Is it ironic that the socialists and the communists, with their totalitarian and repressive regimes, always seem to be the leaders of anti-war, anti-nuclear efforts to disadvantage the United States?
A word about nuclear technology in today’s age …
As of 2011, nuclear power in the United States is provided by 104 commercial reactors (69 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) licensed to operate at 65 nuclear power plants, producing a total of 806 TWh [Terawatt-hours] of electricity, which was 19.6% of the nation's total electric energy generation in 2008. The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.
In terms of history, all US nuclear power plants, and almost all reactors, began to be built in 1974 or earlier; following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and changing economics, many planned projects were canceled. Of the 104 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier. There has been no new ground-breaking on nuclear plants in the United States since 1974, though a number of reactor units started before 1974 have been completed since then, and recently (2011 and 2012) construction has begun on new units at existing plants. <Source>
There is little or no doubt that nuclear energy generation is economically feasible, cost-effective, sustainable and reliable. And while accidents have occurred in the past, the nuclear plants are of an obsolete design and that nuclear research and technology has progressed far beyond the capabilities and safeguards of those older plants. Yet, there are no nuclear plants being built and no nuclear plants being replaced in the United States because of the constant demonization of an environmental movement which has been infiltrated by radical socialists and communists who see low-cost energy as a threat to the global balance of power in the world. few new nuclear installations being built. And, it should be of no wonder that this cadre of socialists and communists are joined by the energy producers who are threatened, both by the thought of energy independence from fossil fuels and the destruction of their dying business models. Of course, we also find the anti-nuclear cause championed by the cadre of rich, elitist useful idiots like Barbara Streisand and Ted “Heal the Bay” Danson’s ex-wife.
A call to shut down California’s San Onofre nuclear generating station …
Before we comment further, it appears that the problems at San Onofre’s plant arise, not from the design and operation of the reactor, but from a poorly designed replacement heat exchanger built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. And while there are open questions as to the plant’s placement, design and operation, opponents are demanding that the United States cease nuclear power generation rather than cure the problems at hand and build more safe and efficient units.
This article was written by Harvey Wasserman who is the author of Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth and published in conjunctions with Danson’s GlobalPossibilities.org.
Showdown at San Onofre: Why the Nuclear Industry May Be Dealt a Big Blow -- Two stricken California reactors may soon redefine a global movement aimed at eradicating nuclear power.
Two stricken California reactors may soon redefine a global movement aimed at eradicating nuclear power. They sit in a seismic zone vulnerable to tsunamis. Faulty steam generators have forced them shut for nearly a year. A powerful “No Nukes” movement wants them to stay that way. If they win, the shutdown of America’s 104 licensed reactors will seriously accelerate.
The story of San Onofre Units 2 & 3 is one of atomic idiocy. Perched on an ocean cliff between Los Angeles and San Diego, the reactors’ owners cut unconscionable corners in replacing their multi-million-dollar steam generators. According to Russell Hoffman, one of California’s leading experts on San Onofre, inferior metals and major design failures turned what was meant to be an upgrade into an utter fiasco. Installed by Mitsubishi, the generators simply did not work. When they were shut nearly a year ago, tubes were leaking, banging together and overall rendering further operations impossible.
About the Tsunami potential …
Southern California Edison officials acknowledged that the San Onofre nuclear power plant was built to withstand a magnitude 7.0 quake -- not the 9.0 temblor that hit Japan. But quake experts said the chance of a similar-sized quake --and a tsunami -- occurring in the southern half of California were highly unlikely.
"There's no offshore fault in any of Southern California that's exactly like the one that broke in Japan," said Thomas H. Jordan, director of the Southern California Earthquake Center at USC.
Steven Day, a seismology expert at San Diego State, said the highest magnitudes believed to be possible at the nearest significant fault lines to the two California plants -- the Hosgri fault in the case of Diablo Canyon and the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon fault in the case of San Onofre -- would be in the low 7s.
Experts said there was essentially no risk of an earthquake that would generate a tsunami like the one that struck Japan at either site because there is no subduction zone -- where one plate slides under another -- off the shore.
An earthquake could cause undersea landslides that would potentially generate a tsunami, but it would be of a much smaller scale. Northern California and the Pacific Northwest are at a greater risk of a major tsunami because of their proximity to the Cascadia subduction zone.
