Editorial: California can't count on Diablo Canyon's nuclear power, so it should spend now on renewables
- Bias Rating
-10% Center
- Reliability
N/AN/A
- Policy Leaning
-8% Center
- Politician Portrayal
-39% Negative
Continue For Free
Create your free account to see the in-depth bias analytics and more.
Continue
Continue
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy, and subscribe to email updates. Already a member: Log inBias Score Analysis
The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.
Sentiments
N/A
- Liberal
- Conservative
Sentence | Sentiment | Bias |
---|---|---|
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan. |
Reliability Score Analysis
Policy Leaning Analysis
Politician Portrayal Analysis
Bias Meter
Extremely
Liberal
Very
Liberal
Moderately
Liberal
Somewhat Liberal
Center
Somewhat Conservative
Moderately
Conservative
Very
Conservative
Extremely
Conservative
-100%
Liberal
100%
Conservative
Contributing sentiments towards policy:
58% : Reaching the state's goal of 100% renewable and zero-carbon electricity sales by 2045 will require building wind and solar power at roughly triple today's rates, according to a report last year by state agencies.54% : Their plan would allow the Diablo Canyon plant on the Central Coast to retire in 2025 as scheduled and spend at least $1.4 billion -- the same amount Newsom wants to give Pacific Gas & Electric to keep the plant operating through 2035 -- on renewable power instead.
54% : Nor does his plan address the full costs to the environment and to ratepayers, the extent of the maintenance and seismic retrofits needed to ensure the plant can operate safely, and whether the extension will reduce the urgency to deploy renewable energy.
49% : Whether Diablo Canyon has three more years of life or 13, it is ultimately a stopgap, and no substitute for broader efforts to quickly build clean and affordable energy and storage to power zero-emission cars, homes and buildings needed to fight climate change.
48% : That money would be used to accelerate renewable energy, transmission and storage projects, reduce permitting delays for solar, wind and geothermal developments and support programs that pay consumers to use less power on hot summer evenings when the grid is at highest risk for outages.
43% : It relies instead on a diverse array of clean energy sources that are less expensive, per kilowatt-hour, and don't pose the safety and environmental hazards of nuclear power.
*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.