Geothermal Isn't Expensive: The Reservoir Always Has the Final Say Somewhere beneath a volcanic ridge, a drill bit is turning through rock that has not moved in two million years. It costs money every second it turns. And nobody on the surface — not the engineer, not the financier, not the minister who announced the megawatts — knows yet whether that well will produce steam or silence. That single moment explains almost everything people get wrong about geothermal energy. Geothermal is routinely described as expensive, slow, capital-hungry and haunted by drilling risk. Investors are reminded that tens of millions can disappear underground before a single megawatt reaches a grid. All of that is true. But it is not the whole truth. The uncomfortable question the industry keeps avoiding is this: is geothermal expensive, or is the way we develop geothermal making it expensive? Those are two completely different problems. One is geology. The other is us. Why Geothermal Refuses to Be...
.jpg)
PG&E, a Californian utility company, had submitted an application to renew the operating licenses for its pressurized water reactors at the Diablo Canyon plant in 2009. However, in 2018, the company withdrew the application after the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a joint proposal from the company together with labor and leading environmental organizations to close the plant at the end of its current licenses. The proposed closure date was set for 2024 for Unit 1 and 2025 for Unit 2, as it was believed that the plant's output would no longer be required as California focused on an energy policy centered on efficiency, renewables and storage.
But, grid reliability issues have prompted a rethink on the plant's early closure. On October 31st, last year, PG&E formally asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to resume its review of the license renewal application for the Diablo Canyon plant. The request was made after the state of California passed legislation that would enable the plant to continue operating until 2030. Senate Bill 846, which was signed on September 2nd, allows the units to operate for up to five years beyond 2025 to act as a bridging technology to ensure a reliable energy system and reduce greenhouse gas emissions until additional renewable and zero-carbon energy sources come online. The bill also includes a $1.4 billion loan to PG&E.
PG&E asked the NRC to resume its review of the license renewal application "as it existed" when the review ceased in 2016, "including all associated correspondence and commitments." The utility also stated that it would "develop and submit an amendment" to the previously withdrawn license renewal application that identifies changes to the current licensing basis that materially affect the contents of the withdrawn application.
Alternatively, PG&E requested an exemption from 10 CFR 2.109(b), which provides that if a nuclear power plant license files a sufficient license renewal application "at least 5 years before the expiration of the existing license, the existing license will not be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally determined". Specifically, the company requested timely renewal protection under 10 CFR 2.109(b) if it submitted a new license renewal application for Diablo Canyon by December 31st, 2023.
In a January 24th letter, the NRC told PG&E that "based on NRC regulations, NRC's Principles of Good Regulation, the lack of sufficient information to support your request that the staff resume its review of the withdrawn application, and the lack of relevant precedent to support that request, the NRC staff will not initiate or resume the review of the withdrawn DCPP application."
The NRC added that it has not made a determination on PG&E's request for an exemption from 10 CFR 2.109(b). "The NRC staff is evaluating that exemption request and expects to provide a response in March 2023," it said.
In summary, PG&E's request to renew the operating licenses for its pressurized water reactors at the Diablo Canyon plant has been denied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The company's request for an exemption is still under review and a response is expected in March 2023.
source:(worldnuclearnews)
#Powerplantlicencing #Regulations #USA #NRC
Comments
Post a Comment