Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 12:09 PM Apr 2013

San Onofre insider says NRC should not allow nuclear restart

Source: KGTV

For the first time, a source from inside the San Onofre nuclear power plant has come forward to warn that restarting the power plant is too dangerous.

"There is something grossly wrong," said the inside source, a safety engineer who worked at San Onofre and has 25 years in the nuclear field.

(See the interview with the inside source, today on 10News at 5 p.m.)

The source, who requested anonymity, is not alone in concerns over the safety San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

<snip>

Read more: http://www.10news.com/news/investigations/san-onofre-insider-says-nrc-should-not-allow-nuclear-restart-042513

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
San Onofre insider says NRC should not allow nuclear restart (Original Post) bananas Apr 2013 OP
This is a problem why? AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #1
Insiders have to be careful as to what they disclose or they'll be harassed or prosecuted under this AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #2
Reading that news report reminds of RobertEarl's threads, Trillo Apr 2013 #3
It's a problem because adieu Apr 2013 #4
The plants are 29 and 28 years of age. Throckmorton Apr 2013 #9
Thanks. adieu Apr 2013 #10
This is becoming a more and more scary story nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #5
I was a teenager when they built that plant, Trillo Apr 2013 #6
Correct...in every way nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #7
I'm familiar with this plant... hunter Apr 2013 #8
Considering that the Inland Empire adieu Apr 2013 #11
Actually San Diego is leading the country in roof top solar nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #12

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
1. This is a problem why?
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 12:21 PM
Apr 2013

Is this plant designed so the live steam is contaminated, and the steam loop is outside the containment?

If so, that was pretty dumb. And expensively dumb. Forget maintenance, or MTBF on the tubes, if they bang into each other and damage themselves under normal operation, what size quake can they withstand? This plant is in earthquake country.

 

AnotherMcIntosh

(11,064 posts)
2. Insiders have to be careful as to what they disclose or they'll be harassed or prosecuted under this
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 12:25 PM
Apr 2013

Administration.

Why isn't Congress looking into the prosecution of whistle-blowers?

Why isn't Congress looking into the extraordinary danger associated with the San Onofre nuclear power plant?

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
3. Reading that news report reminds of RobertEarl's threads,
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 02:37 PM
Apr 2013

the ones 'that have been completely debunked' or so some DUers say.

 

adieu

(1,009 posts)
4. It's a problem because
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 02:55 PM
Apr 2013

the plant is 20 years beyond its planned life span. Consider what would happen if you're driving a 1960s car, without all the love and care that an antique car enthusiast would have put into it.

Throckmorton

(3,579 posts)
9. The plants are 29 and 28 years of age.
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 08:27 PM
Apr 2013

Unit 1 was commissioned on January 1, 1968, and decommissioned November 30, 1992.
Unit 2 was commissioned on August 8, 1983, Unit 3 was commissioned on April 1, 1984, both have a license to operate until 2022.
Unit 1 was shutdown after 24 years of operation.
Units 2 and 3 are not 20 years beyond their original 40 year design life.
Units 2 and 3 have not been granted 20 year life extensions.

 

adieu

(1,009 posts)
10. Thanks.
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 08:47 PM
Apr 2013

Was not aware that some units have already been decomm'ed. I had worked as a summer intern at Diablo Canyon in the early 80s. Those two units were built in the 70s and have been working on overtime, earning money now for PG&E. Until around 2000, it was still earning money to pay for the amortized cost of the construction. It's now profitable, but after the expect life span of the units.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
5. This is becoming a more and more scary story
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 04:32 PM
Apr 2013

SoCal Edison is losing billions right now, and SDG&E needs to contract with others for electricity, again leading to loses.

This is where the pressure to restart, or decom, and charge users for decom, is coming from

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
6. I was a teenager when they built that plant,
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 05:34 PM
Apr 2013

one of my friends was close to someone who had a low-level construction job there. A lot of us didn't want them to build it. At the time, there was quite a bit of attention in the media to green alternatives, at least the media I had access to (TV, magazines).

The costs they are requesting for decommissioning are not onerous, it looks like something around 10-40 cents per month per average bill, something like that. However, folks who didn't want nuclear in the first place have been paying for nuclear decomissioning costs for a long damn time, and now they want more money. Doesn't pass the smell test. In December 2008, we paid 33 cents in one month for the asserted charge of "nuclear decomissioning". In 2002 we paid 47 cents in a summer month. Recent bills have had a negative charge, presumably this was due to the output stoppage, but the point is, as ratepayers in that service area, we've been paying into a fund line itemized on the bill called "nuclear decomissioning" for years and years.

Someone needs to go through that funds books with a fine tooth comb. Perhaps someone's been playing creative accounting with that fund. I'm not saying they have been, just that it looks fishy that they need more money, when that fund has been collecting money from ratepayers for a long time, perhaps since the plant first began operation.

hunter

(38,264 posts)
8. I'm familiar with this plant...
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 06:30 PM
Apr 2013
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hunter/34

I ended up disliking both sides; the nuclear proponents and the anti-nuclear activists. There were many liars and ignorant people on both sides. The people who were paid to lie were the worst, and both sides had those. Major difference was the electric power industry guys (yes, mostly men) had expensive clothes and much nicer cars.

Today's Hunter is some kind of Luddite. Electric power grids ought to be owned by cities without any interconnections between them. I'd maybe consider some kind of exception for railroads, but only enough to keep the trains rolling.

I also know that my fantasy world -- a progressive socialist environmentally sustainable society -- ain't gonna happen. Instead I get watch world civilization one collapsing in slow motion.

Maybe this plant will be shut down, replaced by some solar and wind assisted natural gas fired monstrosity, but this will not make the world a better place.

Interesting times, these...
 

adieu

(1,009 posts)
11. Considering that the Inland Empire
Thu Apr 25, 2013, 08:49 PM
Apr 2013

just east of San Diego is nothing by a huge desert wasteland, why don't think consider putting some really good solar plants out there like what Germany is doing? The planning and approval process must be way quicker and cheaper than building a nuclear power plant. Actual building of such a plant would also be quicker and cheaper than building a nuke plant as well.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
12. Actually San Diego is leading the country in roof top solar
Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:21 AM
Apr 2013

And there are both solar plants and windmills...the latter, let's just say it's not as clean as thought originally and Cal Fire will rue the day they have to do aerial attacks on or around turbines.

But rooftop solar and distributive is happening.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»San Onofre insider says N...