1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Fear grows in O.C. cities near San Onofre nuclear plant

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by Rybold, Mar 30, 2012.

  1. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    The discussion seems to be overfocused on just the plants. What about the spend fuel rods stored there? Closing the plant and leaving the fuel rods there may make some locals feel better, but a major risk item has been unreported. I actually think that is the bigger problem, since there is NO plan other than to leave them there for eternity.
     
  2. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,307
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    ...one would think California has a pretty big back-40 desert behind the mountains to build a state repository away from population centers. Costly to set up, I am sure.
     
  3. Flying White Dutchman

    Flying White Dutchman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    4,374
    313
    0
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    here in the NL there is a plant thats taken out
    back in the 90e
    after a few years of dismantling the site needs to stay closed for 40 years before the buidling can be taken apart
    we have 100e of these things worldwide even if we stop using them today the years to come and more years mean more risk of a disaster....
     
  4. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Then people won't need flashlights anymore, because they'll glow in the dark. :eek:
     
  5. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,524
    4,054
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Its probably doesn't make much difference in this discussion. If they close it now there are 40 years of waste, if they close it instead in 10 years as extended then there are 50 years of waste.

    I'm not sure if California is one of the states that may be included in this planned nuclear waste dump.
    Texas officials approve radioactive waste dump - Houston Chronicle
     
  6. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    It depends on what the discussion is about. It matters greatly if the folks think that just shutting down the plant eliminates the contamination risk. It does not matter at all if they just want the plant shutdown so they don't have to think at all.

    Note that the dump you linked is for low level waste only, not spent fuel rods. That high level waste needs to be contained for ~10,000 years, not 40.
     
  7. Corwyn

    Corwyn Energy Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    2,171
    659
    23
    Location:
    Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    It is called a gen-tran switch, and costs about $150. And you need an inverter designed to do this, which is also a few hundred more expense. For a few more, you can automate this.

    Not exactly catch-22.
     
  8. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,524
    4,054
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Again, the least safe way to take care of the 3 most dangerous nucs is business as usual. Bad maintenance has been shown at all of them. They were not constructed to be seismic activity. If things are running and cooling systems don't work, that's when the really nasty stuff happens. After a number of a small number of years the rods cool down enough, to be much less dangerous.:D

    There is the long term problem of what to do with the waste, once they cool. I don't think people are ignoreing that. The current method in the US is to put them in casks that should be good for at least 50 years. There is a lot of waste out there, but we should not confuse dangerous operation, with the somewhat dicey trade off of spent nuclear fuel,versus ghg from burning natural gas. In california, the state regulators seem to like the radiactive stuff more than carbon dioxide.:D In germany they decided the opposite.
     
  9. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    That part I'm in agreement with for the most part. Poor maintenance can be fixed with some hard oversight and fines. That's why we have a NRC. What is not clear here is the criteria for either shutting down the plant or keep it operating. If the desirable limit for an Earthquake is 8 instead of 7, what if the plant can be upgraded to handle that? Would the worries end or just shift to some other aspect?

    There is nothing wrong with the affected population opposing nuclear plant operation on principle.....as long as it is made clear that "principles" have a price tag that will be paid. Likewise, as I have made clear in the past, the lack of a nuclear waste disposal approach is a good reason to stop any new construction and limit present license extensions till this disposal issue is resolved (if ever). The cost of this could far exceed the cost of getting sustainable plants operating. Right now the extensive cost of nuclear power is actually only part of the bill. Quite possibly the less expensive part.
     
  10. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,524
    4,054
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I think the big fine for poor maintenance is losing your license. There is no excuse for the current shut down, or for a back up generator being allowed to be so covered in crud, it would not be able to work in case of a shut down. NRC simply doesn't have enough people for that. If SCE wasn't running the plant, and it was upgraded, and the new company followed proper procedure, I'd be fine with this continuing. But, for me the fight is not to close all the nuclear plants, its to close the ones at risk. These are San Onofre and San Louis Obisbo in California, and Indian Point in NY. I also do not think the government should subsidize insurance to build new plants, and give guaranteed loans.

    unlike most nuclear plants the two bad ones in california were forced on people. I think the people in Japan would now have wished that there was better over sight of Tepco. The price to close down San Onofre now may be much cheaper than running it, except to SCE and the utility in San Diego that is partial owner.
    +1
    agree here
     
  11. KK6PD

    KK6PD _ . _ . / _ _ . _

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    4,003
    943
    118
    Location:
    Los Angeles Foothills
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    On the inverters I run, you can get into the firmware and turn that option to OFF. However, you have to be sure to lift the house from he GRID!
    I hate knocking linemen out of the poles! :eek:
     
  12. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    I agree. Of course, this would mean no new nukes, because the cost of insurance would be astronomical. At present, the government grants a liability limit, meaning that in the event of a disaster, the victims are just plain f***ed. Or else the government pays the trillions of dollars in damage. But I think the industry should pay the REAL cost, including insurance. Which also means I'd like to see an end to nukes. But my opposition is based far more on the waste disposal issue than on fear of another disaster.
     
  13. RobH

    RobH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    2,369
    978
    70
    Location:
    Sunnyvale, California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    The biggest reason to disconnect from a dead grid is that you don't have the power available to run the grid. If you don't disconnect, trying to support all your neighbor's load will shut you down in short order. As for the linemen, one of the safety procedures that they follow is to ground any wires that they touch. While it's nice to have safety equipment that automatically disconnects, they assume that the equipment can fail. Or some dimwit will plug a generator into a wall socket.

    Actually, sometimes they work on powered systems. Like when they replaced a wooden crosspiece that had broken. Middle of a storm, after dark, and they handled live wires rather than turn off the power. Not something I'd like to do, but the worker I talked to said that they do it all the time. As they say, don't try this at home...
     
  14. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    19,577
    8,019
    54
    Location:
    Montana & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    Living a measly 24-ish miles from ground zero ... I ain't afraid a no nukes . . . . of course we do have our post apocalyptic retreat out in the boonies of Montana.
    ;)