Lights Out for Science at PG
For the nabobs and politicos who spoke out on behalf of the state’s stem cell research initiative about California’s need to attract scientific talent, here’s another situation that may be worth some attention.
This one involves whether PG&E; Corp.’s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. should be allowed, for corporate reasons, to block a $60-million physics experiment that would make California the center of one of the most important research efforts in the world.
Despite the support of the American physics establishment and the prominent role of scientists from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, PG&E;’s stance means that California is about to lose the project to a competing site in China.
The experimenters propose to drill a tunnel a mile or two into a mountain next to the San Francisco utility’s Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant on the central coast. Although the tunnel wouldn’t impinge on the plant site, PG&E; also controls the mountain, as well as the only access road.
The tunnel would hold two containers filled with 100 tons of fluid formulated to detect neutrinos. These subatomic particles -- among the lightest, most abundant and strangest in nature -- are produced copiously by nuclear reactors. The detectors would be monitored remotely from nearby Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
Among physicists, this project inspires palpable excitement. Neutrinos were created in the big bang, in which the universe is thought to have originated, and exhibit characteristics of both matter and antimatter. Understanding them may thus open the door to learning more about the origin of matter and the ultimate fate of the universe. The study of neutrinos has already produced three Nobel Prizes. (The particles, which infuse the natural environment, are harmless.)
“This is one of the times in history where great discoveries can be made,” says the project leader, Stuart J. Freedman, a physicist associated with UC Berkeley and the Lawrence lab.
Freedman says his detectors require very specific conditions: They must be adjacent to a strong neutrino source, and they must be underground so as to screen out cosmic rays. In practical terms, that means finding a powerful nuclear reactor situated by a mountain. His team “scoured the world” for a qualified site, he says, and found only two -- a power plant in southeastern China and Diablo Canyon.
At first, PG&E; seemed enthusiastic. The company hosted an introductory meeting at the plant in September 2003 during which Freedman’s team laid out its project and received a cordial tour of the premises. A second meeting followed a few months later.
But soon thereafter, PG&E; shut the door. In recent months, a few local leaders have urged PG&E; to reconsider, but the company has refused.
“You can’t get to square one with these people,” says Anthony Buffa, a Cal Poly physics professor who has pushed the issue on behalf of his institution, which would benefit from hosting such an international research program. He says PG&E; has cited a range of obstacles, including the environmental sanctity of the mountains and post-9/11 security rules for nuclear power plants.
Its chief objection, though, appears to be logistical. Diablo Canyon’s spokesman, Jeff Lewis, says the plant plans two major projects of its own over the next five years -- the construction of a temporary storage facility for nuclear waste and the replacement of its eight steam generators.
“It’s a question of too many large projects trying to occupy the same space,” Lewis says. “Had this come along a half-dozen years ago, we might have been able to do it.”
He adds that although the logistical concerns were raised by the plant management, they were endorsed by PG&E; Corp. Chairman Robert Glynn.
The scientists say they offered to work around PG&E;’s schedule and back off if the problems proved insurmountable. But Freedman says PG&E; made its decision without even looking at the design and construction estimates that his project consultants had developed.
That makes one wonder whether accommodating the experiment is truly impossible, as PG&E; contends, or merely inconvenient. (The plant’s projects are awaiting regulatory approval, so their time frames aren’t even certain.)
And if it’s the latter, should the discussion end there?
After all, California has put up with plenty of inconvenience from PG&E; over the years, including its costly and unnecessary bankruptcy in 2001 and the botched design and construction of Diablo Canyon itself.
How carefully PG&E; weighed the larger importance of this project against its own narrow imperatives is unclear. Although the scientists tried to argue the benefits -- to PG&E;’s public image, to Cal Poly, to California, to the cause of science -- no independent voice seems to have effectively pressed these points upon the utility.
California’s two senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, haven’t spoken out publicly on behalf of what would be a federally funded project. Nor has Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who visits Japan to tout California products while the state faces a homegrown brain drain.
No one can be sure whether the balance would tip toward the interests of science, rather than those of PG&E;, even if the company did take another look at the issue. But isn’t the project important enough to receive a public airing? Shouldn’t this decision be made with due consideration given to the big picture, not merely to how many dump trucks can comfortably fit on a mountain road at the same time?
Bringing PG&E; to that understanding might well require the governor, the senators and other representatives of the public interest to apply political pressure on the company. But forcing a private entity to take due notice of its public responsibilities is sometimes what politics is all about.
Golden State appears every Monday and Thursday. You
can reach Michael Hiltzik at golden.state@latimes.com and read his previous columns at latimes.com/hiltzik.
