RE: O/T: San Onofre

Page 1 of 3  
Southern California Edison has finally announced the San Onofre nuclear plant will be permanently shut down.
The arrogance of SCE was typical of the "We know best" attitude of the utility industry found in some parts of the country.
The San Onofre nuclear plant was an inferior design according to industry watchdogs that SCE tried to get recertified when it leaked without submitting to the certifying process.
They were finally brought into submission.
To put things in perspective, there are over 8 million people living with in 50 miles of San Onofre.
Now for the plant's demolition, but leaving accumulated nuclear waste within 100 yards of the Pacific Ocean is not an option.
There is still a lot of work ahead to properly dispose of all the waste material accumulated over the years and not allow San Onofre to become an ocean side nuclear dump after the plant's demolition.
SCE will try to cut corners, that is their track record.
Vigilance to keep them under control will be vital.
Off the stump.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/8/2013 1:03 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Thank GOD, we have people in the Carolinas that are not afraid of Nuclear Energy and have trained knowledgeable people to run them in a safe manner. We have several plants that are online producing clean, environmental-friendly energy. They are not killing birds, creating noise in all frequencies. They are not taking up acres and acres of sunbaked land with no trees.
We recently had a power plant problem. They found a small crack in a pipe going to the reactor. They shut the plant down, fixed it and restarted it.
Several years ago we lived within 10 miles of one. Never did it affect our lives in a negative way. The large lake created for the cooling system was leased to the city and was a beautiful park with waking trails, picnic areas, etc. The lake itself was one of the best fishing lakes in the area.
It is nice to know we have a reliable source of energy to run our air conditioners this summer, that will run day and night. That is not dependent on the wind which may be blowing over 100 mph during a hurricane one day, and the next be so weak that they will not move my small sailboat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Keith Nuttle wrote:

So you let them bury the nuclear waste in your backyard?
--
PV

If you could choose one characteristic that would get you through life,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/8/2013 10:09 AM, PV wrote:

Probably ends up in NM or Washington State.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

It's always great to have a "reliable source of energy" when you can pawn the waste off on another place. Waste that will be hot for a long long time.
--
PV

If you could choose one characteristic that would get you through life,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Damage and deaths from coal burning air pollution and fly ash waste containment accidents dwarf anything caused to date from nuclear waste in the USA.
--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry W wrote:

Installation of scrubbing units, improvements in coal burning techniques and using fly ash waste as a concrete reinforcment has cleaned up the coal fed power plants in the area.
Nuclear waste would be hanging around for hundreds of years, waiting for a mistake to happen
--
PV

If you could choose one characteristic that would get you through life,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/8/2013 2:25 PM, PV wrote:

I have often wondered why the nuclear waste is not shot off into outer space.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My guess would be cost. Much, Much cheaper to just stick it in a hole in the ground.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/9/2013 7:11 PM, snipped-for-privacy@none.com wrote:

At the moment it is, but not when it has to be dealt with later.
And for that matter, the cost would be countless times more reasonable that the cost of sending astronauts up there. Shoot the waste out there and the problem of down the rode costs is solved. We are not really getting a worth while return on the investment of sending astronauts up there.
I can assure you a politician is getting paid for letting his state accept/be paid for housing the materials. Shoot the waste into outer space and the politician gets nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We're not prepared to make the effort to use a cleaner source of energy and we're not prepared to keep its waste product on our planet so the solution is to put it off planet and potentially contaminate somewhere out of this world?
I don't know. I have a moral problem with that. Already, our nearby space is turning into a junk field. What if all that junk and possible nuclear waste ever comes back to home? Then we might have a REAL problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?

You don't send it into orbit like all the other junk that is up there, you go for a close by star which BTW would consume the waste in the blink of an eye.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/10/2013 3:02 AM, snipped-for-privacy@none.com wrote:

It would be like a famous land mark. If you permit the tourist to take part of it with every visit, eventually it no longer exist.
If we call all of the earth potential energy, waste, and shoot it into the sun it no longer exist on earth. When we give our scientist the go ahead to develop methods to recover, it will no longer be available.
It took a little over four years to separate uranium in the Manhattan Project, what could we have done in the last 50 years if our scientist had been encouraged to develop methods to reuse our nuclear waste.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/10/2013 2:02 AM, snipped-for-privacy@none.com wrote:

Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above and you have your answer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually, there is a practical reason for not doing so: it takes too much fuel. To eject something from the solar system completely, you need to speed it up only a little bit, but to make it fall into the sun, you have to slow it down A LOT. (I used to work with a guy who was a for-real rocket scientist -- former NASA aerospace engineer -- and once asked him exactly the same question: why don't we dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into the sun? and that was his answer.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/10/2013 9:22 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

Not arguing here but as an example, and I am clueless as to how much would have to disposed of in this manner, I would think that maintenance of the materials forever might be more expensive than sending some one to the moon. I am talking on a 1 to 1 comparison, maybe 50 to 1 might be the real number and in that instance I totally agree that would probably be way too much trouble and expensive.
To eject

I suppose if you are depending on the suns gravity to pull the waste in that would be true. I was thinking more of a direct shot at the sun.
(I used to work with a guy who was

Hummmm we had the same thought. LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That takes even more fuel. (I asked about that, too.)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, for one practical reason, how about the fact that a certain percentage of space craft launches fail and return their payload to the ground?
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
One doesn't have to 'shoot' it into our star - but if we were allowed to build a 'breeder' plant the waste would be transformed into fuel.
Other countries have them in use but our 'do stuff always wrong ECO types' screamed to loud. Shame on them. Now store it all over the place.
The fly ash is used in cement and in 'cinder-blocks' a cement block for building. It is a common thread with the greenees - don't solve something, prevent it in the first place and go back to the bad old days.
Martin
On 6/9/2013 7:24 PM, Leon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.