Skip to main content

SF Chronicle Profiles PG&E's Peter Darbee

By Eric McErlain
From a column by David Lazarus:
Peter Darbee, now winding up his second year as chief exec of PG&E Corp., is a self-professed conservative and no great friend to progressive causes.

So he's as surprised as anyone to find himself emerging as a corporate leader in, of all things for an energy industry heavyweight, saving the planet from global warming.

"If you had asked me five years ago, this wouldn't have occurred to me," Darbee acknowledged in an interview. "Somewhere in this process (of becoming CEO), I developed a point of view."

That point of view, specifically, is this: "The Earth is warming. Mankind appears to be responsible. The need to take action is now."

[...]

"What he's talking about is very welcome," said Carl Zichella, California regional director for the Sierra Club. "It's important to have business leaders of his caliber talking about this."

Not that PG&E and the Sierra Club are suddenly in bed together. Zichella said that if Darbee is really serious about safeguarding the environment, he'd also be looking to mothball the company's Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

PG&E is spending more than $700 million in ratepayer funds to refurbish the plant and keep it operational for at least another 20 years -- even though it's run out of room for spent fuel rods and now intends to store them, at least temporarily, on a hillside overlooking the coastal facility.

"They could just as easily be spending that $700 million on renewables," Zichella said.

Darbee responds that nuclear energy, which accounts for about 20 percent of electricity generation nationwide, has its place if our primary goal is to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

"The threat of global warming is so significant," he said, "that many environmentalists who opposed nuclear energy now support it."
One day, it's Democrats supporting nuclear energy. The next, it's a Republican admitting that his views on global warming have changed, and it's time for caps on carbon emissions.

There's a chance for a deal here. The world can't afford to pass it up.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more