Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let's close San Onofre now

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:26 PM
Original message
Let's close San Onofre now
San Onofre is not only in an earthquake zone but just a few feet from the beach.

Here is a link to a photo on Wikipedia. Note the white sand on which the nuclear reactor is located. That is the beach. And it's really pretty flat right out to the ocean.



I do not know whether the area has experienced a tsunami, but a really bad earthquake could be deadly to many, many people. Though not in an urban center or extremely close to other buildings, this plant is fairly near military installations and other crucial defense facilities to say nothing of homes.

San Onofre really should be shut down. It will take quite a long time to get this done. We need to start now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. Fine by me, where do I sign? And while we're at it, let's keep moving across
the country doing the same.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. And create what in its place?
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 12:34 PM by wtmusic
You're throwing out a gigawatt of power generation. What's going to make up the difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. If people are really capable of "safely" containing material that is deadly for 200,000 years
then you know what? We're damn well capable of putting our brains and brawn towards powering our civilization through solar, wind, wave and geothermal energy.

We can do it. It's a matter of will and committing the resources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. That's a wonderful sentiment. But OP wants to close San Onofre now.
What's going to take its place - now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. And do you think the OP is going to wave a magic wand and close it - now?
The inertia is on the side of the nuclear power plant. Unfortunately, as we've seen in Japan, sometimes nature makes other plans. If I lived downwind from that one, or Diablo Canyon, I'd be much more worried about continued business as usual operations than I would be about some all-powerful environmentalists being able to shut down the plants tomorrow and take away my electric power. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. We're talking hypotheticals
but they're based in reality. There are repercussions to closing San Onofre.

If you take away 1GW of power generation and don't replace it with something else, energy prices will go through the roof. (Check out what happened to Long Island electricity rates after Shoreham was closed, or what Vermonters were looking at had Vermont Yankee's license not been renewed).

If you replace it with coal (most likely), you will be responsible for 120 additional deaths every year from pollution and radiation from coal ash (mostly cancer and respiratory disease).

If you replace it with natural gas, you will be responsible for 32 additional deaths every year.

I'm not at all worried about business as usual - I'm wondering if OP can only pollute the air his friends and family will be breathing, and not mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. And how much did San Onofre cost to build? How much is that in 2011 dollars?
Since we're talking "hypotheticals", how many solar or wind farms would that same amount of money pay for?

You know, speaking hypothetically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. When the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing
Americans still want to watch Monday Night Football. That's the real problem, and there isn't enough money in the world to make the wind keep blowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Again, if those problems are truly technologically insurmountable
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 01:42 PM by Warren DeMontague
we have no business building and/or operating nuclear power plants. We're not competent enough as a species.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. As a side note
I was involved with litigation resulting from a plant that was designed/constructed in Sacramento (by the guy that designed the US Trident nuclear submarine, BTW) and it was a co-generation power plant, designed to burn the shells and hulls from the California Almond Growers Exchange, which was across the street. It works and so well that it generates enough power to light up the surrounding industrial blocks in Sacto and had enough excess power generation to sell it to the Cal power grid at a hefty profit.

That litigation involved one of the nations largest manufacturers of turbines and generators and the fact that they lied about their expertise and it did not work when it first went on line. It had to be re-worked and then eventually it operated as it was designed to.

Don't tell me that it cannot be done. I also worked on other plants that had litigation surrounding the construction of co-gen plants around the country by a companies that were leaders in the construction of nukes that crested and had then faded here in the US by the time the latest energy crunch hit and inspired investors to build new plants to generate power, whether they were needed or not. They built such natural gas powered, co-generation plants in Detroit at the Ford Rouge complex on the Detroit River, and on the grounds of an oil refinery in Marcus Hook, PA, south of Phillie on the Delaware River. Those natural gas powered generators that generated steam that in turn powered turbines that produced the juice were finally completed after litigation. That Rouge site had been originally constructed in the 1920s and they were able to clean out and reinforce the ancient intake structure that sucked water out of the Detroit River to feed this system.

Not that hard to do, cheaper to build and maintain and fuel than a nuke and works just dandy in the right situation in the right location. Bio-mass fuels like almond shells and hulls are an untapped source of fuel to begin these processes that are not nearly so expensive or dangerous to our futures as nuke power construction is.


Just my dos centavos



"...Me, I'm waiting so patiently

Lying on the floor

I'm just trying to do this jig-saw puzzle

Before it rains anymore..."

Jagger/Richards







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Unfortunately burning biomass creates lots of not-so-dandy CO2
Not an acceptable long-term solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Neither is generating hundreds of tons of deadly radioactive waste
for which there is no coherent disposal plan.

