Make California Post a Preferred Source The news is that the twin domes at the San Onofre nuclear power plant are finally being demolished.
As The California Post has reported, the infamous “nuclear boobs,” which greeted (and distracted) drivers along the Interstate 5 for many decades, are going to be demolished.
What’s not in the news: Any mention of future nuclear power plants.
The San Onofre plant was shut down in 2013, partly due to its age. It was built in the 1960s, and its newest units were already 30 years old.
What really killed it was an event that happened on the other side of the world: the devastating tsunami of 2011 in Japan, which caused meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear plant.
Like Fukushima, the San Onofre plant was right on the water’s edge. And it was close enough to population centers for many people in the area to feel suddenly uncomfortable about it.
California Post News: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, WhatsApp, LinkedInCalifornia Post Sports Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, XCalifornia Post Opinion California Post Newsletters: Sign up here!California Post App: Download here!Home delivery: Sign up here!Page Six Hollywood: Sign up here!
But when San Onofre was taken offline, Southern California lost nearly a fifth of its electricity generating capacity.
Today, the state is down to one aging nuclear power plant, in Diablo Canyon — which is constantly on the verge of being closed.
That’s a recipe for failure — as the state’s energy needs ramp up, thanks to the growth of AI and the electrification of California’s vehicle fleet.
Nuclear power has historically been a key part of California’s energy mix.
You’d think nuclear power would be even more important today, because it provides ample electricity without burning carbon and emitting greenhouse gases.
But the environmental movement has shunned nuclear power, due to concern about nuclear waste.
The newest reactor designs are minimizing the waste problem.
That hasn’t changed the debate. California’s “green” lobby continues to insist that only “renewables” — like solar and wind power — are acceptable alternatives to fossil fuels.
The idea that we are simply taking apart a power plant without replacing it points to a broader problem: California’s leaders are planning for a managed decline, beset by high energy prices — rather than rapid economic growth fueled by abundant and cheap energy.
There is certainly room for debate about the positives and negatives of nuclear power.
We’ve had nearly a decade and a half to discuss what happens next after San Onofre.
Sacramento hasn’t shown interest. But that discussion is becoming urgent — especially as energy costs rise.
