San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace And The Environmental Defense Center Advocated To Shut Down The Plant Due To Seismic Risks And Significant Harm To Ocean Life
Over fierce objections from San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Senator John Laird, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), and others, the California Coastal Commission today voted to approve PG&E’s coastal development permit and federal consistency certification, allowing continued operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant through 2045.
Advocates pointed out that one of the plant’s reactors is embrittled, creating the risk of a major accident on the coast in the event of an earthquake. The plant also lacks safe long-term storage for nuclear waste, and uses an outdated cooling system that causes extensive and substantial harm to the marine environment.
“This is a deeply disappointing day for California’s coast,” said Linda Seeley, spokesperson for Mothers for Peace. “The Commission had a chance to put safety and marine life above corporate convenience — and it failed. PG&E’s cooling system destroys marine ecosystems every single day, and its seismic data are decades old. Approving this permit unnecessarily places the Central Coast at great risk.”
The vote follows a staff recommendation urging conditional concurrence with PG&E’s proposal, despite the plant’s major inconsistencies with Coastal Act, which requires protection of marine life. Commission staff concluded that PG&E’s once-through cooling system kills billions of marine organisms, resulting in the degradation of more than 14 square miles of nearshore waters annually – an area the size of the nearby city of San Luis Obispo.
Instead of addressing the ongoing destruction caused by the plant’s cooling system, PG&E proposed to offset marine damage by conserving thousands of acres of Diablo Canyon land. The Coastal Commission found that the plan – including easements, trails, and funding for access improvements — was inadequate to fully mitigate the significant harm to the ocean caused by the intake of ocean water and the heating of the marine environment near the plant.
Despite that determination, the Commission caved to PG&E and approved the project under the override provision of the Coastal Act, which allows a coastal-dependent industrial operation in the Coastal Zone if impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible and the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse impacts.
Importantly, PG&E’s plan defers almost half of the proposed conservation area.
“Today’s decision undermines the Coastal Act and the very purpose of the Commission,” said Linda Krop, Chief Counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, which represents Mothers for Peace. “The Commission itself admitted that PG&E’s mitigation fails to offset the destruction of marine life, and the state’s own energy data shows that Diablo Canyon is not necessary to meet our needs. Advances in renewable energy, transmission improvement, and storage can more than make up for energy produced by the nuclear power plant, without any of the adverse impacts.”
Along with Mothers for Peace and EDC, state Senator John Laird pointed out that approving twenty years of operation exceeds the authorization passed by the state legislature in 2022.
“The Commission’s vote to approve twenty more years of operation at this aging plant goes well beyond the legislature’s authorization allowing operations for, at most, five years,” said Jane Swanson, spokesperson for Mothers for Peace, referring to the California legislature’s passage of SB 846. “The Commission’s action was not based on any evidence of need beyond 2030. In fact, the Commission could have limited its approval to a five-year permit. To add insult to injury, the Commission is putting millions of Californians in jeopardy should an earthquake occur. Diablo Canyon sits in one of the most seismically active coastal zones in the state, surrounded by multiple intersecting faults that could rupture together in a large, complex earthquake.”
The Commission’s staff report dismisses this risk, relying on outdated single-fault models and PG&E’s own limited studies to claim the plant is safe. Independent experts, including geophysicist Dr. Mark Legg, warn that this flawed analysis ignores the potential for many faults rupturing simultaneously, producing far stronger ground shaking than the plant was designed to withstand.
Also Read
- What’s Open and Closed in Santa Barbara on MLK Day 2026
- Santa Barbara City Council Advances Rent Increase Moratorium Amid Heated Debate
- Highlights from Santa Barbara Zoo Lights
- La Cumbre Jr. High Band Director Marched in Rose Parade
- Santa Barbara Earns Spot as One of the Best Destinations to Travel in 2026
Power demand is increasing exponentially. Wind and solar are obsolete. Nuclear is the only solution, with much development just around the corner and coming sooner than you think.
You clearly know nothing about power generation technology. Wind and solar are the future, if you want a future.
Nuclear fission is hideously expensive, slow to come online, and generates waste that is deadly for millennia.
