I'm reading the Chronicle today and come across an article about extending the life of Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The article quotes an environmental group stating that it will cost $6 billion to run the plant the additional 5 years approved.
Gee, I think, that's a lot of money. So I Google it and run across numerous articles saying it will cost $10 billion, or $20 billion or $45 billion to keep it running and unlike the Chronicle article explicitly state that these costs will be borne by the ratepayers (who else?). Not clear if all these estimates are covering the same time period, because PG&E is also asking for a 20 year extension. Then I see there's a joint MIT/Stanford study saving it will SAVE the rate payers $21 billion. Also see something that says PGE puts the operating costs at around $1 billion/year. All of these show up on the first Google page.
Reporting on the environmental impact of keeping the plant open is one thing, but why is it so hard to nail down the financial impact? Seems pretty simple to me. The plant produces 9% of California's electricity, so that's going to have to be reproduced from other sources if Diablo Canyon is shut down. So, is the marginal cost of keeping it going higher or lower than the cost of replacing its output. The MIT/Stanford study seems to imply the replacement cost is higher. The environmental group quote seems to only be considering the ongoing operating costs, without any replacement cost.
Point is, to paraphrase a movie quote, I'm now less informed than I was before I read the article. This doesn't give me much faith in the current state of journalism.
Gee, I think, that's a lot of money. So I Google it and run across numerous articles saying it will cost $10 billion, or $20 billion or $45 billion to keep it running and unlike the Chronicle article explicitly state that these costs will be borne by the ratepayers (who else?). Not clear if all these estimates are covering the same time period, because PG&E is also asking for a 20 year extension. Then I see there's a joint MIT/Stanford study saving it will SAVE the rate payers $21 billion. Also see something that says PGE puts the operating costs at around $1 billion/year. All of these show up on the first Google page.
Reporting on the environmental impact of keeping the plant open is one thing, but why is it so hard to nail down the financial impact? Seems pretty simple to me. The plant produces 9% of California's electricity, so that's going to have to be reproduced from other sources if Diablo Canyon is shut down. So, is the marginal cost of keeping it going higher or lower than the cost of replacing its output. The MIT/Stanford study seems to imply the replacement cost is higher. The environmental group quote seems to only be considering the ongoing operating costs, without any replacement cost.
Point is, to paraphrase a movie quote, I'm now less informed than I was before I read the article. This doesn't give me much faith in the current state of journalism.