"Some voiced concerns that the loss of San Onofre will lead to an increase in reliance on fossil fuels, at least in the short term.
“'One of the challenges we have with the closure of San Onfore is that nuclear helps us with our greenhouse gas emissions,' said state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills)."
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...
Nevertheless, nuclear power plants can only operate if they can operate safely. And they do age. Perhaps, rather than being upset about San Onofre closing, we should be displeased that a new nuclear power plant was not constructed to replace it.
"Are there any AGW people decrying the closing of San Onofre?Nuclear power has the best hope of reducing green house gases in the future. Can you point me to any of the AGW authors who have spoken out to save San Onofre? This is a multi-billion dollar public investment that is being tossed on the ash heap."
This reminds me of when liberal Al Gore did not call for the reopening of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant after government bureaucrats closed it down.
All liberal Al Gore wants to liberally do is become very very rich off of the global warming hoax (if you do not believe it is a hoax just google "global warming hoax") and then institute his socialist liberal policies that will take every penny from every rich person. He is very clever in his evil liberal way, but viewers of Fox News like myself see through his liberal name-calling liberal ways.
San Onofre has faulty plumbing and is built to withstand a 7.0 quake, like the one in Japan that went poo-poo.
After the Japan quake/nuclear accident people around the world decided to take a real close look at their neighborhood reactors.
Lotta changes have been made... some couldn't pass amended safety standards.
Guess I'd rather have a warmer planet than a planet with a bunch of radioactive no-mans lands.
Silly question...
It's being tossed on the ash heap by Southern California Edison, because they snuck through a major engineering change without doing a design review, then were caught because their design was horribly wrong and things started going bad very soon after the change was made. They decided it was too expensive to actually fix the problem they had created so they're shutting it down.
Unfortunately this shows once again that nuclear power plants are very expensive and hard to maintain, which is one of the reasons so few new ones are being built.
EDIT for Pat: Before you call other people idiots, perhaps you need to do some research. San Onofre has been shut down since January 2012 because of botched engineering--it had nothing to do with using seawater. The computer program used to simulate flow in the generator tubes was flawed.
Their decision not to fix the problems (which they created with the bad design) may be connected to regulations having to do seawater discharge, but it still would have been a long process to fix the problems.
Another EDIT for Pat: You're funny, you apparently knew nothing at all about what's going on San Onofre and you act like I'm making stuff up. I've been paying attention to the problem since it happened, it's clear that you haven't. You like the LA times? Then read the past articles there, or the San Diego Union-Tribune, or the DOE transcripts, or wherever. Find your own links, it takes about 10 seconds. And if you can't understand how a faulty computer program can be an engineering problem, you know nothing about engineering, either.
GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION: Actually, I'm very sorry to see San Onofre close. It supplies power to the region that I'm in, and it has as long as can remember (going back to Unit 1). It supplied vital power to the area. Seeing this as anything but a series of mistakes by SCE is incorrect, though. If SCE had done a straight replacement of the pipes, without making a design change, then San Onofre would not be closed now. If they'd done a design review before changing the design, the flaws may very well have been caught prior to implementation, and San Onofre would not be closed now. They did neither and accepted a design from an inexperienced supplier and suffered the consequences. Luckily the problems surfaced in a relatively minor incident (and radiation release) and not in something major.
EDIT for Zippi: Sorry that the original page was taken down, but that's a bit silly to blame me for it. Here's another link from the NRC that explains some of the engineering problems:
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1313/ML13...
This specific quote might help:
"SCE states that “[t]he original analysis was fine if we had simply received steam generators that met our specifications” (i.e., were like-for-like replacements), but “[w]hat we had is a degraded or nonconforming condition in our steam generators where they did not perform per the procurement specifications.” See Tr. at 98. The extent to which the replacement steam generators failed to perform per the procurement specifications is graphically illustrated by the fact that the original steam generators lasted about twenty-eight years, whereas SCE’s most recent operational assessment indicates that, after less than two years of operation (i.e., 20.6 months), tube integrity for Unit 2 steam generators can be guaranteed only for another eleven months of operation at 100% power"
Every time I go by there it makes me think of my girlfriend (to borrow from a Leslie Nielson joke)
You can see the picture, (the ones in the background)
http://taxdollars.blog.ocregister.com/20...
It is sad how Edison seems to be out of control and has way too much power (well not enough electrical power) but way to much political power.
France can build nuclear plants but leftists in this country have been attacking nuclear so long we are third rate at building them now, apparently.
Legislature is currently controlled by liberals. Nuclear power plants were specifically built to withstand many different types of catastrophes.
pegminer's link is now a 404 error! He seems like a moron if he shows a link and somehow it disappears. A perfect example of a man with a selfish purpose!
I doubt that any politician wants to get in the middle of a technical debate when it is this easy to hide the truth
If you're going to shut down Nuclear Power, then you might as well start in the warmest and least volatile part of the country.
Here's the link : http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...
It's a power grab by the loony left. Obama and his leftist cronies in California are taking the first steps in abolishing CO2 from being emitted anthropogenically.
They were using ocean water to cool the plant which is what they should have been doing all along, It's nothing but a power grab. They have to start somewhere. Why not start where it's warm?
pegminer - The violation was using sea water. You're a friggin idiot!
--------------------------------
pegminer - Show me your link that shows what you are saying is true
--------------------------------
Here's one solution that they have come up with : http://finance.yahoo.com/news/soitec-com...
--------------------------------
http://www.soitec.com/en/solar-energy/
Always nothing about financing! This helps me to believe that Government financing/investment is involved. Please help in providing a link to anything but a Government Intervention Program (GIP) - (not GOP)
----------------------------------
pegminer - Computer program failed?
Your quote #1 - " ... because they snuck through a major engineering change without doing a design review, then were caught because their design was horribly wrong and things started going bad very soon after the change was made. They decided it was too expensive to actually fix the problem they had created so they're shutting it down. ..."
Your quote #2 - "The computer program used to simulate flow in the generator tubes was flawed."
Now I know that you are a deceitful person. It was engineering at first, but now it was a computer programming error? Can I call you an idiot again?
-----------------------------
pegminer - You are disingenuous! Why should any of your answers be trusted? I thought you were genuinely concerned at one point, but I can clearly see that you will do what it takes to promote your cause (whatever that might be).
-----------------------------
In May 2013 Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the modifications had proved to be "unsafe and posed a danger to the eight million people living within 50 miles of the plant,” and she called for a criminal investigation.
Note Barbara Boxer's achievements in the Global Warming community.
California Senator Dianne Feinstein signaled approval of the decision to permanently close the plant.
Note Senator Feinstein's achievements in the Global warming community.
You're still a friggin idiot pegminer. It was shut down because of politicians and their own self-righteousness. The problems of the past were being corrected, but political influence in the Great State of California have shown their own interests. Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are nothing but "Big Mouth Wenches" who have stomped on whoever may get in their way while they conduct radical movements in our own U.S. Government.
The article that you posted showed clearly how far away they were from any catastrophe. It wasn't even close.
------------------------------------
http://www.ontheissues.org/International...
http://www.ontheissues.org/International...
They both probably eat meat raw!
Yes it's a shame a loss of 2000 jobs, but the plant did have problems.
But why do they build such large plants, you can build nuclear generating plants of any size, and the bigger they are the more problems you have.
Warmonism is a Socialist Religion.
Hence it's hard for an AGW devotee to decry the 'failure' of any private sector business.
Nuclear power has the best hope of reducing green house gases in the future. Can you point me to any of the AGW authors who have spoken out to save San Onofre? This is a multi-billion dollar public investment that is being tossed on the ash heap.
