We need Diablo Canyon to operate for another 20 years, not just 5. It is a well designed, operated and maintained nuclear power plant. It is perhaps the most seismically studied and robust structure on the planet. Keep Diablo running!
I'd vote for a nuclear power facility to get built in the Bay Area if it were possible. "M-MUH SIESMIC ACTIVITY!" some folks might screech. This is absurd. We can build nuclear energy facilties to handle a 10.0 Richter scale earthquake. I'm tired of the excuses. Use solar, wind, tide, hydroelectric, geothermal (the Geysers in Sanoma, for example) energies, and invest in battery techs (thermal, or chemistries possibly other than lithium) but also invest in nuclear energy. It's a no brainer. I'm not only YIMBY. I'm willing to live in a nuclear energy facility for the rest of my long and healthy life. I'm done with the absurdity. Build nuclear energy now or continue suffering consequences like global warming, deteriorating our global and local ecology, and just generally living with a worse, global well-being than we could have. I know we dealt with a lot of drama during the Cold War from the 50s to present day (the war ended, but the people alive from that time still do policy similar to the cold war era), but I really wish Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace model had triumphed more over what evolved into the Atoms for War model that the MIC adopted for incredible profit (trillions of dollars over the decades). We could be living in a much better world by now.
@@dawnanewday9671 no dump? What do you do with 2 million solar panels? Nuclear waste is safely stored in concrete canisters. Then, either bury it or recycle it. No big deal
@dawnanewday9671 solar has a lot issues on non renewable materials and non recyclable materials from the panels themselves. Sustainability needs to be full circle.
I appreciate this is more balanced coverage of Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Great to include Kristin and Heather playing with their children as a rebuttal to the nonsensical Linda Seeley claim that with nuclear power you can kiss your kids goodbye. Fearmongering from the antis.
Nuclear is very safe, it does not burn any fuel, the amount of nuclear waste is tiny just coolant and a few rods can all fit in a metal shipping crate for decades of usage. The risk is a tsunami like in Japan but there are plenty of ways to ensure what happened in Japan does not repeat by having plenty of backup generators at higher elevation, alternative water sources and break water walls, not a huge amount of money and even in Japan how many people died? 1 person. Even the worst nuclear disaster at Chernobyl only 30 people died. But how many people die each year from air pollution? MILLIONS, and how many from nuclear disasters? 0. Wake up people enough with the old world fear of nuclear it IS THE FUTURE. It is safe, 0 air pollution. What you see coming out of nuclear plants is just hot steam from the boiled water geeez.
Fun fact about Fukushima. The backup generators were placed in the basement of a building that quickly flooded. That never would've been approved in the US. If they would've simply been put at ground level, they could've switched out the wet filters, checked the batteries, and poof! We would never have known about it, because the problem would've lasted a half hour tops.
During Chernobyl, Soviets seeded clouds to force the fallout to drop in Belarus to prevent Scandinavian countries being hit; this resulted in thousands of Child Cancers, Leukemias and Belarus had to build many new Childrens Cancer Hospitals; I met one of these young women who survived so far, in 2010 or so, but related all the misery and death at the Hospitals. True story. Insidious nature of Nuclear fuel chain means effects are often delayed and this hidden and not prioritized.
If Chernobyl had been a coal plant instead, same size, same duration, it would have killed between 100,000 and 200,000 people. But not by accident. Coal kills people on purpose all the time. Air pollution kills 1/6th of all people who die.
Nuclear power is what we need for the energy crisis we have in this country not less. Nuclear energy is safe and effective more so the in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's. Many don't realize that in almost every major american university sits a small nuclear reactor that is operated safely for research. Nuclear Energy especially since the 1990's has a proven safe track record. Now of course don't get that confused with Nuclear accidents of course.
Nuclear☢️ any time of the day for me, and funny thing is the newer generation of adults are not opposing nuclear. We are opened to base load clean energy.
There's no time left to wait on the climate crisis. If taking nuclear offline means delaying taking fossil fuels offline it is better to take the fossil fuels offline first
What is going to be replacing fossil fuel and nuclear? Solar, wind farms is what California pushes, how is that working out. Government aggressively pushing Electric vehicle adoption with tax breaks. Where do you think the charging station gets the electricity to charge the EV? They are charging it from the electricity it gets from the power grid. It could be solar, nuclear, hydro, import from surrounding states... Etc. And even with the different sources California gets its power from, it is still not enough. The state is still faced with rolling blackout. The oil we get within California or the US can not be used within the country. Despite the United States ranking #1 as world's largest oil producer, we have to ship it out and trade with other countriea. Why, because oil companies refuse to update their refineries to be able to used the type of oil we get from the ground here. The federal government continual threats to oil companies about their future presence in their role in our countries power grid.
