Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

California

flying_wahini

(8,044 posts)

1. Non Scientist answer- smaller reactors would also be at risk -earthquakes are so prevalent maybe it's the area.

Reply to quaint (Original post)

Sun Aug 25, 2024, 09:55 AM

Aug 2024

Solar sounds just as capable and is cleaner and cheaper in the long run.
I think the punchline was Diablo Canyon is getting more dangerous the longer it operates and California can’t shut it down till solar plants are ready and they aren’t there yet.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Earthquake risks and rising costs: The price of operating California's last nuclear plant [View all] quaint Aug 2024 OP

Non Scientist answer- smaller reactors would also be at risk -earthquakes are so prevalent maybe it's the area. flying_wahini Aug 2024 #1

"I've read" here and there, that nuclear is the best option for large-scale replacement of fossil fuels, quickly. quaint Aug 2024 #2

I've read/heard the same thing. Nuclear has to be part of the energy mix. Auggie Aug 2024 #5

We need both: Nuclear and Storage. CoopersDad Aug 2024 #3

Our experience extending the life of and decommissioning SONGS has brought Diablo extension forefront. quaint Aug 2024 #4

SONGS, 1968, is quite a bit older than DCPP, 1985 CoopersDad Aug 2024 #6

Thanks much. quaint Aug 2024 #7

The world is burning. How long are we going to pretend natural gas is harmless... hunter Aug 2024 #8