Speaking of long term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Not nearly as deadly as the thousands of tons of fossil fuel waste
spewed every day from the smokestacks of America's coal plants. Would you consider that a coherent disposal plan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. And round and round and round we go.
The sole alternative to nuclear power- fucked up nuclear power, wherein if you DO have one of these "impossibly unlikely" accidents you're looking at a radioactive clusterfuck of unimaginable proportions- is NOT coal.

So I ask again- how much did San Onofre cost in 2011 dollars? How many wind and solar farms would that pay for?

Oh- and no way to store the power when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing? Maybe not.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-sola...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. No, there's no way to store it now
and 2050 is too late to address global warming.

The cost of San Onofre would be a drop in the bucket of what it would cost to cover most of Arizona with photovoltaic panels, maintain them, and store their (meager) output.

Renewables are a self-defeating pipe dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. And in the 45 or so yrs of commercial nuclear power, we've had how many 'impossible' accidents, now?
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 02:09 PM by Warren DeMontague
The pipe dream is imagining that somehow we can continue to have these radioactive shitstorms every couple decades, and render large portions of the earth uninhabitable and unfarmable, and continue on like there's nothing wrong.

Sorry, man. You can continue to hope that this turd can be polished, but it can't. Until Fukushima I was middle of the road on nuclear power. Now I am 100% against. It is irresponsible- deeply irresponsible- to continue to play with that level of risk. And it IS a different level, a different magnitude, of risk than other situations.

and... 3000GW is "meager"? That's more than San Onofre puts out. If it's so meager, why not shut down San Onofre?

Renewables are pipe dream? Only because the resources haven't been committed. Apparently, you have faith that humans can operate nuclear power plants safely and indefinitely, but you have no faith that we can accomplish anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. You can't squeeze water from a rock, not for all the money in the world.
There is a tiny, tiny amount of baseload energy available from renewables compared to our demand for it. We can spend more money and commit resources but we might as well be wishing on a star. What happens when renewables fail to fill the bill (as they always do) is we fall back on coal or natural gas. It's a lie.

If you want to say nuclear power is too dangerous that's fine, but I would guess you wouldn't be willing to turn off your power at night until an alternative is discovered, would you?

Even with all the "shitstorms" nuclear is - by far - the safest form of practical power generation we have for the forseeable future.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. Actually, we're getting 100% of our energy from renewables up here, more or less.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 03:26 PM by Warren DeMontague
We pay a little more for it every month, but I think it's worth it.


I realize different locations have different needs- and clearly, for somewhere as overcrowded as So. Cal, that's an understatement- but Oregon got rid of our only nuclear power plant, and yet we're still -somehow!- managing to keep the lights on.

http://www.portlandgeneral.com/residential/renewable_en...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. I have the renewables plan through my utility
which is about 20% extra, but it only provides 60% of "my" power via renewables.

http://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/electric-saving-tip...

It's important to remember that your participation in the program only ensures that your utility will purchase a corresponding amount of renewable energy. But at nighttime and when the wind isn't blowing everyone's power comes from baseload sources, which is typically about 50% coal, 15% natural gas, 20% nuclear, etc. That's largely how the lights are kept on at night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. I undestand that the grid is big, but again, I don't think PDX is 20% nuclear.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 03:38 PM by Warren DeMontague
There's only one nuclear plant in this entire corner of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. You're right, only 3% is nuclear (as of 2005)
40% hydro, 41% coal, 10% gas, 1% wind

http://www.pnucc.org/documents/OregonFuelMix.pdf (p3)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. That must be coming from WNP-2, then
if I had to guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. San Onofre is just a few minutes from the Pacific ocean -- in an earthquake zone.
It needs to be closed as quickly as possible. It is just too dangerous to have a nuclear plant in an earthquake zone within just a few feet of the ocean.

This is not a question of broader energy policy. This is a question of removing a threat to a valuable area of the Pacific coast and all the people and wildlife in it.

The subject of this thread is not nuclear power in general. It is the San Onofre Plant in particular.

It needs to be shut down, and the nuclear material needs to be removed entirely from that site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Where should the nuclear material be taken to? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #34
57. Your question defeats your argument that the site should be maintained.
If now, with no tsunami, no earthquake, no problem, we do not know where to take the nuclear material, we need to figure out where and get it out before there is an emergency. That is an additional problem with that plant. There is no exit plan just as there probably is no evacuation plan for the people in that area.