@@davidtran4760"Solar, wind farms is what California pushes, how is that working out" Not sure what you are on about here but I will bite...we aren't having rolling blackouts...we have been having power distribution shutdowns when we are at high risk of fires and it's not state wide but much more targeted in the cuts - it has nothing to do with going to renewable sources or a generation of power problem...it's a lack of proper investment in the the maintenance, upkeep, and replacement of distribution systems by our utilities... Also, given the deaths and injuries from nuclear and even the overall total dangers from it have been over played. We can literally count all the major instances on our 10 fingers globally...the direct and indirect deaths from other generation sources is far worse and the number of accidents/incidents are also very high... Irrational fear is part of the PR problem for nuclear while just plain being irrational is the problem for renewables...
go visit a Uranium Mine some time, interview folks in nearby communities about cancers among their families. And the Mothers should visit Fukushima Prefecture
While on a tour of Nicoya, Costa Rica, I noticed some areas of the city had air conditioning units while others did not. The guide noted that the dwellings with AC is where the Americans live, the others are where the locals live. Americans can't be bothered with a little heat, God forbid.
23:49 i don't think they have an understanding of how limited the total amount of radioactive waste we have ever produced from all our global plants...you could fit the entire worlds nuclear waste on a few football fields worth of space... The problem isn't the waste but our inability to work together on how to manage it. Nuclear waste is easier to manage rhan our current issues with carbon pollution and GHGs...the former is an engineer and management design problem, while the latter is a existential one... Also, we could also recycle the waste from nuclear power plants...we know how to do this...its very similar to how we get fissile materials for weapons. If we can do it, we could reuse the fuel almost infinitely since we actually only use up a small amount of the potential energy in the fuel/waste. Again not an easy thing to do but far easier than figuring out how to do somd geo engineering on the earth a few decades from now cause of all our collective inaction...
Coal ash is also hazardous with small amounts of heavy metals and radioactive elements mixed in. Wind Turbines and Solar Panels also take a lot of mining and energy for the materials and fabrication. There's no perfect solution, but nuclear has a small overall footprint on resources compared to everything else, besides hydro electric power.
Transition away from nuclear is the goal...but to satisfy these people worried about a low probability event they are willing to trade for a garuntee of a climate crisis getting worse instead of better. I find this attitude selfish and narrow minded especially in a context of a longer timeline.
Nuclear technology has come a long ways since the 70's. I understand the concern about Diablo being in an earthquake zone, however, the answer isn't simply no nuclear anywhere. Nuclear waste can be recycled lowering the lifespan of waste to a fraction of what it is without being recycled. France has a strong nuclear power economy and is doing well with it. There is no option without its tradeoffs. Solar requires batteries which require significantly more mining than just building them. Personally I'm waiting for space based solar. Now that will be something special. Talk about land conservation. Unfortunately until Starship is fully functional it isn't quite financially feasible.
@@pcaetano7527 Yeah, the military gets away with crap like that. It's a little more stringent when it come to industry use on the main land. We haven't had those kinds of issues within the states even with the outdated nuclear power plants we've had.
I worry that cooling the reactors with ocean water increases the global ocean temperature in a significant way that might be counter to the aim of reducing global temperatures. Can anyone point me towards some research?
Decommissioned Nuclear Power plants have to be maintained at public costs, go look at the other former nuclear power plants in CA they still require crews to work at the sites .
I have been surfing at the San onofre state beach for 6 years. Every once in a while I hike around the decommissioned plant - these guys move at a snails pace, even after storing all of the spent fuel they have been taking ages and will take a ton more time to demolish it. Once you walk around it yourself you realize how stupid it was to close it down, there is an insane amount of deep inground building and even train tracks that go into the facility. They built a MASSIVE sea wall, overall this area was never supposed to be demolished. The land will never be restored to its original
@@montytipton14we live in the era of trashing the platform that others built for us with no plan for an improved replacement. They are even going to decommission the cooling tunnels and let them silt in. It would take 20 years, if at all, to get new tunnels permitted on the CA coast. We’ve let our leaders and regulators kneecap our state.
13:53 - Sure, natural gas is the largest category but when dividing between fossil and non-fossil energy sources, California is *not* primarily powered by natural gas. Natural gas usage will only continue to decline as the state pushes hard for the 2035 goal to have a net-zero grid.
