Diablo Canyon is Shutting Down. Is California Ready?

, Energy analyst | February 23, 2021, 12:05 pm EDT
Bookmark and Share

En español

In this moment, California’s electrical grid faces no shortage of challenges. There’s the year-round risk that utility power lines will spark wildfires, and there’s the real possibility that an extreme summer heatwave will trigger more rotating blackouts. But there’s another issue looming on the horizon that California hasn’t even begun to address: replacing the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant with clean energy when it shuts down mid-decade.

In 2018, California regulators approved the decision to shut down Diablo Canyon, California’s last nuclear power plant. Shortly afterwards, California state legislators passed a law to ensure that Diablo Canyon’s retirement does not lead to an increase in global warming emissions when the power plant’s two nuclear reactors go offline in 2024 and 2025.

But has the state been doing enough to replace Diablo Canyon without increasing global warming emissions?

We crunched the numbers, and the answer is no. Today, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a new analysis, Countdown to Shutdown, with all the details. But for those of you looking for the tl;dr version, you’re in the right place.

How did UCS conduct this analysis?

When we set out to do this analysis, the first question we had to answer was, “how will we figure out if Diablo Canyon’s retirement will increase global warming emissions?”

It might sound like a simple question, but it’s really not. There are so many other factors driving changes in California’s electricity sector (e.g. renewable portfolio standard and grid reliability requirements), so we needed a way to pinpoint the effect of Diablo Canyon’s retirement on global warming emissions.

To pinpoint this effect, we used grid modeling tools to project global warming emissions in two different worlds. First, we modeled the real world that we all live in, where Diablo Canyon will shut down mid-decade. Then, we modeled an alternative world where Diablo Canyon remains online. Finally, by comparing the emissions trajectories in these two different worlds, we were able to pinpoint the effect of Diablo Canyon’s retirement on global warming emissions.

In essence, the emissions in the alternative world (where Diablo Canyon remains online) serve as a baseline – as long as emissions in the real world stay below those levels, then we’re golden. In other words, the only way to ensure that we replace Diablo Canyon without increasing global warming emissions is to keep emissions below the baseline levels in that alternative world.

Will Diablo Canyon’s retirement increase global warming emissions?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

Assuming that California continues on its current decarbonization pathway most recently endorsed by regulators at the California Public Utilities Commission, the UCS analysis shows that, between now and 2030, California’s electricity sector will emit an extra 15.5 million metric tons (MMT) of global warming emissions due to the retirement of Diablo Canyon. And because those emissions would come from existing natural gas power plants that operate more frequently, air pollution emissions from gas plants would increase in tandem. We estimated that the increase in emissions of one type of air pollutant, nitrogen oxides (NOx), would be roughly equivalent to the NOx emissions from 1,890 diesel school buses operating over the next decade.

Furthermore, the UCS analysis indicates that the current decarbonization pathway for the state’s electricity sector doesn’t reduce 2030 emissions enough to fully replace Diablo Canyon in addition to meeting California’s clean energy requirements (i.e. the renewable portfolio standard). Thus, the analysis demonstrates that California’s electricity sector will not decarbonize enough by 2030 to comply with state law; further decarbonization is necessary.

Without further action, existing natural gas power plants in California will operate more frequently due to the retirement of Diablo Canyon, increasing global warming and air pollution emissions.

Does this mean Diablo Canyon should stay online?

Absolutely not. That is definitely NOT the take-away here.

Since the very beginning, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant has been plagued by seismic safety concerns. And as with any nuclear power plant, there are the inevitable challenges of nuclear waste disposal. But those concerns weren’t even the final straw.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) decided to shut down Diablo Canyon mainly for economic reasons. The nuclear plant uses ocean water to cool its reactors, and the cooling technology is so destructive to ocean ecosystem that the technology is being completely phased out of power plants in California. PG&E was faced with a choice: spend a massive amount of money to upgrade the cooling technology at Diablo Canyon or shut down the plant entirely. In the end, PG&E determined the upgrades wouldn’t be worth it, and they decided to shutter the plant.

Between the seismic safety concerns and the costly upgrades, closing Diablo Canyon is still the right choice. And California needs to do more to replace Diablo Canyon with clean resources in order to prevent an increase in emissions and carry on in the transition to clean electricity.

What kinds of resources do we need to replace Diablo Canyon?

Just as the UCS analysis was able to pinpoint the effects of Diablo Canyon’s retirement on global warming emissions, the analysis was also able to pinpoint exactly what resources need to be built by 2030 to replace the power plant. In general, a diverse mix of renewables and energy storage are the most economic approach, and the exact mix of resources is heavily dependent on how aggressively California decarbonizes its electricity sector.