The “new technology” fission reactors touted by the oil industry are vaporware, part of the oiliecoalies to delay the phaseout of fossil fuels.
In addition to still producing dangerous wastes, the also pose a nuclear weapons proliferation danger.
While you’re right that wind and solar are the future, I’m tired of hearing about the danger of radioactive waste that lasts for 1000s of years. Radioactive material that lasts for 1000s of years is barely radioactive. Fast radioactive decay = dangerous. Slow radioactive decay = background radiation everywhere on Earth. Hirsoshima and Nagasaki returned to background radiation levels around 2015 and it was probably barely above it for the 14 years prior to that (the longest half-life isotope that’s short enough to be dangerous has a half-life of 14 years. After 56 years, it was down to 1/16. After 70s years it was down to 1/32. As long as you use an effective air filter, wear a suit to keep dust out of your hair and skin and don’t bring radioactive dust into your house, you could theoretically walk around outside 2 or 3 weeks after a nuclear detonation. The actual physics of nuclear energy is nothing like Mad Max like people apparently believe.
And the physics of radioactivity, especially for reactor waste, is nothing like what you believe. Sone daughter products are more dangerously radioactive than the initial waste.
I will agree that deploying new nuclear is too slow though. Thus maintaining existing nuclear plants longer than expected is a viable solution to avoid further increasing carbon emissions.
I personally think fusion research is interesting but ultimately a waste of time. If it is ever viable, it will have been made obsolete by cheap, advanced solar and battery storage.
Let’s hope so. Solar and wind are bound to be cheaper.
RUBY – the only thing obsolete is your way of thinking. Nuclear is far from efficient and a disaster can kill millions, whereas a wind turbine failure will only hurt anyone standing under it at the time and a solar panel failure will hurt absolutely no one.
Complete fabrication resulting from a lack of contact with reality. While LLMs are known for their hallucinations, they don’t hold a candle to yours.
Query:
Is any of this true?
“Power demand is increasing exponentially. Wind and solar are obsolete. Nuclear is the only solution, with much development just around the corner and coming sooner than you think.”
ChatGPT:
Short answer: no — taken as a whole, that statement is false and rhetorically loaded. Parts of it gesture at real issues, but almost every clause is misleading or wrong.
Let’s take it piece by piece.
1. “Power demand is increasing exponentially.”
Mostly false.
Global electricity demand is increasing, but not exponentially in the mathematical sense.
Historically it has grown roughly linearly or sub-exponentially, with periods of faster growth tied to industrialization, population growth, or electrification.
Recent increases are driven by data centers, EVs, heat pumps, and electrification of industry — but even optimistic projections are single-digit percent annual growth, not runaway exponential curves.
Calling it “exponential” is a classic rhetorical trick meant to imply inevitability and urgency beyond what the data supports.
2. “Wind and solar are obsolete.”
Flatly false.
Wind and solar are currently:
The cheapest new generation in most of the world
The fastest-growing sources of electricity
Being deployed at orders of magnitude higher rates than nuclear
“Obsolete” would mean technologically surpassed or no longer useful. In reality:
Costs continue to fall
Capacity factors improve
Integration techniques (storage, transmission, demand response) are improving
The real issue with wind and solar is variability, not obsolescence. Variability is a grid-engineering problem, not a proof of failure.
3. “Nuclear is the only solution.”
False dichotomy.
This frames the problem as if grids must choose one technology. That’s not how power systems work.
Real grids use portfolios:
Wind
Solar
Hydro
Nuclear
Fossil (declining, sometimes with CCS)
Storage (batteries, pumped hydro)
Demand management
Transmission
Nuclear can be part of a solution, especially for firm low-carbon power — but:
It is slow to deploy
Capital intensive
Politically and regulatorily complex
Not well suited to rapid demand spikes or modular scaling
There is no credible grid planner who thinks “nuclear only” is realistic.
4. “With much development just around the corner”
This has been said continuously since the 1950s.
Examples:
Fast breeder reactors
Thorium
Fusion
SMRs
Molten salt reactors
All are interesting, some are promising, but:
None have demonstrated rapid, cheap, scalable deployment
SMRs in particular are currently more expensive per MW than large reactors, not less
Fusion remains research, not energy policy
“Just around the corner” is a permanent claim, not a timeline.
