| Independently Powered Energy News

By John Geesman “In the current energy agency planning processes, there does not appear to be an overt consideration of lengthy shutdowns for the nuclear units on reliability or other implications for customers.”--California Energy Commission, Nov. 20, 2008 One of the more remarkable developments in energy this past year is that, nearly 10 months after the cataclysmic chain of events in Japan, California has yet to develop a backup plan for what to do if its 4,440 MW of nuclear capacity goes into long-term shutdown--for whatever reason. The downside of this, er, bureaucratic oversight was made clear, perhaps inadvertently, by a recent report from California’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst (co-signed by Jerry Brown’s Director of Finance) analyzing the consequences of a proposed ballot initiative to close Diablo Canyon and San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station. The succinctly stated conclusions, largely drawn from what passes for conventional wisdom within the state’s energy agencies: -“(C)losing the two nuclear facilities would impede reliable access to electricity in the state. In particular, the loss of the SONGS plant would reduce the capacity to deliver electricity in the Los Angeles Basin area to below state and local standards for reliability.” -“As a result, the risk of rolling blackouts would be increased significantly in that area.” -“If rolling blackouts continued for several years, as new electricity plants and transmission lines were built, the resulting economic loss could be substantial, potentially in the tens of billions of dollars annually.” -“The increases in electricity rates under these circumstances could eventually be very significant and could affect state and local government revenues and costs.” An apocalyptic, excremental tornado. But it would be hard to pretend that the rapidly aging units at Diablo and SONGS, whose construction permits were originally issued between 1968 and 1973, don’t face an increasing actuarial risk of extended sabbatical if not permanent retirement. That’s just part of getting old. Add in the changing regulatory requirements as increased knowledge of earthquake and tsunami risk is applied to pre-existing design standards. It’s not unthinkable to envision problems before the end of the SONGS (2022) and Diablo (2024 and 2025) operating licenses, not to mention doubts about the likelihood of 20-year license extensions beyond that. As the Energy Commission reported in 2008, by then more than three dozen U.S. reactors had experienced year-plus outages and more than a dozen permanent shutdowns before the end of their operating licenses. “In many cases,” the CEC observed, “the shut-downs occurred unexpectedly.” Measured against a current operating base of 104 reactors, these aren’t very inspiring odds. Take, as one plausible scenario, the pre-Fukushima Daiichi experience at the 8,212 MW Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, the largest in the world. A magnitude 6.6 earthquake struck offshore on July 16, 2007, some 19 kilometers from the plant. The plant experienced ground motions significantly higher than its design basis, but suffered no significant damage to its safety-related components. Nevertheless, extensive investigation and re-evaluation of seismic design standards caused the entire plant to be shut down for 21 months and five of the seven reactors remain closed today. Repairs and makeup power costs so far exceed $12 billion. And while Diablo’s historical foibles have been well-chronicled and owner PG&E management decisions increasingly challenged by the major newspapers in its service territory, it is the long-term prospects for SONGS--or “San Daiichi Fukonofre” as some would have it--that may face the harshest risk assessment by regulators and corporate decision-makers. As described in the Energy Commission’s current draft Integrated Energy Policy Report: “The existing seismic network in Southern California has few monitoring stations near SONGS. Therefore, detailed studies similar to those that led to the discovery in 2008 of the Shoreline Fault near Diablo Canyon are not possible. Similarly, the existing global positioning system (GPS) network in Southern California has few stations near SONGS, and no ocean floor GPS monitoring stations are in the vicinity of the plant.” What are the ramifications of this information void? As Dr. William L. Ellsworth, U.S. Geological Survey senior research geophysicist and one of seismology’s pre-eminent experts, testified in July 2011: “I spoke to the people who run the Southern California Network at--both at USGS Pasadena and at Caltech--and they indicated that they have no plans at this time to add additional stations, there are no resources to do that. “I think that if we want to better characterize the tectonics there, there really is no solution other than making a commitment to long-term seismic studies. These cannot be done in a year or two, they will take a decade to really gather the information that’s going to be required.” A review several years ago by the California Coastal Commission, which will play a central role in any license extensions for Diablo or SONGS, concluded “there is credible reason to believe that the design basis earthquake approved by … (the) Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the licensing of SONGS 2 and 3 … may underestimate the seismic risk at the site.” Last December 15, the NRC adopted the long-awaited directive to its staff and licensees to re-evaluate seismic risks in the wake of the Fukushima experience. How Southern California Edison elects to respond remains unclear, but analysts will have a hard time forgetting the sorry fate of SONGS Unit 1. That reactor now sits abandoned in pieces, like an old car wreck, on some of the most valuable beachfront in the world. Unit 1 was shut down in 1992 with more than 15 years left on its 40-year license because Southern California Edison found $125 million in required plant modifications too expensive to justify. Could the same fate await Units 2 and 3? No one knows enough to definitively say no. As the CEC observed, more than three years ago: “The Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and California Independent System Operator should further evaluate the unique uncertainties of losing the electricity provided by Diablo Canyon and SONGS over an extended period, identify how resources might be acquired that have an energy supply capability beyond that used in normal market conditions, and modify the long-term planning and procurement process at the CPUC to ensure that these resources are acquired in a timely manner.” The fact that the state’s energy authorities have yet to devise a contingency plan to address the prospect of extended outages at the nukes probably would not surprise most Californians. According to last month’s survey by the Public Policy Institute of California: “Three in four Californians say that state government can be trusted to do what is right only some of the time or never. Two in three say the state is pretty much run by a few big interests and 57 percent say the state government wastes a lot of taxpayer money.” Still, a government intent on asking the electorate to raise taxes should covet credibility in its ability to perform core functions. Surely keeping the lights on qualifies as such. --John Geesman is a former member of the California Energy Commission Edited By:

No Result