Don't blame environmentalists for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station shutdown

[CreekDog]

the shutdown occurred 1.5 years ago and is the fault of nobody but the plant's designers, builders, operators and owner.

it was this nuclear power plant's failings that left the the people in this state to find alternative energy sources to make up for the loss of power from this nuclear facility.

any thought that closing the plant leaves the State of California in the lurch is actually a myth.

expecting San Onofre to be a reliable source of power has left the state in a position to come up with alternative sources of power and California has done so and shown those to be more reliable than San Onofre was.

remember that you are being fibbed to when environmentalists are blamed for this, when it was the owner, operator, designers and regulators of this nuclear facility that shut it down.

anyone who is suggesting that it's these folks that we need to rely on for safe, clean, reliable power --the same folks who couldn't run San Onofre safely for the past year and half. The idea that these same people who are going to run it safely in the future are mocking history.

[PamW]

1. What a load of BULL!!!

What a load of BULL and revisionist claptrap.

San Onofre has operated reliably and safely for decades; and is a credit to its designers, builders, operators, and owners.

The present problem is due to the ERRORS of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan.

It is clear from the recent evidence, including the letter to Mitsubishi, recently released by Senator Boxer, that the plant's owner Southern California Edison (SCE) contracted with Mitsubishi for replacement steam generators that could replace the originals as a "like for like" replacement. If one replaces components with new components that are identical to the original new components, then there is no need for a license modification. The originals were approved for the license, so their identical replacements are also approved.

Contrary to the claims by Senator Boxer that there was some malfeasance on the part of SCE, the letter from one of SCE's executives cautioned Mitsubishi of the types of troubles that could come to pass, and was borne out by the recent events; if Mitsubishi didn't provide steam generators that were copies of what were originally in the plant and served so well for decades.

Unfortunately, Mitsubishi botched the job. They installed replacement steam generators that wear faster than they should. Evidently Mitsubishi botched some of their engineering calculations.

So I can't see where anyone can make an intelligent case for saying that the designers, builders, operators, or owners of San Onofre are to blame. If steam generators which were identical to the originals had been fabricated as replacements; then we could have expected another few decades of clean, low carbon footprint power.

The fault here lies with Mitsubishi, which didn't deliver a product that conformed to the contract.

As an analogy, it's as if United had one of its Boeing 777 airliners serviced by a contract aviation maintenance contractor which installed a defective part in the Boeing 777 airliner. When pressed back into service, the airliner crashes due to the defective part.

Then someone blames the crash on Boeing engineers, the Boeing fabricators, the pilots and United. What an unwarranted and unintelligent conclusion. The true cause of the crash was the defective part, and the contract aviation maintenance contractor that fabricated and installed it.

The bozo that blames everyone but the entity that is truly at fault, evidently has some lame "bone to pick" with the litany of innocents involved, and fosters this inaccurate revisionist history as a way to "get back" at those people for some lame reason when they are not to blame for the crash.

Why can people "tell it like it is", and not subject the forum to revisionist claptrap.

PamW

[CreekDog]

2. you called my post "bull" yet you don't even disagree with my post

i said it's been offline for 1.5 years. it has. you haven't stated that it has not. we agree.

i said it's not the fault of environmentalists. it's not. you haven't stated anything to the contrary. we agree.

those were my main points, but despite calling them "bull", you didn't disagree with any.

you just blathered on about it being Mitsubishi's fault and somehow that's supposed convince us that despite being offline for 1.5 years and likely to continue, that somehow these folks who couldn't keep it running at all in 1.5 years, were somehow going to run it reliably for the foreseeable future, when it wasn't even clear if it would reopen in the forseeable future.

it seems like you wanted to say "bull" and "revisionist" (how conservative of you) without actually proving your point.

me: 1 you: 0

though your dopplegangers will show up and say otherwise.

[MiddleFingerMom]

3. !!!