When PG&E told them the energy would not be needed it must have been a lie because CA had rolling blackouts. Still every year CA struggles with the electric grid. Fix that first CA.
An old friend got arrested in protest actions there back in the late 70s.... I'm not sure how I feel about it now....but the utility companies probably do feel more held to account if there's a few protesters, as she pointed out....
Held to account like Fukusimas disease factory? You were sold propaganda like " too cheap to meter " while its 15 times as expensive as anyting else including wind and solar.
I trust Californian standards to keep major incidents from happening at nuclear plants. I think nuclear should not be cast out so soon. Not until we have secured renewables as the dominate energy source. Nuclear would take over for fossil fuels on our transition to this goal.
Those canisters could fall into the ocean and never hurt a single animal. Look into how they are built. Ever wonder why those are not placed in a building? It's because they are strong enough to withstand an earthquake, a train hitting them at full speed, and a missile strike. Not kidding. Educate yourself on nuclear power. It can literally save our planet if we would let it. Mother's for peace are scared of 1950's nuclear technology. As we all should be. Diablo Canyon has received dozens of updates through the years.
@@kennethkaminski3438also the fact that it’s a not a subduction fault means tsunamis are very rare and not capable of the energy needed to put the reactor in ‘the splash zone’. And even if it was, it would still require every single back up system and contingency to not only fail, but be neglected for a long time before any crisis itself. Like the paradise wildfire, it’s not the electricity that was to blame, but the criminal negligence that PG&E had in maintaining a ~100 year old tower that was for decades slowly burning a hole through the massive metal fasteners themselves that weren’t supposed to be left to decay and ignored for so long.
The NIMBY crying about having to kiss her children goodbye. Wonder what she thinks, watching that clip now, with Diablo Canyon running for decades without an issue. Maybe she'd re-think her position. Nah, who am I kidding?
Define "last". The San Onofre station was shut down 11 years ago, but spent fuel is still there. Yucca Mountain storage has not been completed. How the fuel will be removed? I suppose one option is to spread it over battlefields of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Ukraine as a component of depleted uranium rounds. Hats in the air!
I have been surfing at the San onofre state beach for 6 years. Every once in a while I hike around the decommissioned plant - these guys move at a snails pace, even after storing all of the spent fuel they have been taking ages and will take a ton more time to demolish it. Once you walk around it yourself you realize how stupid it was to close it down, there is an insane amount of deep inground building and even train tracks that go into the facility. They built a MASSIVE sea wall, overall this area was never supposed to be demolished. The land will never be restored to its original
Plants are in Reasonably Decent shape ???? From a pro nuclear guy. Best he could come up with. Ha !!!! Tell a women she is reasonably decent looking and see what happens folks.
Fukushima and Diablo in earthquake areas. Nuclear power is cheap until it is not. A mishaps quickly sucks up profits. Fukushima still has 3 melted down reactors still too hot and too radioactive for today’s technology. Until we are more mature in nuclear energy or until a way to deal with accidents not worth the risk.
Even Chernobyl is still cooking in the ground, but that’s inland and they can keep bearing it with more concrete and steel. Fukushima and Diablo are right on the ocean right at the water table.
You know you cannot keep bearing them with concrete and steel. Chernobyl is rapidly approaching the water table, and that will connect with the rivers nearby.
Jack Lemon, I a pro am not the joking person. I am not this stoned one men into the the musician . I always am mature and intelligent and I really always have been.
Ultimately, we need to get off this planet. It's really the only way we can get it back to a prestine planet. Although, it will eventually be destroyed by some cosmic event.
Hopefully with more GRID BATTERY STORAGE used with renewables nuclear can be used less. Many plants are over 60 years old and are being band-Aided. Indian point another reactor on a fault line near NY city.
i understand you mean well however the safety standards were practically ignored at Chernobyl. Modern nuclear power plants don’t carry the same risks as Chernobyl period.
Yeah…like 30 station employees and firefighters? Over a hundred thousand died when that Chinese hydro plant collapsed. Renewable energy had killed way more people than nuclear has. It’s not even close. Nuclear is the safest and least destructive green energy source we have. It’s not ideal but the best solution until we can get true renewable energy to where it needs to be. We need to make decisions for the next generations future based on facts rather than a 70’s hyped movie or someone’s ego or false narrative.
@@pcaetano7527 That's the best part about Fukushima. It survived a 9.0 earthquake, and still even when the tsunami cause it to melt down no one was killed. Also, the Japanese have learned from this mistake, made the necessary changes to the emergency backup systems, and is getting ready to bring the plant back online.
