California’s economy is so large that, if it were an independent country, it would rank in the top ten in the world. Electricity generation (200938) is primarily by natural gas (39%) followed by imports from other states (31%) then nuclear (10%), renewables (10%) and large hydro (8%). Currently, there are two NPPs in operation; these started up in 1983 and 1986. There are also five reactors that are no longer in operation, one experimental and four commercial. The state has a strong environmental lobby — it is home to the Sierra Club, which claims to be ‘America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization’39 — and, if proof of anti-nuclear feeling were needed, one of the commercial NPPs was closed in 1989 by public referendum.40

There is a 1976 State law that prohibits the building of new NPPs until the waste issue is solved and another of 200641 that requires the state to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050 ‘while accommodating projected growth in its economy and population’ (the latter is expected to increase by almost 50%). A two year study was established to see how this might be achieved and the resulting report42 stresses the need for diversity — ‘a suite of generation technologies’ — including nuclear power, renewables, fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and biomass which, if combined with CCS, can provide an important pathway for creating negative emissions. It concludes that emissions reductions of about 60% could be reached by 2050 provided that all the following currently available technologies were implemented:

Aggressive efficiency measures for buildings, industry and transportation to dramatically reduce per capita energy demand.

Aggressive electrification to avoid fossil fuel use where technically feasible. Decarbonize electricity supply while doubling electricity production, and develop zero-emissions load balancing approaches to manage load variability and minimize the impact of variable supply for renewables like wind and solar. Decarbonize the remaining required fuel supply where electrification is not feasible.

Decarbonisation of electricity supply includes use of renewables but, in effect, warns against the use of natural gas (unless combined with CCS) to balance the load when the renewables are running at less than required capacity. The objective of the statute — 80% reductions by 2050 — cannot be achieved with existing technology but may be feasible given intensive and sustained investment and innovation.

Fukushima occurred as this study was nearing publication causing the authors to say that time would be needed to learn the lessons of the accident but that ‘what is clear even now is that this event will have a major impact on the way we think about nuclear power and will be a factor in considering the future of nuclear power in California’. Two months after the study was published, the California Council on Science and Technology issued a follow-up43 that called for the installation of 44 GW of new nuclear capacity — a tenfold increase on the present day. Regarding Fukushima the key message is that lessons should be ‘factored into decisions about the potential future use of nuclear reactor technologies in California’.