.
.
.
"I said it's been offline for 1.5 years. it has. you haven't stated that it has not. we agree."
.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"i said it's not the fault of environmentalists. it's not. you haven't stated anything to the contrary. we agree."
.
Bqahahahahahaha!!!
.
Both of these conclusions require an omniscience that when he/she doesn't
say anything... you KNOW what the other person is/was THINKING. .
.
Amd what's with the "Me 1 --- You 0" conclusion. That would be a statement
worthy of the teenaged basement-dwelling movie critics in "Jay and Silent Bob
Go to Hollywood".
.
All snark. No cattle.
.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
.
.
.
Sometimes folks don't respond to your posts because they're just not worth
repsponding to.
.
Score that.
.
.
.

[CreekDog]

6. So, this post of yours is the only one in Environment and Energy since November

that's 8 months ago.

and only your 2nd post in Environment and Energy *ever*.

did you follow me here?

[dumbcat]

7. Which is relevant, how?

One could have lurked here and read posts for years before signing up and posting things. It is possible to get to know the personalities here without posting. Gee, I wonder how I know that?

[CreekDog]

10. it's relevant because i'm asking if the only reason he's posting where he's posting

is to harass me.

[dumbcat]

11. OK, I get it.

Any low post count DUer that doesn't post much in E&E and makes a post disagreeing with you is a stalking harasser. For, surely, there is no other possible reason why they might disagree with you.

Got it.

[PamW]

8. Miserable logic and reasoning in addition to poor reading comprehension

CreekDog,

You demonstrate absolutely miserable logic and reasoning powers in addition to poor reading comprehension.

There IS a statement you made in the original post that I disagree with, counter to your ill-founded contentions above. That statement is quoted here:

and is the fault of nobody but the plant's designers, builders, operators and owner.

You stated in addition to the shutdown not being the fault of the environmentalists; you also stated that it was the fault of the designers, builders, operators and owners.

It is THAT contention that I DISAGREE with.

Evidently the point of the post went totally over your head. The point of talking about Mitsubishi was to show where the true blame should be laid. You evidently "thought" ( term used advisedly ) that I was attempting to rationalize the 1.5 year shutdown, or claim that I was making excuses for the operators.

I would have thought that the airliner analogy was sufficiently basic so as to be understood by even those with the most limited reasoning powers.

Let's take the airliner example again. The contract aviation maintenance shop installs a defective part in the Boeing 777 airliner. However, this time instead of taking off and crashing, the resident FAA inspector sees that the part is defective and grounds the plane.

In such a case, is it the fault of Boeing designers, Boeing builders, the pilots, or United that the airliner is not allowed to fly by the FAA? Are those people to be blamed, which is the analog to your inapt ( and inept ) contentions above? Are those the people we should blame and hold in disdain because the FAA has grounded that particular Boeing 777 airliner?

Of course NOT. The fault is NOT Boeing's, its designers nor builders; they delivered an operable and safe airliner to United. Is it the fault of United's pilots for not being able to operate a plane with a defective component? NO - those pilots are perfectly capable of flying a non-defective airliner. Is the fault, United airlines, the owner? NO - they contracted with an FAA-approved aviation maintenance contractor that should have done a good job.

Is it the fault of the FAA? NO - they are doing their job of keeping a defective airliner grounded. It is TOTALLY the fault of the maintenance workers that crafted and installed a defective part.

Likewise with San Onofre, which is a Westinghouse PWR. Are the Westinghouse designers at fault for the plant being down for 1.5 years recently, as is your ill-considered contention? San Onofre was constructed by the Bechtel Corporation. Is Bechtel responsible for the 1.5 year recent shutdown, as is your ill-founded contention? The answer to both of those questions is "NO". Westinghouse and Bechtel delivered an operable and safe plant approved by the NRC that operated for about 3 decades. Just as with Boeing above; Westinghouse / Bechtel delivered what they were supposed to, and did their respective jobs properly. I know how some here just love to bash Westinghouse, Bechtel, and GE for no apparent reason. I've never understood that animosity.

Is the shutdown the responsibility of the reactor operators? NO - just like the pilots above, both the operators and pilots are innocent. Both operators and pilots can operate non-defective machines. Is SCE to blame. NO - just like United that contracted for maintenance from an FAA-approved contractor; SCE contracted with NRC-licensed contractor Mitsubishi. SCE got maintenance for its facility just as you would get maintenance with a licensed mechanic for your car. SCE is not to blame.

