Front Page  »  

Diablo Canyon boosts local economy by nearly $1 billion, PG&E says

October 17, 2013

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power PlantBy JOSH FRIEDMAN

The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant contributes approximately $920 million annually to the economies of San Luis Obispo and northern Santa Barbara Counties, according to a report commissioned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

PG&E submitted the report, authored by the Nuclear Energy Institute and Cal Poly’s Orfalea College of Business, to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Tuesday. The county is considering the impact that a closure of Diablo Canyon would have on the local economy.

Supervisor Adam Hill, whose district includes Diablo Canyon, said it is inevitable that the power plant will close at some point in the future.

“There is an inevitable transition in our economy at some point with the closing of Diablo Canyon, whenever that occurs,” Hill said. “But, the only way that you can actually plan for it is basically to continue to strengthen your economy now.”

Diablo Canyon is licensed through 2025, but it must gain approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate the plant beyond then. PG&E is seeking a 20-year extension to its license.

With the permanent closure of the San Onofre plant earlier this year, Diablo Canyon is the only operating nuclear power plant in California.

The Nuclear Energy Institute and Cal Poly report states that Diablo Canyon generates 22 percent of the electricity that PG&E supplies across the state.

The plant also generates $25.4 million in tax revenue for local government agencies, $6.7 million of which goes to the county general fund. $9.2 million of Diablo Canyon’s taxes go to the San Luis Coastal Unified School District, accounting for about 12 percent of the district’s budget.

Diablo Canyon is the largest private employer in the county. The plant employs 1,543 employees statewide, 1,483 of whom live in San Luis Obispo County.

 


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The nuclear industry and especially the CA Utilities have been making record profits while ratepayers are now paying some of the highest energy rates in the USA, why because the CPUC allows the Utilities to transfer record earning to their shareholders!


Wake up Californians, Google what the areas of CA that the CPUC does not control pay for energy and then ask Gov. Brown why he enables this ratepayer rip off!


1

The nuclear Industry is now posting millions of dollars worth of PR Ads in an effort to save their market share of the energy pie!


Using San Onofre as an example:

BADLY Designed Steam Generators were just the tip of SCE’s Nuclear Debacle

http://www.energybiz.com/article/13/10/containing-edison-and-mitsubishi-heavy-nuclear-energy-dispute-proves-problematic#comment-13679


Many people could not attend the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) meeting because of the location and/or time, that is why the CPUC allows interested ratepayers to submit written comments by mail and/or the internet!


The potential impact of the CPUC ruling could be between anywhere between many hundreds of millions and many Billion dollars depending upon what the CPUC decides as “reasonable” and if they pick a low amount I believe the case will be appealed to the California courts, (where the CPUC is not in control) because of the huge amount of money involved!


Here are some numbers (rounded off) to ponder:


… Replacement Steam generator proj. $750 million


… New High Pressure Turbines and other equip. $100 million


… Short fall in Est. decommissioning costs $750 million


… Ratepayers paid $64 Million per month for 20 months of NO energy = $1.3 Billion


… and there are many other charges…


+

More on High Burnup fuel, which is used in many NPP’s.

http://www.energybiz.com/article/13/10/containing-edison-and-mitsubishi-heavy-nuclear-energy-dispute-proves-problematic#comment-13681


In a statement about high burnup fuel, Marvin Resnifoff says it is “between 2 and 158 times more radioactive”


http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/report/2010/5/nuclear/GP_REACTOR_ FUEL_REPORT_MAY2010.pdf


Does the NRC agree with this statement, if not how radioactive would the NRC say it is?


I wonder how many ratepayers even know that high burnup fuel is being used in the NPP’s near them?


-1

Yea, but the hidden cost to tax payers and the Federal debt and deficit in the form of Department of Defense, Department of Energy and other Federal agencies and programs to sustain a “safe and insane” way of managing nuclear weapons and energy far exceeds $1B USD…


BTW, the Fiat USD currency is tied to oil anyhow, which is what drives everything.


This is political and perhaps nuclear energy production should be nationalized coupled with the policy that its mandated primary purpose is to for energy needs in the production of sustainable energy. It’s a simple model and the technology exists.


Nuclear energy production should not be in the hands of a private entity. Transition existing DOD, DOE, existing budgets to facilitate existing infrastructure and resources (military bases & personel) for this mission. Give this project to the Army Corp of Engineers…they’ll get it done by mission and mandate…..