5. “Coming sooner than you think.”
Pure persuasion, zero content.
This phrase contains no falsifiable claim. It’s designed to:
Encourage optimism without evidence
Defer scrutiny
Shut down comparison with existing solutions
If someone can’t give dates, costs, and deployment rates, this sentence means nothing.
What is true, if you strip away the hype?
A more accurate version would be:
Electricity demand is rising due to electrification and computing. Wind and solar dominate new capacity additions but create grid-integration challenges. Nuclear provides low-carbon firm power but faces cost and deployment barriers. Future energy systems will likely involve a mix of renewables, storage, transmission expansion, and possibly some new nuclear — but no single technology is sufficient.
That version lacks the emotional punch — which is why it’s not what you read.
Why this kind of claim shows up
This framing is common in:
Pro-nuclear advocacy spaces
Anti-renewables political rhetoric
“Tech salvation” narratives that prefer centralized, capital-intensive solutions
It often reflects ideological preference, not systems engineering.
Bottom line
❌ “Exponential demand” — misleading
❌ “Wind and solar obsolete” — false
❌ “Nuclear only solution” — false
❌ “Just around the corner” — historically untrue
❌ “Sooner than you think” — content-free
CoPilot:
Omg. Have a great holiday season Marcel.
LOL. Wind and solar are obsolete? Only if you allow the current administration to keep control, as they have basically canceled wind contracts. DOH. Solar and wind are the future – but they can exist hand in hand with nuclear, in places where solar and wind are not practical.
I don’t really trust the NRC though, and there is a right to be concerned about safety of Diablo. And what do you do with the waste? Nobody wants it.
I remember being at Cal Poly when Jackson Browne got arrested in 1981 during the protest of Diablo Canyon.
Seems like a bad idea, but hey – it looks like the majority of commissioners caved in for a big land grab and the vote wasn’t even close. Worth noting that the majority of the commission is Democratic politically, so don’t blame “Trumpers” or “MAGAT’s”. Save it.
As for the claim of Diablo’s warm water effluent causing “significant harm to wildlife”? Ehh. No evidence of that. Total grasp. Maybe the releases inhibit certain species in within a very small range of the outflow. What, a 100 yards or so, maybe?…but that’s so small scale it’s hard to make a serious argument on that basis.
BASIC – “Ehh. No evidence of that. Total grasp.” Prove it.
Prove there’s no evidence of harm despite actual scientists and the EDC saying they’ve found “significant harm to the ocean caused by the intake of ocean water and the heating of the marine environment near the plant.”
Oh wait, you admitted there is some harm in your very next sentence:
“Maybe the releases inhibit certain species in within a very small range of the outflow.”
So, “no evidence” or it’s possible? Which is it?
Do you ever tire of being wrong every day?
Show us what the environmental groups couldn’t show to the coastal commission. Show us a study that’s been done to support their assertion.
If you take someone to task as the enviro’s did here vs. PG&E asserting something, they needed to be ready to prove it with a study legitimately showing it. They didn’t. They couldn’t, and you can’t either.
There apparently isn’t one. But hey, fire it up – get ‘em to file an appeal and you can go snorkeling out there and take some underwater photos of whatever you think you want to see!
Like I said, it’s a strongly Dem-led Coastal Commission. That’s weird?
BASIC – This is getting embarrassing for you.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X2300886X
I showed you. You’re wrong. Like always.
Dude, seriously… why do you insist on publicly humiliating yourself here every day?
“Show us.” “They didn’t. They couldn’t, and you can’t either.”
I did. They did. They could because the studies are easily available, and you just got schooled.
Done, did, over.
You’re such a pathetic liar … you didn’t even read the article:
“==> Commission staff The Coastal Commission Despite that determination, the Commission caved <==".
"the majority of the commission is Democratic politically"
What, so people who are "Democratic politically" are now beyond reproach? You are completely lacking in scruples and intellectual integrity.
"so don’t blame “Trumpers” or “MAGAT’s”"
There are plenty of other things to blame YOU and RUBY and trash like you for.