How many people die accidentally from electrocution, building houses, car wrecks, etc? Should we stop using electricity all together because far more people die every year from it than all of the people who have died from nuclear power plant malfunctions.
Horrible pro bias nuclear interests. Of course it is on stolen land because America. There is no Moms for Nuclear in Japan or Russia for sure. Beds Are Burning by Midnight Oil sums this crap up real well. Of course they Re Steal the land ..... PG&E is a criminal outfit anyways. They tried to sell it after they burned up all that land up. Pay up PG&E. Period
The only part of your statement that is close to being correct is affordability. Yes, it's very expensive. It's also producing zero carbon energy at 92% efficiency 24 hours a day since the 80's with zero incidents releasing radiation to the environment. I didn't think people understand that one of the reasons that land is so beautiful is because that power plant is there. Efficiency of wind and solar sits at a pathetic 37% and 23% respectively. Please educate yourself on nuclear power. Look up the UA-cam channel Kyle Hill. He has a great series of science based videos of the benefits of nuclear power.
So why does France have the lowest electric rates in Europe, and the least CO² emissions if nuclear is so expensive? If reliability and dispatchability is taken into count nuclear is the lowest cost source of power.
Compared to what? Wind and solar do allot more environmental damage including thousands of years lasting toxic waste and kill more people than nuclear. So what do you suggest, petal powered generators? Even that would kill allot more people than nuclear with the out of shape dieing from heart attacks. There is no free lunch out there. What is needed is rationale comparisons and figure out the best pathway to a better future.
@@rossr6616 Wind and solar were given massive subsidies to get these systems somewhat viable. Lots of experts have pointed out that if the same developmental subsidies were given to nuclear there would be no discussions by our current time about climate change.
![Can We Trust Nuclear Power Again After Chernobyl? [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J03aUZR2eBY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Can We Trust Nuclear Power Again After Chernobyl? [4K]](/img/tr.png)
We need Diablo Canyon to operate for another 20 years, not just 5. It is a well designed, operated and maintained nuclear power plant. It is perhaps the most seismically studied and robust structure on the planet. Keep Diablo running!
I'd vote for a nuclear power facility to get built in the Bay Area if it were possible. "M-MUH SIESMIC ACTIVITY!" some folks might screech. This is absurd. We can build nuclear energy facilties to handle a 10.0 Richter scale earthquake. I'm tired of the excuses.
Use solar, wind, tide, hydroelectric, geothermal (the Geysers in Sanoma, for example) energies, and invest in battery techs (thermal, or chemistries possibly other than lithium) but also invest in nuclear energy. It's a no brainer.
I'm not only YIMBY. I'm willing to live in a nuclear energy facility for the rest of my long and healthy life. I'm done with the absurdity. Build nuclear energy now or continue suffering consequences like global warming, deteriorating our global and local ecology, and just generally living with a worse, global well-being than we could have. I know we dealt with a lot of drama during the Cold War from the 50s to present day (the war ended, but the people alive from that time still do policy similar to the cold war era), but I really wish Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace model had triumphed more over what evolved into the Atoms for War model that the MIC adopted for incredible profit (trillions of dollars over the decades). We could be living in a much better world by now.
Solar is safer......and you have no dump to take the waste to. How about your neighborhood?
@@dawnanewday9671 no dump?
What do you do with 2 million solar panels? Nuclear waste is safely stored in concrete canisters. Then, either bury it or recycle it. No big deal
@dawnanewday9671 solar has a lot issues on non renewable materials and non recyclable materials from the panels themselves.
Sustainability needs to be full circle.
@@wavesnbikes Nukes aren't sustainable long term.......for ever.
We never should have shut down San Onofre. We're going in the wrong direction. We need more nuclear clean green energy, not less!
Imagine spending your entire life trying to shut down the literal cleanest and safest form of electricity. Glad they're not going to succeed!
Imagine trying to self-correct after spending your whole life trying to shut down the cleanest and safest form of electricity.
Sunk cost fallacy. They’ve spent too much time regarding the issue. They won’t change their minds at all.
“Locally” Clean
@@rossr6616 What do you mean, Ross?
Fukushima enters the chat
Nuclear power should not be decommissioned until after all fossil fuel power is, it's insane to keep fossil fuel power.
I agree, and I grew up 10 miles from Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, and my mom still lives there
Mothers against clean power!
why do you using the term "fossil fuel?" do you believe you are on a spinning ball with finite resources?