I believe the focus of discussion should be on a renewable and sustainable energy policy….not a “leave a mess and a ticking time bomb for the future and next generation policy so I can live fat & happy today”.


-1

The Govt can hardly manage what it does now,the only thing it seems to do well is shaft the taxpayer,I wouldn’t give our electricity to the govt to create or manage anymore than it does already it does. I don’t have a 100% faith in the NRC or any of the other Nuk watch dogs but they seem to have kept a pretty good eye on these power plants.


0

So it looks like you people would see the plant close then,kindly list your addresses so that your electric can be turned off.


The tree huggers want to dismantle the Hydroelectric dams,others want ot shut down the nukes,the nutballs heer in Morro bay want this plant gone,what do you think we are going to use or electric,those Mickey Mouse glass plants in Cal valley did nothing but ruin that part of the country and don’t produce enough juice to run Fresno County.

What do you people want


0

Don’t freak out. We’ll do fine without it. Most people waste a lot of energy anyway. We can be more efficient if need be.


We mustn’t let ourselves be brainwashed into believing that we need Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant for our survival or happiness. We are better than that.


Nuclear Plants may have the potential to be built and run safely, but it’s hard to trust that PG&E is capable of either, as they have a history of putting profits ahead of the needs and safety of customers.


PG&E’s attempt to do sonic blasting in the ocean and willingness to kill thousands of marine mammals is just one example of why people don’t trust PG&E to do a good job in protecting the environment or people.


Nothing lasts forever and Diablo Canyon had a pretty good run. We can live without it. Better to shut it down before it fails, doncha think?


-1

There’s a reason the Price-Anderson act exists. These old plants are uninsurable for the risk they pose. A meltdown would bankrupt everyone involved. As a land owner, who do I get restitution from when my house is covered is radiation? According to Price-Anderson, it’d be you, the taxpayer.


-1

Ask the people in Fukushima, Japan, how they feel about the economic boost they were getting from their nuclear power plant…


-1

ok, 920Million benefiting our counties? How do they figure that huge amount if only 25.4million is being accounted for here. Our schools should be rich! Where is the other 894.6 million? And how is that benefiting our counties?


-1

I suspect the $920 million is the total amount spent on wages, salaries, contract work, local purchases of materials, etc. — & including the $25.4M in taxes. They are assuming that most of that money is spent locally by those receiving it — minus the taxes they pay.


1

Adam Hill fails to explain his definition of “at some point in the future.” Let’s say 250,000 years for the half-life of the spent fuel stored on-site and the glowing PG&E job opportunities to manage their HAZMAT until “at some point in the future.” I think that is what he meant.


In a perfect world this is the best and cleanest power for us and to heck with our successors, right? Unless there is a safe working use for this spent fuel, how do we accept with any other justification? The nuke money will be far less lived, let’s say a fraction of 1 / 249,950 years + “at some point in the future”.


-1

Is this the same PG&E that said their gas pipeline was safe?


-1

Now, I am all for nuclear energy, but really – how much did Fukashima contribute to its surrounding economies?


Unfortunately, we’re so anti-nuke in this country, most of our plants are far too old and have been running too long. I’d love to see some much newer technologically advanced plants; perhaps have a 20-year or 40-year life cycle. And find a way to use old ICBM’s to fire off the spent fuel into the sun (or hit Venus or Mercury).


-1

Launching the spent fuel into space would be both expensive ($50 to $400 million per payload) and dangerous. Also an ICBM can’t get out of low earth orbit.


1

It would require re-tooling, but we have enough parts from ICBMs to easily convert into space-bound launches. The expense is a non-issue when compared to the potential damage (short and long-term) that storing spent rods encounters.


I didn’t say it would be cheap, but we need to start thinking outside the box on this; solar and wind will not be anywhere near enough, unless a massive shift OFF and away from energy takes place (and there are those pushing for that).


If it was an easy solution, it would have been done years ago, I’m sure.


-1

How would you propose they deal with a launch mishap?


1

That is the main issue of why we USED to have a “no nukes in space” policy. There have been MANY nukes in space since that policy was made obsolete. We could launch from the middle of the Pacific on those mobile launch platforms to minimize potential damage.


US Launches are pretty safe, and with massive focus on removing spent fuel rods, combined with a portion of the product’s profit going to removal, it may not even be a money-pit. Heck, even if it is, what would you rather we lose money on – wind and solar or removing radiation hazards from the planet?


Until Mr. Fusion materializes, we may be forced into making tough choices should we wish to continue with the freedom and luxury that energy provides.


-1
1 2