Here in LA, I once asked a candidate for the state legislature whether there was an evacuation plan for the city of LA in case of an emergency. People laughed at me. As a teenager, I visited New Orleans many times. The need for an evacuation plan is very evident to me.

San Onofre is not located in the immediate proximity (within say 50 or 100 feet) of a highly populated area. That is one good thing about it. But, think of Fukushima. It could have been a much worse disaster.

If you look at the photo in the link I posted or if you travel past the San Onofre plant, you will see that it actually sits on the sand of the beach. A wave could simply wash the nuclear material into the ocean along with the earth under the plant. It is extremely unsafe and needs to be closed.

You may defend nuclear energy as you wish, but this plant is unsafe and needs to be closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. You may be surprised
There are very detailed evac plans and contingencies. People in San Clemente (just north) are very aware they have a nuclear neighbor and there is a detailed protocol in place involving a disaster response team of over 1,000 people:

http://sanclemente.patch.com/articles/what-if-san-onofr...

That's why I suggested you take a tour (see below). The plant just finished a 10-year, $674 million upgrade. The people that work there are dedicated and ultra-conscious of safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
31. My neighbors and I would love to have solar panels on our homes.
A project to put them on 90% of the houses in Southern California over a period of ten years would go a long way to relieving our need for San Onofre as well as for coal-burning plants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Where will you get your power at night?
No, I'm not being facetious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. "Where will you get your power at night?" Are you for real?
Are you really that uninformed or is this part of the act on behalf of the nuke industry?

Solar power


"...Solar power is produced by using photovoltaic (PV) cells to capture the energy of the sun and convert it into electricity. The basic unit of the system is the solar cell, which are connected together into modules. PV cells are comprised of semi-conductors, most often made of silicon (like the chips used in computers). The semiconductors absorb power when they are struck by light. These modules or panels of PV cells are what you see installed typically on the roofs of homes and businesses. The electricity created by the solar system is DC or direct current, and the electricity we use in our homes is AC or alternating currents. Thus solar systems include an inverter which changes the DC current into useable AC current. Installing solar systems is a complicated technical process and most people will benefit by using contractors skilled in solar technology and electrical installation.
Find a solar installer in your area...

...There are two main forms of solar systems for residential use: the grid-tie system and the off-grid or stand-alone system. In a grid-tie system, a home has solar cells but is still connected to the local power grid. The home solar system includes solar cells installed on or near a home that collect the sun's energy and convert it into DC electricity. Then the inverter converts the DC power into AC power, which can then be used directly in your home.

Electricity produced by the solar cells that is not used immediately in the home is returned to the power grid. When this happens your electricity meter literally spins backwards as you are passing energy to the grid. You are also building a credit on your power bill. This is called net-metering. The benefit of the grid-tied system is that it does not include expensive batteries to be installed in your home for the storage of power; the grid acts as the storage system and your home and the grid exchange power as you need and produce it.

Off-grid or stand-alone systems are typically used in remote locations where standard grid-based power is not available. These systems are more expensive, but do allow for complete electrical independence. These systems require deep-cycle batteries for storing the electricity as well as a charge controller to assure the flow of electricity from the cells does not over-charge the batteries..."

http://www.lowimpactliving.com/pages/green-projects/sol...

Please note: "...the grid acts as the storage system and your home and the grid exchange power as you need and produce it..."

and: "...but do allow for complete electrical independence. These systems require deep-cycle batteries for storing the electricity as well as a charge controller to assure the flow of electricity from the cells does not over-charge the batteries..."

Unreal

Next


Sheesh






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. Though you contribute power to the grid during the day
that energy isn't stored somewhere, it's used by someone else.

At night everyone - even you - is powered by primarily coal, natural gas, or nuclear. You can give tons of solar to the grid during the day, but that does nothing to get rid of the need for a dependable nighttime source.

Deep-cycle lead acid batteries work for individual homeowners - sort of. Wired in series they're a major pain and don't last long. I've had quite a bit of experience with them. If you're willing to put up with the hassle you're walking the walk. Most homeowners aren't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. Did you read?
You get a credit for that energy you send back to the grid. This is paid for already, so any energy borrowed in the night is already paid for in the form of a credit you sent to the grid in the form of your generated electricity.

You did know the answer to the question, didn't you, "Where will you get your electricity at night?" I explained it, and now you switch your query/argument if you want to call it that, to "that energy you get back was not your solar energy, neener neener.

