Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:

9 Comments

  1. Not being a Californian, but having lived there for a time, I wonder how effective a demonstration in San Luis Obispo is. Just thinking a demonstration in Sacramento or the Bay Area would give more bang for the buck.

    It’s great the demonstration took place and it would be crazy to shut that plant down.

  2. The anti-nukes have reigned in California for far too many years.

    This latest gambit is just a continuation of what happened to Rancho Seco over 25 years ago.

  3. “The anti-nukes have┬áreigned┬áin California for far too many years”

    Yep. Which makes SCE’s actions regarding San Onofre ignorant beyond belief. Instead of dotting every “i”, they rolled the dice. And the anti’s jumped at an industry provided opportunity, and won. One wonders if the El Diablo operators realize how important it is right now to run PERFECT plant. It might not be fair to expect perfection out of this plant, but perfection is what is required. Any “accident”, or “incident”, no matter how small, will doom this facility.

    1. @poa

      I disagree with that course of action. Gives all the power to the opposition.

      Certainly work hard to do excellent work, but do not ignore the importance of establishing public confidence while plant is running well. Invite public, tell them the good news constantly, encourage workers to continue active participation in community, encourage groups like Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Friends of Diablo Canyon, and Save Diablo Canyon to attend public meetings, write letters, expand, demonstrate, etc.

      Nuclear plant owners need to look hard at history and recognize that the turtle posture has failed. It’s time to do something different.

      1. You might disagree with that “course of action”, but I find it hard to believe that you doubt the ramifications of NOT pursuing that course of action. You know as well as I do that ANY publicized “problems” with the operation of this plant will be its death knell.

        1. @poa

          IF problems are publicized BEFORE successful efforts to shift conversation and public acceptance, you’re possibly correct. My point is nukes should not (cannot?) accept a situation where perfection is the only way to succeed.

          You and I both know humans and human designed machinery isn’t perfect. Both can be damned good, but perfection is an impossible standard of performance.

        2. But running a “perfect” plant is prohibitively expensive, which would also be a death knell. Catch 22.

          Hey, at least with the 1st option (not running a “perfect” plant), there is a good *chance* that no event will happen and they will be able to remain open. But with the 2nd option (pursuing perfection), there is no chance the plant will survive.

          I agree that it is a very bad (infuriating) situation. What’s the solution? To anti nuclear prejudice on the part of the general public and many well-connected political groups? Hell, I dunno. In the past I’ve advocated the industry standing up for itself in court. It’s much like how people turned to the courts in the past, in response to persistent prejudices on the part of the public (e.g., civil rights, gay rights, etc…).

  4. @Rod Adams

    I have only one point about the cooling towers. I am sure your point is true about the huge, hyperboloid, natural-draft cooling towers. But the plant (Monticello Nuclear Generating Station*) I worked at had cross-flow cooling towers, which short, and made of wood and fiberglass paneling. They were lucky at the plant, because these towers seldom had to be run during the winter. If they were run in the winter, generally the ice would build-up and a section of the paneling would come down, producing a tremendous crash and a river of cooling water running over the ground. Not a great day, I was happy it never happened when I was there.

    As for the local climate changes at the plant, Monticello gained a year-round swan population, some happy fish in the outtake canal (in the winter), some unhappy cold-water fish in the summer, and a few charming snowstorms from the cooling towers in the spring that blanketed the downtown in the a blizzard while the rest of the area was brilliant sunshine.

    *A lovely plant to work at, but obviously my views are my own.

  5. This is clearly a political attack on the Diablo plant (as many here understand). It is clear that many of these CA agencies, such as the coastal and/or lands commission, the Air Resources Board, etc., are packed with people opposed to nuclear power (apparently to a greater extent than even fossil fuels). Or, at a minimum, anti-nuclear groups make them selves heard to such bodies (or have influence on them) to a great extent.

    How else can you explain threatening to close this plant over hyped seismic issues, or any issues with the local ocean, even though the overall public health risks and environmental impacts of replacing the plant with ~2 GW of fossil generation are clearly orders of magnitude larger. Don’t they even ask themselves such questions? (Probably not.) How else can you explain why I’m not hearing of similar demands on fossil plants that dot the CA costs (such as the ~2 GW Moss Landing plant on Monterrey Bay). (We had similar BS in NY, where they hammered Indian Point in river impacts, but left fossil plants also on the river alone.)

    Such agencies should be required to look at the overall impacts of these decisions. I thought they cared about global warming.

    Of note is the fact that the Diablo and San Onofre plants generate(d) ~1.5 times as much power as all the solar and wind generation that has been built to date in CA (at enormous expense). Thus, the closure of those two plants will MORE than offset/neutralize all of those efforts. CA will have spent a huge amount of money to replace nuclear with renewable and some fossil, with electricity-sector fossil use actually going UP a bit!

    And it’s not like those vast solar and wind plants have no effect on landscapes, environments and habitats; they’re actually worse than other sources in that regard. Has anyone studied the impacts of all those solar and wind farms on land habitats, and how that compares to Diablo’s impact on the local ocean habitat? (In other words, the nuclear vs. renewable comparison, let alone the nuclear vs. fossil comparison?) Why do I doubt it?