Ugh, the idiot software swallowed everything between < and > … well, just read the damn article–the Coastal Commission acknowledged the harm that BasicLiar denies here.
California’s electricity and emissions mandates are what extended the life of Diablo Canyon. They were on achievable without it.
But would be much better achieved with green energy, rather than killing billions of sea creatures and producing more highly radioactive waste. Fission sucks.
Billions?! Wow.
That’s a figure direct from the section of the environmental review of the impacts of their method of cooling the reactors. But, as an armchair “aquatic biologist”, you would be unaware of the actual effects on marine life.
That’s a lot of plankton.
You don’t know what plankton is or how it is critical (as is every organism) to our ecosystem.
And a lot of larger life forms that get sucked into the intakes, not to mention what the heated water does on the other end, like attracting other sea life to get sucked in.
You really don’t think things through, obviously. Simple statements from your simple mind.
IT SAYS THAT IN THE ARTICLE, DUFUS.
There is a lot to learn about energy for the average user of electronics. If we all start talking towards a wind turbine it might just turn the turbine enough to actually spin on a windless day to charge our cell phones. I got some porcelain veneers so that when its foggy I can go up to the roof and smile and its enough to power my solar panels, go figure.
Haha! Love it. But hey, the wind turbine folks are sad enough already. It’s Christmas time afterall…
BASIC – wind turbine folks aren’t sad at all. Trump’s attempt to ban leases was recently shot down. That’s great! Renewable energy is quickly outpacing coal all over the world. More great news!
Just because some uneducated simpletons think coal and oil are better doesn’t mean “wind turbine folks are sad.” We’re just not drooling morons.
Happy Holidays!
JULIE – yes, you have a LOT to learn about energy. Maybe start with the basics. There are these things called batteries that store energy so it can be used on windless days or at night when the sun has gone to bed. You might have seen one of the battery contraptions when your car won’t start or even when your remote stops working. They’re fascinating things, these energy storage devices…. 🙄
Since you ‘wannabe’ the expert you should already what’s happened to the Elkhorn Slough Preserve and surrounding coastal zone up in Moss Landing after the Lithium battery storage facility went up in an absolutely massive and toxic inferno this past January. No bueno for the environment and community up there. I’ll assure you they don’t consider big battery storage facilities “Fascinating” like you do.
BASIC – oh no! 1 accident! Yeah, scrap all renewable energy, right?
Also, learn to read for the millionth time. I was referring to AA batteries as “fascinating” in an obvious sarcastic statement.
Yeah though, that is a tragedy for the ecosystem there. I’ve never said renewable energy storage is 100% safe, but it’s still WAY safer and cleaner than nuclear, coal and oil.
You people need to stop the 0% or 100% all or nothing BS. If something is LESS bad, it’s better than something that’s MORE bad. I hope that’s simple enough for even you to understand….. probably not though.
And BASIC, I AM far more an expert on the subject of renewable energy than you ever will be. How many decades have you worked in the industry? Yeah, none.
Let’s all get electric cars!!
Oh wait, The majority of electricity globally and in the U.S. comes from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum), with natural gas often being the single largest source, nuclear power provides a significant portion, especially in some countries. Globally, fossil fuels made up around 60% of generation in 2023, while in the U.S., natural gas led, followed by renewables and nuclear.
Elon is still laughing . . . how many Tesla drivers out there thought they were ‘saving the planet” from oil use?
Who really cares about what a bunch of other people think? Weak minded folks that’s who. I drive a Tesla because I like it. I enjoy the drive, and I also enjoy the monster tax credit applied to my 100,000 vehicle. Do I think “I’m saving the planet from oil use”? Of course not.
I also happen to run twin diesels in my boat which are incredibly dirty. Every time I fire them up I probably cough a cup of fuel directly into the water. I love the smell of those things and I just love my diesel engines.
How on Earth will you reconcile those two things.
Caught a 36″ flatty off a boat like yours a couple of days ago.
Little olive oil and butter, MMMHH good!
Enjoy those parasites!
Most people are still doing bad things, so let’s not change!
Brilliant!
Typical of your usual moronic posts.
More strange nonsense.
I have a tiny little house with a small roof, and you’d be amazed at how much power we can store in our solar battery on a hazy day.