So I didn't ask you about the others that consume your solar-generated power that was sold back to the grid providing the credit to get power either. How 'bout that power? Didn't someone else benefit from that power being supplied to the grid from your home operation? What about that and the burden it eases for the "other," power generation faciities and systems in place? I would think that system right now is somewhat of a wash. You even admit that you knew there were systems now to store for individual homeowners, albeit according to you, major pains. So it can be done now.

I we had crash programs to dedicate to eloping solar potential past what it can accomplish now, which is a lot as I have pointed out, we could make the storage affordable no doubt. And you know what? I think you know that.

How 'bout that storage problem for spent fuel rods in nukes? Got a quick answer for that?

Sheesh


Next
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. We need to work on ways to store energy.
Reducing the amount of energy we get from unsafe sources like oil, coal, nuclear and gas would be a partial solution until our science develops to the point that we resolve all the issues. I have friends with solar devices on their homes. They like them. It is a really clean way to create energy.

We need to start somewhere. And we need to start now. Will we produce enough energy from alternative sources to meet all our needs miraculously overnight? No.

But let's start working toward that goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
here_is_to_hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #47
55. My deep cycle, wired in series
batteries are 7 years old and doing just fine.
They are juiced by both solar and wind. The solar puts out measurable wattage even under 8 inches of snow.
You seem to know very little about how these systems work.
Rather than hurl stones, read up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. How many kWh do you get per day? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #47
67. Have you traveled in Northern Germany?
The winter days are short. The nights are long. But Germany is installing solar panels on buildings at great speed. They are now preparing to close their nuclear plants in the interest of safety. If Germany, with its rainy, dark climate, can switch to clean, renewable energy without using nuclear, so can we.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
30. If we seriously start the process now, we just may possibly finish
it before a disaster happens. We need to put a lot more money and manpower into finding alternatives including wind, solar and tidal power to feed our insatiable craving for energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. I live 40 miles away from San Onofre. Just outside the exclusion zone. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. What do you propose replacing that power with?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. San Onofre was a legendary surfing beach
May still be, I don't know. But that monstrosity can't be good for attracting surfers - apart from the allure a green night time glow might hold for some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
here_is_to_hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You are mistaken...
That stretch of beach that runs from the end of the State Beach north to Nixons old house is as popular as ever with surfers. The outfall pipe(carries warm water) is just offshore and has produced its own surf spot and fishing area. I saw San O get built, surfed that area for 30 years. Trestles, Uppers and Lowers, Churches, Old Mans, Dogpatch and Cottons Point.
The sealife is gone along the shore but that is due more to overbuilding in Orange County than San O.
Is it in a safe area? I don't know.
But I know a replacement power source is years away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
35. So, let's get started on a serious replacement for San Onofre right now.
It cannot continue to function where it is. We probably have some years to replace it. Let's start the process. I travel past San Onofre fairly frequently. It is just too close to the shoreline. It is not safe. Generally, we don't have tsunamis in this area, but we do have earthquakes and are expecting a very large one.

San Onofre needs to be closed. It isn't a matter of whether we should close all nuclear plants.

Deciding environmental issues are a matter of weighing risks and benefits. We have to admit to ourselves that the risks of San Onofre, risks that we did not recognize before Fukishima, are just too great to allow San Onofre to continue to exist.

It is a matter of being honest with ourselves.

Who is willing to chop down the last tree on Easter Island?

fficial&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?q=Easter%20Island&ie=utf-8...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Since you're local, you should take a tour.
(Must be arranged a few weeks in advance)

nuccomm@songs.sce.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Even if it's shut down, you still will have the fuel rods there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. move the fuel rods
to a place not prone to earthquakes?

Get some wind farms going there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. That's not something that can be done immediately.
It's not like draining a gas tank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. So I guess more fuel rods should be accumulated because
of the ones can't be removed now? We should just keep creating more and more? I don't get the logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
63. Who said that?
Technically, you can't shut down the reactor and remove the fuel rods and decommission it overnight. THAT is what I was pointing out.

It's not like flipping a switch and you're done. I get irked at nontechnical types who think shut it down today and everything will be sunshine and lollipops tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. But the argument is that we should keep producing
electricity from those plants because we can't remove the fuel rods. That makes no sense. They can be shut down tomorrow. Taking them apart will take time of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Some people argue that, I'm not one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
37. That is why we need to start now. It will take some years to replace
the energy and to actually find some solution for dealing with the fuel rods.

San Onofre is a time bomb. Go to the Wikipedia site. You will see that it is literally built on the sand of the beach. That is how close it is to the ocean. I can't believe that they built it in that location.

I have lived through numerous earthquakes in Southern California. Most of them are just little shakes, but scientists predict that sooner or later we will get a really big one.

