Diablo Closure, the closure will result in more natural gas
burning...period. The fact is that any current reduction in carbon
emissions due to the expansion of non-dispatchable renewables (already
partially offset by the gas backup required) will be obliterated by the
loss of Diablo's contribution to the non-emitting portion of the power
mix. The only viable replacement of Diablo's production will be
natural-gas by default, in addition to the gas backup required for the
renewables. This was the case with San Onofre, and it is the case in
Germany (except that there the default option is coal)
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlo
Subject: The CPUC Told the Truth in 2005 - If DCPP Closed, Lots More
Natural Gas would be burned
All:
Here are some excerpts from the CPUC's 2005 Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed replacement of the Diablo
Canyon steam generators. The CPUC Application number was A.04-01-009.
PG&E did a tremendous job replacing the steam generators with
replacements during only slightly extended refueling outages in 2008 and
2009 using more modern (and durable) alloys than were available
in the early 1970s when the original steam generators . CGNP referenced
this information in their written filings in A.16-08-006. (The
achievements had been removed from the publicly-accessible PG&E website.
Thus, detailed trade publication information was used
instead in CGNP's filings.)
Here is the URL for Volume 1 of the FEIR:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environ
I've attached some excerpts from the FEIR that make the case clearly
if DCPP is closed, more natural gas burning is the likely result. DCPP's
replacement cannot be solar. DCPP's replacement cannot be wind.
CGNP made similar oral and written arguments during the over two
years that PG&E's Application A.16-08-006 was pending from 2016-2018. I
continue to appreciate Dr. Marinak's significant contributions to CGNP's
written and oral testimony.
CGNP is making similar written and oral arguments in the current CPUC
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) proceeding R.16-02-007.
The CPUC and PG&E are making identical responses to:
1. CGNP's arguments in both CPUC proceedings.
2. CPUC's (and PG&E's) statements in the 2004 Proceeding.
They are IGNORING those arguments and statements.
Here is the URL for Volume 2 of the FEIR:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environ
What is notable about Volume 2 is Michael Marty Marinak, Ph.D. is the
first commenter in the first set. His 2004 comments remain on-point 14
years later. I've attached them with the Commission's response.
I believe the attached clear statements merit wide dissemination.
Gene Nelson, Ph.D. CGNP Legal Assistant
Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP)
1375 East Grand Ave Ste 103 #523
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420-2421
(805) 363 - 4697 cell
Government@CGNP.org email
http://CGNP.org website
Natural Gas would be burned
All:
Here are some excerpts from the CPUC's 2005 Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed replacement of the Diablo
Canyon steam generators. The CPUC Application number was A.04-01-009.
PG&E did a tremendous job replacing the steam generators with
replacements during only slightly extended refueling outages in 2008 and
2009 using more modern (and durable) alloys than were available
in the early 1970s when the original steam generators . CGNP referenced
this information in their written filings in A.16-08-006. (The
achievements had been removed from the publicly-accessible PG&E website.
Thus, detailed trade publication information was used
instead in CGNP's filings.)
Here is the URL for Volume 1 of the FEIR:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environ
I've attached some excerpts from the FEIR that make the case clearly
if DCPP is closed, more natural gas burning is the likely result. DCPP's
replacement cannot be solar. DCPP's replacement cannot be wind.
CGNP made similar oral and written arguments during the over two
years that PG&E's Application A.16-08-006 was pending from 2016-2018. I
continue to appreciate Dr. Marinak's significant contributions to CGNP's
written and oral testimony.
CGNP is making similar written and oral arguments in the current CPUC
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) proceeding R.16-02-007.
The CPUC and PG&E are making identical responses to:
1. CGNP's arguments in both CPUC proceedings.
2. CPUC's (and PG&E's) statements in the 2004 Proceeding.
They are IGNORING those arguments and statements.
Here is the URL for Volume 2 of the FEIR:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environ
What is notable about Volume 2 is Michael Marty Marinak, Ph.D. is the
first commenter in the first set. His 2004 comments remain on-point 14
years later. I've attached them with the Commission's response.
I believe the attached clear statements merit wide dissemination.
Gene Nelson, Ph.D. CGNP Legal Assistant
Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP)
1375 East Grand Ave Ste 103 #523
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420-2421
(805) 363 - 4697 cell
Government@CGNP.org email
http://CGNP.org website
No comments:
Post a Comment