I appreciate this is more balanced coverage of Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Great to include Kristin and Heather playing with their children as a rebuttal to the nonsensical Linda Seeley claim that with nuclear power you can kiss your kids goodbye. Fearmongering from the antis.
Idk, I got the feeling the Mothers for Nuclear strike me as the “our husbands make 7 figures working there, so don’t threaten our lifestyle” types.
She gives me single raise mom...
@@stephansaunders386 they are single mothers who work at the plant themselves
Thank you for sharing all of these various perspectives
Nuclear is very safe, it does not burn any fuel, the amount of nuclear waste is tiny just coolant and a few rods can all fit in a metal shipping crate for decades of usage. The risk is a tsunami like in Japan but there are plenty of ways to ensure what happened in Japan does not repeat by having plenty of backup generators at higher elevation, alternative water sources and break water walls, not a huge amount of money and even in Japan how many people died? 1 person. Even the worst nuclear disaster at Chernobyl only 30 people died. But how many people die each year from air pollution? MILLIONS, and how many from nuclear disasters? 0. Wake up people enough with the old world fear of nuclear it IS THE FUTURE. It is safe, 0 air pollution. What you see coming out of nuclear plants is just hot steam from the boiled water geeez.
Fun fact about Fukushima. The backup generators were placed in the basement of a building that quickly flooded. That never would've been approved in the US. If they would've simply been put at ground level, they could've switched out the wet filters, checked the batteries, and poof! We would never have known about it, because the problem would've lasted a half hour tops.
During Chernobyl, Soviets seeded clouds to force the fallout to drop in Belarus to prevent Scandinavian countries being hit; this resulted in thousands of Child Cancers, Leukemias and Belarus had to build many new Childrens Cancer Hospitals; I met one of these young women who survived so far, in 2010 or so, but related all the misery and death at the Hospitals.
True story.
Insidious nature of Nuclear fuel chain means effects are often delayed and this hidden and not prioritized.
If Chernobyl had been a coal plant instead, same size, same duration, it would have killed between 100,000 and 200,000 people. But not by accident. Coal kills people on purpose all the time. Air pollution kills 1/6th of all people who die.
Very good. Thanks for sharing…!
Multiple perspectives on a complex issue👍✌️
Nuclear power is what we need for the energy crisis we have in this country not less. Nuclear energy is safe and effective more so the in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's. Many don't realize that in almost every major american university sits a small nuclear reactor that is operated safely for research. Nuclear Energy especially since the 1990's has a proven safe track record. Now of course don't get that confused with Nuclear accidents of course.
We still need to Conserve and waste leas before investing heavily in new generation.
The Chumash should think bigger and look into buying it all and running the nuclear power plant and selling the power.
I've worked that plant...
It's the best run plant I've ever worked...
Nuclear☢️ any time of the day for me, and funny thing is the newer generation of adults are not opposing nuclear. We are opened to base load clean energy.
There's no time left to wait on the climate crisis. If taking nuclear offline means delaying taking fossil fuels offline it is better to take the fossil fuels offline first
What is going to be replacing fossil fuel and nuclear? Solar, wind farms is what California pushes, how is that working out.
Government aggressively pushing Electric vehicle adoption with tax breaks. Where do you think the charging station gets the electricity to charge the EV? They are charging it from the electricity it gets from the power grid. It could be solar, nuclear, hydro, import from surrounding states... Etc. And even with the different sources California gets its power from, it is still not enough. The state is still faced with rolling blackout.
The oil we get within California or the US can not be used within the country. Despite the United States ranking #1 as world's largest oil producer, we have to ship it out and trade with other countriea. Why, because oil companies refuse to update their refineries to be able to used the type of oil we get from the ground here. The federal government continual threats to oil companies about their future presence in their role in our countries power grid.
@@davidtran4760"Solar, wind farms is what California pushes, how is that working out"
Not sure what you are on about here but I will bite...we aren't having rolling blackouts...we have been having power distribution shutdowns when we are at high risk of fires and it's not state wide but much more targeted in the cuts - it has nothing to do with going to renewable sources or a generation of power problem...it's a lack of proper investment in the the maintenance, upkeep, and replacement of distribution systems by our utilities...
Also, given the deaths and injuries from nuclear and even the overall total dangers from it have been over played. We can literally count all the major instances on our 10 fingers globally...the direct and indirect deaths from other generation sources is far worse and the number of accidents/incidents are also very high...
Irrational fear is part of the PR problem for nuclear while just plain being irrational is the problem for renewables...
Could not agree more. These folks are soooo misguided. Their heart is in the right place though......