Is the NRC to blame? NO - the NRC is just like the FAA. The FAA grounds airliners that don't meet specs The NRC does the same with nuclear power plants. Of course, that doesn't stop the anti-nukes from claiming that the NRC is "in the pocket" of the nuclear industry and "rubberstamps" industry requests. Well, SCE would like to restart the plant at reduced power, and the NRC won't let it.

The fault here rests SOLELY with Mitsubishi. They are supposed to be NRC-licensed and approved, but they botched the engineering calculations for the new steam generators. Mitsubishi is at fault; an entity that you completely left out of your litany of people who were supposedly at fault.

Then you post this childish 1-0 "score". This is DU; and NOT the elementary school playground.

I'm attempting to have a meaningful discussion and explain the situation with analogies so that you can understand.

However, it appears that I'm dealing with the mind and reasoning capacity of a child.

I'd have better luck attempting to explain quantum mechanics to the cat.

PamW

[SleeplessinSoCal]

4. I drive by that ugly thing regularly. It's also dangerous.

Does it really matter that it outlived its warranty?

[PamW]

9. It hasn't "outlived" anything

Does it really matter that it outlived its warranty?

Again, nuclear power plants are like airplanes.

Unlike milk, there's no inherent "expiration date" for either airplanes nor nuclear power plants.

On Memorial Day, I toured some World War II vintage warplanes at the local airport. Those planes are operated and maintained by the Collings Foundation. The warplanes are almost 70 years old and they still work.

If an airplane is properly maintained; there's no "expiration date". The same with nuclear power plants.

I always have to shake my head at these people that claim a nuclear power plant is beyond its service life, if the license is about to expire.

Within about 5 years, your driver's license will expire. Does that mean that you are no longer qualified to operate a motor vehicle? NO! It just means that the authorities want to re-affirm their decision to allow you to drive every 5 years or so.

Likewise with nuclear power plants. The NRC does an intensive review before giving a license; and allows the plant to operate for 40 years. After that time, the NRC wants to re-affirm their original decision. It has NOTHING to do with the "service life" of the plant.

In the case of San Onofre; a contractor hired to do preventative maintenance botched the job so the plant doesn't operate properly.

Can you not see that could happen to ANY machine? Can you design a machine such that when someone else comes along and takes it apart and puts it back together, they can't botch the job especially when they are putting in replacement parts of their own manufacture?

You can do the best job possible, but some idiot can always screw it up if they get to take apart your work, and substitute their own parts and reassemble.

Why can't people here understand that?

Of course I know the answer. They are incapable of such reasoning. There are certain entities, usually companies; that certain people just love to hate. Those entities can do no right. If something goes wrong that they are involved with, then they can't understand that the company they hate may be blameless.

Why do supposedly intelligent people harbor such bogeymen?

Of course, I've answered my own question again; they are NOT intelligent.

Can someone explain why General Electric and Bechtel are so hated?

PamW

[CreekDog]

12. It hasn't operated for 1.5 years and it's owner doesn't want to reopen it

besides, there was no date for reopening in the foreseeable future.

inherent expiration date or not, the thing is offline, hasn't been producing power for two summers now and California has already adjusted to the lack of power from this now unreliable source.

the point of this thread, which seems lost on you, is that the OWNER of the plant, not environmentalists, are the reason it will not reopen.

it is closed because of regulators, NOT environmentalists.

of course you don't understand simple logic and continue to blame the actions of entities responsible for these decisions (to close) and instead want to blame them on environmentalists.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

14. What kind of airplane leaks nuclear waste?

[oldhippie]

16. Brilliant comment .......

NOT!

Just goes to point out PamW's observations about some posters on this site are correct.

[bananas]

5. Blame them? We should applaud them!

Only an anti-environmental troll would try to "blame" them.


Some of my responses in the LBN thread when it was announced:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=502871

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=502888

[Downtown Hound]

13. Blame? I don't care who or what's responsible

I'm just fucking thrilled to see that ticking time bomb finally die. If we'd ever experienced a Fukishima type event there, well, all I can say is bye bye Southern California. So that it's now going bye bye is not just good news to me, it's DOWNRIGHT FUCKING GRAND!

