The twin nuclear fission reactors in Diablo Canyon make up the last nuclear power plant in California, which produces 9% of the energy generated in the most-populated US state. However, many environmental groups are opposed to nuclear energy, resulting in an agreement made in 2016 to close the plant by 2025 made by plant worker unions, anti-nuclear advocates, and PG&E, the company operating the plant. In 2022, though, this agreement was halted by the Legislature due to concerns regarding the effect of climate change on energy stability. This decision was backed by governor Gavin Newsom, who argues that the plant is a crucial source of clean energy, contrary to his previous statements in support for renewables such as solar and wind instead of nuclear, and provided PG&E a “$1.4 billion forgivable state loan” that can be “paid off in several installments.” In late 2023, California energy regulators voted to elongate that plant’s life to 2030, but on Thursday, June 12, the state shared its intent to revoke a $400 million loan that would sustain the plant. Legislators expressed their concerns about what would happen to the $400 million if the extension doesn’t work out, as California carries an estimated $45 billion deficit. Critics of nuclear energy estimate that elongating the life of the reactors past 2025 would cost almost $12 billion, but PG&E denies the claim and sets the cost closer to $8.3 billion, declaring that “the financial benefits exceed the costs.” Opponents are also skeptical of the danger associated with the plant’s location, as it was built in 1960, before current knowledge of earthquake risks was known. However, both PG&E and NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) have maintained that the reactors are safe.

Concerns were raised last year about the safety of one of the twin reactors, but the NRC did not investigate these fears except for asking agency staff to look into it weeks later. Although the power plant continues to operate, unease should be taken seriously and addressed appropriately in order to ensure safety and reduce anxiety towards nuclear energy. Additionally, an extension past 2025 means that the power plant is due for detailed inspection. Since the reactors were originally planned to shut down next year, the normal procedures to ensure long-term safety weren’t necessary, but now that the plant will be running for significantly longer, assessments and upgrades are warranted (Derbeken). Apparently, the plant is also running low on materials for its alarm system, which would have been fine considering its scheduled close in 2025, but with an extended life expectancy, it would need to buy new supplies for keeping its systems operational (Derbeken). Clearly, if the twin reactors are going to be operating for an extended period of time, proper precautions need to be taken. More tests should be conducted to ensure the safety of the plant going forward, especially considering its location and the risk of earthquakes. These tests are crucial for the lives of those in close proximity of the plant, and also to minimize fear associated with nuclear energy. 

I wrote this article over summer, when the news was a bit more fresh, but it’s still really important for one of California’s main sources of clean energy. Nuclear energy is in a weird stage right now where there’s growing support but rising costs and persistent opposition. Just like with transparency in GMOs, clear communication and rigorous inspections are essential in nuclear energy so as not to breed fear, or worse, an actual incident. Even if nothing bad actually happens, the public’s opinion of nuclear energy plays a massive role in its success, and making people nervous or confused is not going to help the industry.

Also, as you may have noticed in the citation section at the bottom of the post, I’ve changed the format a bit. Many of my Synopses are based off of one main source, though occasionally including supporting evidence from other sources, so I’ve listed the included the credibility rating for the news source I used (which in this case is “high”). I’ve been doing more research on science and policy news, which is less frequently published by well-known sources and organizations to present me with information that I know I can trust. As a result, I will be doing this in the future for any lesser-known cites or news sources, because I want to ensure that the information I use is credible and be transparent about the reputation of the sources I use. I will likely omit this for trusted sources such as Our World In Data or Nature, but as always, my sources will be included in the section below!

“Lawmakers Break with Gov. Newsom over Funding for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant – CBS San Francisco.” http://Www.cbsnews.com, 13 June 2024, http://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/lawmakers-break-with-newsom-over-funding-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant/. Accessed 11 July 2024. – main article

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbs-news/ – CBS News is known for a “high” factual reporting

Derbeken, Jaxon Van. “Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Has Long To-Do List to Assure Safety.” NBC Bay Area, 23 Oct. 2022, http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/diablo-canyon-nuclear-power-plant-safety/3038039/. Accessed 11 July 2024. – details on safety of Diablo Canyon reactors

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/kntv-nbc-bay-area-bias/ – NBC Bay Area is known for a “high” factual reporting