@@davidtran4760 which us why it's better to stick with nuclear, and build new power plants and reactors.
ok Chicken Little whatever you say
there are ways to reuse nuclear waste and reduce the lifespan and radiation of nuclear waster making the whole process safer
go visit a Uranium Mine some time, interview folks in nearby communities about cancers among their families.
And the Mothers should visit Fukushima Prefecture
How about reprocessing it? There is a reason Argonne exists.
Not until we've transitioned completely away fossil fuels, can we begin to focus on moving away from nuclear.
While on a tour of Nicoya, Costa Rica, I noticed some areas of the city had air conditioning units while others did not. The guide noted that the dwellings with AC is where the Americans live, the others are where the locals live. Americans can't be bothered with a little heat, God forbid.
Costa Ricans would die if it got below 40F.
23:49 i don't think they have an understanding of how limited the total amount of radioactive waste we have ever produced from all our global plants...you could fit the entire worlds nuclear waste on a few football fields worth of space...
The problem isn't the waste but our inability to work together on how to manage it. Nuclear waste is easier to manage rhan our current issues with carbon pollution and GHGs...the former is an engineer and management design problem, while the latter is a existential one...
Also, we could also recycle the waste from nuclear power plants...we know how to do this...its very similar to how we get fissile materials for weapons. If we can do it, we could reuse the fuel almost infinitely since we actually only use up a small amount of the potential energy in the fuel/waste.
Again not an easy thing to do but far easier than figuring out how to do somd geo engineering on the earth a few decades from now cause of all our collective inaction...
you never include Uranium Mining Tailings or the cancers amongst Native populations nearby.
Coal ash is also hazardous with small amounts of heavy metals and radioactive elements mixed in. Wind Turbines and Solar Panels also take a lot of mining and energy for the materials and fabrication. There's no perfect solution, but nuclear has a small overall footprint on resources compared to everything else, besides hydro electric power.
Transition away from nuclear is the goal...but to satisfy these people worried about a low probability event they are willing to trade for a garuntee of a climate crisis getting worse instead of better. I find this attitude selfish and narrow minded especially in a context of a longer timeline.
You must have nuclear if you're serious about climate change
Nuclear technology has come a long ways since the 70's. I understand the concern about Diablo being in an earthquake zone, however, the answer isn't simply no nuclear anywhere.
Nuclear waste can be recycled lowering the lifespan of waste to a fraction of what it is without being recycled.
France has a strong nuclear power economy and is doing well with it.
There is no option without its tradeoffs.
Solar requires batteries which require significantly more mining than just building them.
Personally I'm waiting for space based solar. Now that will be something special. Talk about land conservation. Unfortunately until Starship is fully functional it isn't quite financially feasible.
😂 tight like how the navy recycled nuclear waste off the coast of San Francisco, sea bed ... See Farallon Islands
@@pcaetano7527 Yeah, the military gets away with crap like that. It's a little more stringent when it come to industry use on the main land. We haven't had those kinds of issues within the states even with the outdated nuclear power plants we've had.
I worry that cooling the reactors with ocean water increases the global ocean temperature in a significant way that might be counter to the aim of reducing global temperatures. Can anyone point me towards some research?
Decommissioned Nuclear Power plants have to be maintained at public costs, go look at the other former nuclear power plants in CA they still require crews to work at the sites .
Better to recommission them, especially now.
Lookup all the legacy PGE sites like gashouse cove in SF. The cleanup for those is way worse than Diablo or San Onofre
I have been surfing at the San onofre state beach for 6 years. Every once in a while I hike around the decommissioned plant - these guys move at a snails pace, even after storing all of the spent fuel they have been taking ages and will take a ton more time to demolish it. Once you walk around it yourself you realize how stupid it was to close it down, there is an insane amount of deep inground building and even train tracks that go into the facility. They built a MASSIVE sea wall, overall this area was never supposed to be demolished.
The land will never be restored to its original
@@montytipton14we live in the era of trashing the platform that others built for us with no plan for an improved replacement. They are even going to decommission the cooling tunnels and let them silt in. It would take 20 years, if at all, to get new tunnels permitted on the CA coast. We’ve let our leaders and regulators kneecap our state.
Seems to me that there's room for two Generation IV type reactors to the Northwest of the existing reactors, just across the creek really.
Our Governor is an unrealistic embecil....
is Greg Abbot that bad?
13:53 - Sure, natural gas is the largest category but when dividing between fossil and non-fossil energy sources, California is *not* primarily powered by natural gas.
Natural gas usage will only continue to decline as the state pushes hard for the 2035 goal to have a net-zero grid.
