of the Earth have filed a lawsuit to prevent the NRC from approving the license extension. On the other hand, the Biden administration provided a $1.4 billion forgivable loan to PG&E to help facilitate the plant’s continued operation. Whether the risk of operating this plant will outweigh the benefits of its clean energy is yet to be determined, but the fate of Diablo Canyon will surely set a significant president for the continued operation of nuclear plants throughout the United States.   

Sources: 

Boisvert, Will. “The Diablo We Know.” The Breakthrough Institute, 04 Aug. 2015. https://thebreakthrough.org. 

Briscoe, Tony. “California Officials Vote to Extend Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Operations.” Los Angeles Times, 14 Dec, 2023. https://www.latimes.com. 

Lacey, Anthony and Grant Smith. “Outrageous Costs, Deadly Dangers: The Real Costs of Keeping Diablo Canyon Open.” Environmental Working Group, 25 July, 2023. https://www.ewg.org. 

Nikolewski, Rob. “Diablo Canyon, the Last Remaining Nuclear Power Plant in California, Gets a Lifeline.” The San Diego Union-Tribune, 14 Dec 2023. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com.