Cost to Replace California Nuclear Plant With Solar: $15 Billion

Actual costs could be lower because PG&E expects to compensate for lower demand and replace only part of the production, but the multibillion-dollar estimate underscores the costs that utilities and consumers face across the U.S.as power generated by cheaper plants overwhelms nuclear replacement costs.

“California’s energy landscape is changing dramatically with energy efficiency, renewables and storage being central to the state’s energy policy”, PG&E Corp, Chairman, CEO and President Tony Earley said in a statement.

The nuclear industry pointed out that the plant now provides a quarter of the state’s greenhouse gas-free electricity and said the agreement does not reflect a national trend.

Californian utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) on Tuesday announced plans to replace its nuclear generation with energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage by 2025.

Economics have achieved what environmentalists have sought for years: the shutdown of California’s nuclear power plants. “Nuclear power versus fossil fuels is a false choice based on yesterday’s options”. Under a so-called Plan B scheme envisioned by the group, the loss of nuclear power from Diablo Canyon would be offset by advances in renewable energy as well as efficiency efforts.

The proposal is contingent on a number of regulatory actions, including approvals from the California Public Utilities Commission. Thats wrong, of course, ” said Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the environmental groups that negotiated the accord with PG&E.

Diablo Canyon became California’s only operating nuclear power plant three years ago after Edison International shut its San Onofre plant north of San Diego after a leak.

The utility will save more money closing Diablo Canyon than running it through 2044 as planned, Earley said.

In a statement, Shellenberger’s group, Environmental Progress, said the plan is destined to “fail” because the notion that the plant can be replaced without increasing greenhouse gas emissions is “a big lie”.

“It sets a date for the certain end of nuclear power in California and assures replacement with clean, safe, cost-competitive, renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage”. The plant supplies 9 percent of the state’s power.

PG&E didn’t immediately respond to phone calls seeking comment. “We came to this agreement with some different perspectives-and we continue to have some different perspectives-but the important thing is that we ultimately got to a shared point of view about the most appropriate and responsible path forward with respect to Diablo Canyon and how best to support the state’s energy vision”.

“This is something we want to be ready when the time comes we have something else in place”, says Riener. “The agreement provides funding necessary to ease the transition to a clean energy economy”. In Illinois, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and other groups have formed an unlikely alliance with Exelon, the largest owner of nuclear plants in the U.S., to reverse a deal to close two nuclear plants in the next two years, the Journal reports.