Under the current, relatively unambitious plans for decarbonizing California’s electricity sector, we need many gigawatts of wind and energy storage resources to replace Diablo Canyon. However, solar and geothermal resources also play an important role when planning for more aggressive decarbonization targets (which we absolutely should be doing!). California is already planning to build many of these resources eventually in order to reach its 100 percent clean electricity goals. From this analysis, it’s clear that accelerating the deployment of a diverse mix of renewable and energy storage technologies is the key to replacing Diablo Canyon.

Replacing Diablo Canyon will require a diverse mix of renewables and energy storage, including clean resources like wind power.

What next?

First and foremost, regulators at the California Public Utilities Commission need to act now to ensure that Diablo Canyon’s retirement does not lead to an increase in global warming emissions. As it stands, the current plans for California’s electricity sector will result in a significant uptick in cumulative emissions due to Diablo Canyon’s retirement.

There are a couple different ways that California regulators could address this issue. For example, they could order additional procurement of new resources over and above what’s already being planned. Alternatively, they could choose a more ambitious decarbonization pathway for California’s electricity sector, which is UCS’s preferred approach since it would both ensure full replacement of Diablo Canyon while advancing California towards its state-wide decarbonization goals.

As the electrical grid continues to evolve, nuclear plants across the country are at risk of shutting down. California showed its leadership in managing the transition to clean electricity when the state committed to replacing its last nuclear power plant without increasing emissions. Now California must follow through on that promise.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission/flickr
Pedro Xing
Carol M. Highsmith’s America, Library of Congress collection

Posted in: Energy Tags: , , ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • solodoctor

    Thanks for this. The respondents below fail to note that Diablo Canyon is very close to an earthquake fault that was unknown at the time the plant was built. Ie, it was not built to withstand the kind of quake that could occur there. Question for them: knowing that would THEY want to live near the plant?

    One other aspect of shutting down Diablo Canyon is not noted here: how to safely store the spent fuel. The CPUC is about to approve a plan for SCE to store the spent fuel from the San Onofre plant in metal containers above ground and very close to the coastline. There is no way these containers will last the hundreds of years required until the fuel is not longer dangerous. Will PGE suggest the same thing?

  • The Dude

    And who are the scientists again? This is a political and ideological organization. Wind, solar and batteries have limitations and can’t provide reliable power 24/7 every day… California and Texas recent debacles should make that obvious. Either stay with peaker plants or stay with nuclear to fill the gaps. Until zero point energy/fusion is viable then you have to prepare for the worst case. Getting rid of oil, gas and nuclear will not do it, yet.

  • Sir John MAGA

    It’s like the Texas experience never even happened, if they don’t reverse this decision.

  • Does this mean Diablo Canyon should stay online?

    Absolutely not.

    The UCS lives by uncharitable donations from civil servants.

    It is very inappropriate that government should live off fossil fuel income. It creates perverse motivations, including those civil servants’ will to fund professional liars. Dividing that income equally among the citizens would end that corrupting income, and the professional lying groups would drift away like the wraith of Saruman. Something to think about, long-term.

    And why would it necessarily be long-term? The Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s attempt to divide out government’s fossil fuel take is now a few years in the past. They found it impossible to refrain from calling for additional fossil fuel taxation, and a dividend of the proceeds of that, with the inevitable result … from James Hansen’s website, emphasis mine:

    … Several years ago, after arduous efforts by thousands of Citizens Climate Lobby volunteers, Washington noticed carbon fee and dividend. Immediately politicians went into partisan business-as-usual. Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders introduced a fee and dividend bill, grabbing 40% of the money for the government. That destroys the bill for climate purposes – because the public will not allow such a fee – with most of the public losing money – to continue to rise.

    When politicians strangle fee & dividend by grabbing the money, they kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Fee & dividend, if not strangled, spurs the economy, creates millions of jobs, and thus increases government revenues …

    I don’t understand how they were so stupid — it’s as if they said to themselves, “Who doesn’t like a new tax? No-buddy, that’s who!” — and next time they might not be.

  • The correct answer is to keep Diablo Canyon in operation and build more advanced nuclear power plants in the region. Too many lives will be lost to both pollution and blackouts otherwise.

  • Joris75

    “The nuclear plant uses ocean water to cool its reactors, and the cooling technology is so destructive to ocean ecosystem that the technology is being completely phased out of power plants in California.”

    That’s untrue.

    The only thing plaguing Diabolo Canyon has been antinuclear propaganda.

    Its loss is a tragedy and a travesty.