Thanks to everyone involved in shutting that piece of shit down, whoever or whatever you are.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

15. For all we know earthquakes may have helped to cause the leaks

There are countless earthquakes in this region every year. To top it off, it looks like a gigantic, ugly sand castle that the tide could wash away.

[oldhippie]

17. Another astute analysis .....

You're on a roll!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

22. Until you've seen the sort of damage done by daily earthquakes, you cannot prove I'm wrong.

And if you don't like my humor about a "sand castle", I feel bad for you.

[oldhippie]

23. I lived 10 miles from the San Andreas fault in CA .....

.... for 21 years (near Hollister, CA). I'm sorry, but I didn't see any significant damage done by the "daily earthquakes", (and I'm an engineer that tends to notice those kinds of things.)

Now, Loma Prieta, in '89, did get my attention.

Don't feel bad for me. I'm not a very humorous guy, and I survive.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

24. Have you never looked at damage done to streets, sidewalks, foundations by daily quakes?

We are not on a known fault, yet quakes have caused cracks in our exterior walls every time a quake comes within 90 miles.

I notice that Hollister is 270 miles from San Onofre. I'm 34 miles from it. Makes a difference when you're that close to it.

[hunter]

18. Out of the pan, into the fire.

This was a big win for the fossil fuel industry. There are things much worse than nuclear power and fossil fuels are one of those things.

[CreekDog]

19. no nuclear power was lost as a result of this decision

the plant's been offline for 1.5 years so far.

no power was lost by this decision. that power was already lost due to the shutdown and without a plan for restarting, no power was coming from the plant in the future.

[dbackjon]

20. Except the Coal burned in the last 1.5 years

And that will continue to be burned to replace the 10% of CA power that SONGS generated.

[CreekDog]

21. No, that is not true

*this* decision just occurred.

*this* decision did not cause coal to be burned 1.5 years in the past.

[dbackjon]

27. Where did the power last summer come from?

And where will it come from in the future?

[kristopher]

26. What coal? Buying into another nuclear industry lie, are you?

There have been a steady stream of overtly false claims related to the carbon costs of San Onofre's closing. Here is a comprehensive explanation of what is going on from the NRDC.

The next time you read one of the false claims by nuclear industry shills about importing coal fired electricity or replacing SO watt for watt with natural gas, just remember that the information from the NRDC isn't secret. If these so-call analysts wanted to be truthful, it would be no more difficult to find accurate information than it was for them to produce the lies they're putting out.

Without SONGS, California still has more than enough capacity to meet their needs:

In order to keep the lights on, the ISO needs to have more generation available than consumers are expected to use. This is known as a “reserve margin,” and the California Public Utilities Commission requires the utilities to plan for a 15% cushion. And the state already has more power plants than we need to pass that test. This summer, the ISO expects to easily exceed that margin under normal conditions, and to still avoid rolling blackouts even under extreme conditions (like if a lot of power plants go down unexpectedly at the same time customers’ demand is unusually high).




Source: ISO (Note: SP 26 and NP 26 are roughly Southern and Northern California, respectively)

As you can see the problem presented by the shutdown isn't having enough capacity to meet demand.

So why, in 2012 when SO shut down, did they need to pull 2 retired natgas generators (450MW) out of retirement in nearby Huntington Beach?

Blame it on a grid designed around centralized generation. The gaping hole in the system left by the shutdown of a large centralized source of generation causes a lot of problems besides the loss of ability to meet demand.

...the grid needs the “voltage support” SONGS used to provide.

Since a major part of the Southern California electric grid was built around SONGS, it is a lot harder for the transmission grid to remain stable without the plant operating and providing that voltage support. This all gets very technical fast, but the important thing to know is that there are different ways to provide voltage support (and they don’t all require burning fossil fuels at a power plant). So even though one might expect the state to fill the hole left by SONGS with more dirty power plants, this year the state is taking a better and cleaner approach.

So what happens now?

...(Huntington Beach - k) is instead being converted into “synchronous condensers,” which provide voltage support without onsite emissions. (The synchronous condensers operate like electric motors and use a small amount of energy from the grid in the process.) Other emissions-free efforts to fill the hole left by SONGS include installation of capacitors and upgrades to a local transmission line so that if the line has a problem, only part of it goes down instead of the whole thing.