Odds are we have some time to take down San Onofre. But we need to start asap before people forget what happened at Fukushima.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
50. so git er done, y'know?
give us a timetable. Start moving. All the more reason since there are many more people living around there. I'm sure they would be supportive.

Really dumb to just let it sit there on a fault. Dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
15. I remember those old maps that used to show what the fallout areas
would be if a bomb hit a specific city. We need one of those for each nuke but especially the ones setting on faults or so old they are falling to pieces. I showed immediate death area, area of serious contamination, evacuation area and finally the fallout in the atmosphere around the globe. I think there are a lot of people who think this has nothing to do with them. "Our nuke is a good nuke" attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
38. Excellent idea, jwirr.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #38
58. Yes, like truth in packaging laws this would be truth about safety maps, nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. And El Diablo, a few hundred miles up the coast.
Both plants should be decommissioned NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
21. Oh, lets!
And Diablo too while we're at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
32. Leeaked NRC memos reveal staffers believe back up cooling systems won't work in quake nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. Immediately shut down Onofre...
and you can turn off the lights in all the subdivisions that have grown up in 40 miles of coastline to accomodate all the immigrants to CA in the past 40 years.

As to the missing fish population...my dad and I used to see people catching 300 pound halibut off the old horseshoe pier in Redondo.

San Onofre has produced reliable and safe power for many years with fewer incidents than most conventionally-fired generating plants. It does have a tsunami wall, although it would not accomodate a 30+foot tsunami. Very few people lived near the site when the plant was built.

You believe that solar and the other kinds of sources can replace coal and nuke fired plants...show us. Get your systems in place and see if they produce what is needed today. They will not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. At a mimimum they need to check the safety of these plants !! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. I heartily agree. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #42
62. We need the will and money, meaning a government
willing to put a grid in place. That's what takes to get the systems in place. Are you willing to fight for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
54. And it appears that trying to be safe at San Onofre has its price:
Nuclear plant whistleblowers complain of retaliation
November 17th, 2009, 2:32 pm 23 Comments posted by Pat Brennan, science, environment editor

Two men who say they tried to blow the whistle on unsafe practices at the San Onofre nuclear plant filed complaints this week with the U.S. Department of Labor, contending that managers retaliated against them by attacking their reputations and cutting their responsibilities

The two men, who work in an on-site shop making casks used to store spent nuclear fuel rods but who are both now on stress leave, are seeking unspecified damages from Southern California Edison, the owner of the San Onofre plant.

People are afraid to raise concerns for fear of retaliation, said Richard Busnardo, of Oceanside, a facilities manager and one of the men who filed complaints.

Edison officials declined to comment on the complaints, saying they considered the matter to be in litigation...

http://greenoc.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/17/nuclear-p... /




Ex-San Onofre manager files whistleblower suit
BY ONELL R. SOTO

A former manager at the San Onofre nuclear plant in North County said Wednesday that he was fired after complaining to nuclear regulators that his superiors were ignoring worker complaints.

Paul Diaz, 35, of Oceanside, said he tried to go through channels within the plant when people he supervised raised questions, but was shot down.

"I needed to do something," he said. And so he went to Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors based at the plant. He was then fired from his job in October as manager of business accounting and project services.

Southern California Edison, the owner of the plant, said Diaz's complaints were evaluated and found to be without merit. A spokesman wouldn't comment on the specifics of the lawsuit, but said the company takes worker complaints seriously...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/30/san-onof... /


Good luck Mr. Diaz in trying to keep your ex-workmates safe on the job.

Easier said than done.



Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
a simple pattern Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
40. I agree completely.
How?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. And also natural gas powered, combined cycle cogeneration
could be built. They incorporate scrubbers to clean any emissions from what is used to the air. I have seen them designed to burn shells fromm almonds, and I have seen them use water to create the steam to drive the turbines to generate the juice.

It can be done. Don't believe the industry propagandists and their uninformed sycophants.


Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!


rdb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
felix_numinous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
41. K&R We CAN transition from nuclear, coal and oil
to solar, wind and wave. If there is a will--and I think there is, there IS a way. We can decide which sites to decommission first, and plan the best replacement for it. One by one.

Constructive criticism is part of the process, but slamming people for having the will to go green is of no use, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crickets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
66. Gives new meaning to the words
"on the beach." Yikes. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-08-11 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
68. Let's shut down all nuclear plants right now.
Without regard to consequences. I can afford $8.00 per gallon gas and can pay triple to heat my house, so I don't give a fuck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 18th 2014, 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC