OT San Onofre Nuclear Plant Closing Leaves $500 Million Bill

So glad FoE are happy...
San Onofre Nuclear Plant Closing Leaves $500 Million Bill
LOS ANGELES -- The demise of California's San Onofre nuclear power plant began with an attempt to fix it.
A $670 million equipment swap in 2009 and 2010 went haywire, leaving Southern California Edison on Friday with two idle reactors, more than $500 million in bills and a federal decision on a possible restart nowhere in sight.
The company decided to close it, permanently. The announcement triggered a celebration among environmentalists and other critics of the nuclear power industry who argued the plant was too damaged to operate safely.
"There's a huge sense of relief for us," said Laguna Beach Councilwoman Toni Iseman, whose community is about 20 miles up the coast from San Onofre's twin domes. "We were just sitting with a time bomb just to the south of us."
Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said San Onofre's closing represents an opportunity for California to use more wind, solar and other clean energy. The group waged a long fight to block the restart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/san-onofre-nuclear-plant-closing_n_3408386.html
--
Rod

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

The sort of thing you can expect. First bad design. The aftermath was kicked into the long grass for years and has finally caught up with them sooner than expected.
I expect for years someone was telling them how cheap and wonderful nuclear power was. Now the real world/price has become apparent.
Stuff like this makes Hinkley point even less likely to happen. Which of course leaves the alternatives.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

Which are? Remember most people like power at night and cold still winter weeks. Severn barage? Oh, that sorry thats just be given another kick in the nuts.
Guess we'll just have to have another dash for (shale) gas or import more brown coal to burn in the power stations that the EU are getting shut down. Hum...
--
Cheers
Dave.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/06/2013 17:04, harry wrote:

The power company is suing the supplier of the steam generators, which suggests that the problem was with the manufacture, not with the design.

Indeed. Electricity prices have already risen as a result of having to bring retired gas fired power stations back on line to compensate.

One suggested alternative to this power station is a solar power station, which it has been calculated would need to cover 20 square miles and would cost $44 billion.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/06/13 17:44, Nightjar wrote:

And still need the same sized gas or coal plant to generate electricity at night and in the winter.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/06/2013 07:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And take 20 square miles out of other possible uses. Solar collection does not sit happily with many other things.
--
Rod

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

nt

ed

n
e
ng

.
Who suggested that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/06/2013 08:39, harry wrote:

>

I thought it was in the story - but looking again, it isn't. Two possibilities - story has changed or it was in a comment below the story. I think the first of these.
At this moment someone has commented that "just 100 square miles" of solar in the desert would produce 100% of USA electricity needs. (But "they" don't want us to know that!)
Don't you love the little "just" in there as if it were something anyone could knock up in a few weeks.
--
Rod

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

Given the EU is slapping an anti-dumping import duty on the Chinese panels, maybe they have a few spare to divert to the USA?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It'd bugger up Las Vegas
Times Square would never look the same either
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When I tried to calculate the number of panels required and the cost I got a similar (42bn) figure to the one quoted by Colin.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/06/2013 08:39, harry wrote:

Lots of people seem to have suggested the idea. Professor Dennis Silverman, of the University of California provided the figures.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

Which is what, exactly?
Down in Plymouth a firm wants to install 52 diesel generators in order to provide backup for when renewables don't function, such as night-time, between tides, and no wind.
It's estimated that these will use a tanker a week of diesel.
ISTM that back-up for renewables is the worst kind possible, with the exception of the proposed German lignite-powered stations.
--
Terry Fields

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/06/2013 09:13, Terry Fields wrote:

Which I read as:
"ISTM that back-up for renewables is the worst kind possible, with the exception of the proposed Gelignite-powered stations."
More bang for your buck.
--
Rod

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/06/2013 09:26, polygonum wrote:

Before petrol, there were experiments to make internal combustion engines that used gunpowder.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

so more bang for your Buick?
I'll get me coat
Jim K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/06/13 16:38, polygonum wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/san-onofre-nuclear-plant-closing_n_3408386.html

yes, well thats what the huffington post, that bastion of watermelons says.
heres a rather more balanced view
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_Regulatory_delay_closes_San_Onofre_0706132.html
"decisions by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board have "created further uncertainty," adding that "additional administrative processes and appeals could result in delay of more than a year." During this time, SCE would have to purchase replacement power for its customers as well as maintain the plant in a state of readiness to operate."
SCE said it cannot afford to wait for permission to restart unit 3 without income from the operation of unit 2. The reactors produce 1080 MWe and 1070 MWe respectively and have licenses to operate until 2022. During this period the units would have avoided over 7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions compared to the gas generation likely to replace them
IN short the gvernment essentially closed it down by making it so uncertain as to what regulations it would have to meet, and delaying the approval process, that it was no longer economically viable to operate.
Precisely the same way the Lib Dems have torpedoed every attempt to get new nuclear in this country.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.