<snip>

The Public Utilities Commission should continue to build on the great start made this year by requiring utilities to fill the gap with efficient and clean resources by:

making the electric grid more resilient through transmission system upgrades;
adding renewable resources in different geographic regions to take advantage of the different times when they’re available; and
avoiding new generation through more aggressive efforts to help customers:
improve the efficiency of their homes and businesses;
reduce consumption during costly “peak” periods; and
use clean on-site generation like solar panels.

Information courtesy of the wonderful folks at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dwang/replacing_songs.html


ETA:
With the large scale "hole" in the grid created by the unexpected shutdown of SO, the general basics of California's grid are worth looking at again.

While the local nuclear acolytes will automatically say coal is going to be the main replacement, that is highly unlikely. The same goes for the insane predictions that natural gas will replace it. Due to a 2006 law forbidding municipal and investor owned utilities from signing new contracts for out of state coal, California's energy mix is only 8% coal (3% in state 5% imported) and that number is set to decline as LA has passed a law to phase out coal completely by 2025 (they currently get 44% of their power from coal). And while the mix is 35% natural gas, the state mandates at least 33% renewables by 2020 and they still need significant capacity to meet that goal.

The worst aspect will be some natural gas, but the RPS mandate of 33% renewables will weigh heavily in investment decision-making.

This is shows the trends fairly well:

Total System Power for 2011: Changes from 2010
In 2011, Total System Power for California was marginally higher by half of a percent from 2010. The two primary reasons are the ongoing recession and continued mild temperatures. The effects of the recession resulted in a peak demand that was 5 percent less than the forecast. As for temperatures, they were lower than normal during the spring, near normal temperatures during the summer, and above normal temperatures during both the fall and winter.1 By design, California's electric generation system delivers electricity quickly to match peak air conditioning load conditions in the summer.

In-state generation declined by 2.4 percent in 2011 however net imports from the Northwest and Southwest combined made up for the difference. In particular, energy imports from the Northwest in 2011 increased by 42.7 percent due primarily to an increase in hydroelectric generation resulting from higher precipitation in the Northwest. Between March and May 2011, Oregon and Washington experienced their wettest periods in the last 116 and 117 years respectively.2

With the conversion of Mt. Poso Cogeneration coal facility to a biomass plant complete, the in-state coal category showed a slight decline from 2010. Mt. Poso Cogeneration is about 10 miles north of Bakersfield.

Large hydroelectric generation, a category based on nameplate capacity of 30 megawatts (MW) and larger, showed a significant increase of 24.8% for in-state generation. This coincides with California experiencing one of its wettest years. After three relatively dry years, statewide precipitation during the 2010 Water Year (ending September 30, 2010) was 105% of average. Precipitation during the 2011 Water Year (ending September 30, 2011) was 135% of average, and runoff was 146% of average. Though January 2011 was remarkably dry, the months of March and May were extremely wet with peak snowmelt in early July. As a result, in-state hydroelectric generation in 2011 was 127% of average compared to 101% in 2010.

Generally, when snowmelt and runoff is plentiful, California's hydroelectricity is less expensive to purchase than electricity generated by plants using natural gas-fired generation. Therefore, usage of natural gas-fired generation is reduced ("displaced&quot . This is especially so during the spring and fall months and during off-peak summer hours (afternoon and early evening hours). Wind generation increased in 2011 reflecting the continued siting of new wind projects in the state. Solar also saw some increase as commercial-scale systems came online in 2011.

Reporting requirements for Total System Power are limited to projects rated at 1MW and larger. Because most solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on residential households and businesses are less than 1 MW, data on them is not collected. As more installations of solar PV and other "behind the meter" distributed generation technologies take place, consumption of power delivered by utilities will continue to decrease. Whether to exclude these smaller systems from the Total System Power summary may need addressing in future, if the aggregate capacity and energy of such small systems becomes a significant portion of the state's generation mixture.

1 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/13
2 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/13

More at http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html

See also
Los Angeles Bans Coal Power
Coal Free by 2025

By Jon Carter
Friday, March 22nd, 2013
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/los-angeles-bans-coal-power/3209

[jpak]

25. K&R San Onofre - like Maine Yankee - was a POS closed by its owners - good riddance

yup