Anti-nuclear zealots are still fighting to cripple California’s grid
Zachary Faria
Video Embed
Nothing quite defines the present state of California more than a debate about whether keeping the lights on for residents is worth the money.
The Environmental Working Group is claiming that keeping the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open for another 20 years would cost up to $45 billion. The EWG, which wants to put an end to nuclear energy because it is “dirty, dangerous and obsolete,” claims that “it’s clearly a high-cost, no-reward and puzzling scenario for California, given its decades-long leadership on the environment.”
TRUTH IS THE FIRST CASUALTY OF LIBERAL MEDIA’S WAR ON DESANTIS
There is a lot to unpack there. For starters, a 2021 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University came to the conclusion that keeping Diablo Canyon open for 20 years would save up to $21 billion. Dare I say that an analysis from MIT and Stanford may be more reliable and unbiased than one from an anti-nuclear group?
Another claim from the EWG is that “California added enough renewables in the past year to match the power output of Diablo Canyon.” Even if that is true, it is pointless. California does not need to match the output of Diablo Canyon; it needs to exceed its current output from all energy sources, including nuclear, which provided roughly 10% of the state’s energy in 2021. Last year, California had to beg residents not to charge their electric vehicles to avoid straining the grid, even with Diablo Canyon running.
Now consider that California is demanding that residents use more electricity by forcing them to buy electric vehicles in the coming decade. We are talking about an increase of some 15.4 million electric vehicles in a state that is struggling to even keep up with some 600,000. California has hamstrung itself to the point that it imports more energy than any other state despite consistently ranking near the bottom in per-capita energy consumption. Simply put, California cannot afford to jettison nuclear energy, which is clean and far more efficient than “renewables.”
And if the $45 billion price tag is supposed to discourage officials, how about the over $95 billion budget (and counting) for the useless high-speed rail that is decades behind schedule and will likely never be finished? Even state Democratic legislators are acknowledging that California wastes billions of dollars on “the same problems.” Making sure residents have electricity seems like it should take priority over vanity infrastructure projects or proven failure homeless programs.
Listening to activists like those from the EWG is how California has put itself in energy purgatory in the first place. The twisted priorities of state Democrats have led to routine blackouts and energy grid failures. Flinching at the cost of $45 billion (if that is even correct, which MIT would dispute) for the best clean form of energy after California spent years crippling it would be yet another self-inflicted wound.