@2:00 Same motion graphics guy that did Andy Shauf The Magician ?
2:40
When PG&E told them the energy would not be needed it must have been a lie because CA had rolling blackouts. Still every year CA struggles with the electric grid. Fix that first CA.
epic
Don't close this plant down! This is clean energy. Oh the irony. 😿
> Will the land be open to native weavers for the collecting of indigenous plants?
Some day...
I have surfed near the San Onofrey nuclear plant since the mid seventies. I don't glow in the dark, but one of my kids does though...
An old friend got arrested in protest actions there back in the late 70s.... I'm not sure how I feel about it now....but the utility companies probably do feel more held to account if there's a few protesters, as she pointed out....
Held to account like Fukusimas disease factory? You were sold propaganda like " too cheap to meter " while its 15 times as expensive as anyting else including wind and solar.
I trust Californian standards to keep major incidents from happening at nuclear plants. I think nuclear should not be cast out so soon. Not until we have secured renewables as the dominate energy source. Nuclear would take over for fossil fuels on our transition to this goal.
Did you guys copy Love Canal Mothers?
Damned if you do and damned if you don't, but those 142 (and growing) spent fuel canisters need to be moved to higher ground with all Godspeed.
Those canisters could fall into the ocean and never hurt a single animal. Look into how they are built. Ever wonder why those are not placed in a building? It's because they are strong enough to withstand an earthquake, a train hitting them at full speed, and a missile strike. Not kidding. Educate yourself on nuclear power. It can literally save our planet if we would let it. Mother's for peace are scared of 1950's nuclear technology. As we all should be. Diablo Canyon has received dozens of updates through the years.
@@craigbell1047 If anything, you are not helping the pro-nuclear agenda.
The plant itself sits on an 85 foot bluff, and the casks are ~300 feet above sea level. They’re perfectly fine where they are.
If their main concern is seismic, why not fight for earthquake resistant measures to be implemented instead
Diablo Canyon is the most seismically robust place on earth. It would be the safest place to be during an earthquake.
@@kennethkaminski3438also the fact that it’s a not a subduction fault means tsunamis are very rare and not capable of the energy needed to put the reactor in ‘the splash zone’. And even if it was, it would still require every single back up system and contingency to not only fail, but be neglected for a long time before any crisis itself. Like the paradise wildfire, it’s not the electricity that was to blame, but the criminal negligence that PG&E had in maintaining a ~100 year old tower that was for decades slowly burning a hole through the massive metal fasteners themselves that weren’t supposed to be left to decay and ignored for so long.
We have NO idea what we are doing to our home planet.
❤
The NIMBY crying about having to kiss her children goodbye. Wonder what she thinks, watching that clip now, with Diablo Canyon running for decades without an issue.
Maybe she'd re-think her position. Nah, who am I kidding?
I never ever want to hear another DemocRAT complain about rising energy prices when they themselves cut the safest and most efficient power source.
"Trade carbon for radioactive waste"? No... I agree. No nuclear...
Nuclear power has saved the lives of 1.8 million people according to James Hansen in Columbia University buy displacing coal
Define "last". The San Onofre station was shut down 11 years ago, but spent fuel is still there. Yucca Mountain storage has not been completed. How the fuel will be removed? I suppose one option is to spread it over battlefields of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Ukraine as a component of depleted uranium rounds. Hats in the air!
Reprocess all that fuel. Argonne exists for a reason.
I have been surfing at the San onofre state beach for 6 years. Every once in a while I hike around the decommissioned plant - these guys move at a snails pace, even after storing all of the spent fuel they have been taking ages and will take a ton more time to demolish it. Once you walk around it yourself you realize how stupid it was to close it down, there is an insane amount of deep inground building and even train tracks that go into the facility. They built a MASSIVE sea wall, overall this area was never supposed to be demolished.
The land will never be restored to its original
These women seem to have confused nuclear weapons with nuclear power generation.
Plants are in Reasonably Decent shape ???? From a pro nuclear guy. Best he could come up with. Ha !!!! Tell a women she is reasonably decent looking and see what happens folks.
None of the "Native Americans" interviewed look "native".
Racist's don't get to decide who is Indian.
Fukushima and Diablo in earthquake areas. Nuclear power is cheap until it is not. A mishaps quickly sucks up profits. Fukushima still has 3 melted down reactors still too hot and too radioactive for today’s technology. Until we are more mature in nuclear energy or until a way to deal with accidents not worth the risk.
Even Chernobyl is still cooking in the ground, but that’s inland and they can keep bearing it with more concrete and steel. Fukushima and Diablo are right on the ocean right at the water table.
You know you cannot keep bearing them with concrete and steel. Chernobyl is rapidly approaching the water table, and that will connect with the rivers nearby.
The Hanford site in Washington is on the Columbia river that is really scary as a superfund that’s out of funds
the spent fuel is stored on sight, at sea level, in a state known for massive fault lines and waiting for the "big One" earth quake. tsunami, anyone?
Jack Lemon, I a pro am not the joking person. I am not this stoned one men into the the musician . I always am mature and intelligent and I really always have been.
Got no reason to believe anything you have to say is true...
That haircut you got tells me all I need to know....
Ultimately, we need to get off this planet. It's really the only way we can get it back to a prestine planet. Although, it will eventually be destroyed by some cosmic event.
_Elon Musk_
Another "Karen" outbreak.
Battery storage is the Holy Grail of supply/demand
that is accurate because grid scale storage and the holy grail are fables 😂
Hopefully with more GRID BATTERY STORAGE used with renewables nuclear can be used less. Many plants are over 60 years old and are being band-Aided. Indian point another reactor on a fault line near NY city.
Tick Tock
Here’s the thing you started these plants ! You have them there for ever and can not ever get rid of there pollution!
They should’ve attempted to close the nuclear plant by advocating for more renewables and storage of excess energy
“They” did, have, and are doing so.
That’s why CA has the policies in place already.
So many people died in Chernobyl, we can't make the same mistake again. NO to NUCLEAR
i understand you mean well however the safety standards were practically ignored at Chernobyl. Modern nuclear power plants don’t carry the same risks as Chernobyl period.
Safety standards 😂 look at Fukushima
Yeah…like 30 station employees and firefighters? Over a hundred thousand died when that Chinese hydro plant collapsed. Renewable energy had killed way more people than nuclear has. It’s not even close. Nuclear is the safest and least destructive green energy source we have. It’s not ideal but the best solution until we can get true renewable energy to where it needs to be. We need to make decisions for the next generations future based on facts rather than a 70’s hyped movie or someone’s ego or false narrative.
@@pcaetano7527 That's the best part about Fukushima. It survived a 9.0 earthquake, and still even when the tsunami cause it to melt down no one was killed. Also, the Japanese have learned from this mistake, made the necessary changes to the emergency backup systems, and is getting ready to bring the plant back online.
How many people die accidentally from electrocution, building houses, car wrecks, etc? Should we stop using electricity all together because far more people die every year from it than all of the people who have died from nuclear power plant malfunctions.
Horrible pro bias nuclear interests. Of course it is on stolen land because America. There is no Moms for Nuclear in Japan or Russia for sure. Beds Are Burning by Midnight Oil sums this crap up real well. Of course they Re Steal the land ..... PG&E is a criminal outfit anyways. They tried to sell it after they burned up all that land up. Pay up PG&E. Period
There actually are mother's for nuclear in Japan.
It’s the future better and cleaner for the earth
A big thank you to Mothers for Peace. Nuclear power is not safe, not clean, and not affordable.
The only part of your statement that is close to being correct is affordability. Yes, it's very expensive. It's also producing zero carbon energy at 92% efficiency 24 hours a day since the 80's with zero incidents releasing radiation to the environment. I didn't think people understand that one of the reasons that land is so beautiful is because that power plant is there. Efficiency of wind and solar sits at a pathetic 37% and 23% respectively. Please educate yourself on nuclear power. Look up the UA-cam channel Kyle Hill. He has a great series of science based videos of the benefits of nuclear power.
So why does France have the lowest electric rates in Europe, and the least CO² emissions if nuclear is so expensive? If reliability and dispatchability is taken into count nuclear is the lowest cost source of power.
@@stanleytolle416federal subsidies, aka Socialismo
Compared to what? Wind and solar do allot more environmental damage including thousands of years lasting toxic waste and kill more people than nuclear. So what do you suggest, petal powered generators? Even that would kill allot more people than nuclear with the out of shape dieing from heart attacks. There is no free lunch out there. What is needed is rationale comparisons and figure out the best pathway to a better future.
@@rossr6616 Wind and solar were given massive subsidies to get these systems somewhat viable. Lots of experts have pointed out that if the same developmental subsidies were given to nuclear there would be no discussions by our current time about climate change.
Tick Tock...
WAY Overdue for Massive Earthquake
Are you rooting for mass destruction?
@@brendanpittman8776, yeah, it's like praying...
It's either it does happen or doesn't...
I don't have the ability to change what is inevitable...