Because it's on the beach, San Onofre's twin domed facility south of San Clemente is protected by a 30-foot-high, reinforced concrete "tsunami wall," said Pete Dietrich, chief nuclear officer for San Onofre's operator, Southern California Edison. The twin units, which have been in operation since the mid-80s, have safety barriers that are newer and better designed than the Japanese reactors built a decade earlier, Dietrich said. <Source>
Personally, I would like to see the San Onofre reactors and plant replaced with an over-engineered newer system. Everything in life is a matter of risk and tradeoffs. With friends living mere minutes from the reactors, I would much rather see them re-worked or dismantled. But, not because I believe nuclear power is inherently dangerous, but because I believe that there are better nuclear engineering solutions available.
Continuing with the call for shut down article …
Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric have unofficially thrown in the towel on Unit 3. But they’re lobbying hard to get at least Unit 2 back up and running. Their technical problems are so serious that they’ve asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to let them run Unit 2 at 70% capacity. In essence, they want to “see what happens” without daring to take the reactor to full power.
The NRC has expressed serious doubts. On December 26 it demanded answers to more than 30 questions about the plant’s technical realities. There have been assertions that unless San Onofre can be shown as operable at full power, its license should be negated.
San Onofre’s owners are desperate to get at least Unit 2 back on line so they can gouge the ratepayers for their failed expenditures. If the California Public Utilities Commission refuses the request, there’s no way San Onofre can reopen.
I have great respect for the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and a great wariness of the lobbyists that work for Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric. They are no friend of the consumer as was proven when Enron raped the California electricity market in 2001-2001 and the utilities were willing participants in the scheme.
Looking at my current electric bill from Southern California Edison, I find entries for a DWR Bond Charge (Bonds issued by the Department of Water Resources to cover the cost of buying energy for customers during the energy crisis) and nuclear decommissioning charge. Of course, there are all of the other bogus charges (public purpose programs, conservation incentive adjustment, and the competition transition charge). If the NRC says shut down the plant – you shut down the plant.
The five-member California Public Utilities Commission also cannot be trusted to make hard technical decisions as it is just another hyper-political (democrat) agency run by commissioners appointed by the governor. The current President of the Commission, Michael Peevey was the former President of Edison International and Southern California Edison Company, and a senior executive there beginning in 1984. Commissioner Florio was a senior attorney at The Utility Reform Network. Commissioner Sandoval was an associate professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. Commissioner Ferron worked as chief operating officer for the Global Markets Division of Deutsche Bank in London. Commissioner Peterman comes from the California Energy Commission, conducted research at the University of California Energy Institute and also served on the board of directors for The Utility Reform Network. Lawyers and finance people – no nuclear engineers among them.
Continuing with the call for shut down article …
So nuclear opponents can now fight the restart of both at the federal level and with the state PUC. The state regulators have opened an in-depth investigation into what’s happened at San Onofre, and the picture is not expected to be pretty.
Economic analyses show the reactors to be uneconomical anyway. “Experts” warned California would suffer blackouts and brownouts without them, but nothing of the sort has happened. The only real reason San Onofre’s owners want to get it back up is to charge the ratepayers for their failed repairs.
The fiasco at San Onofre is being replayed at rust bucket reactors throughout the US. Progress Energy poked some major new holes into the containment at the Crystal River reactor it was allegedly fixing. Nebraska’s Ft. Calhoun has been flooded. An earthquake hit Virginia’s reactors with seismic forces that exceeded design specifications.
In Wisconsin, Kewaunee’s owners will shut it for economic reasons. A new study shows Vermont Yankee, under intense attack from a grassroots citizens’ upheaval, has major economic benefits to gain from shutting down. Elsewhere around the US, technical and economic pressures have the industry on the brink.
Meanwhile, the conversion to green power in Germany is booming. When 8 reactors were shut and the conversion to wind, solar and biomass became official policy, “experts” predicated energy shortages and soaring prices. But the opposite has happened as supply has boomed and prices have dropped.
The same things will happen in California and elsewhere as these radioactive jalopies begin to shut. The effectiveness of citizen activism in California is now vastly multiplied as these two decrepit reactors become increasingly obsolete, inoperable and economically insupportable.
As Kewaunee shuts, as Crystal River heads toward salvage, as No Nukes citizen action escalates, and as renewables and efficiency soar in performance and plummet in price, a green-powered era is dawning.
But as Fukushima Unit 4‘s spent fuel pool teeters 100 feet in the air, we are reminded that the danger from the failed nuclear power experiment is far from over.
The two reactors at San Onofre linger on atop major earthquake fault lines, just steps away from an ocean that could wash over them as sure as it did at Fukushima.
The California No Nukes movement may indeed be on the brink of a major victory. But we had better get these reactors buried before disaster strikes yet again.
Article Source: Showdown at San Onofre: Why the Nuclear Industry May Be Dealt a Big Blow | Alternet
Bottom line …
The progressive democrats have nearly bankrupted the State of California with their fiscal improprieties and profligate spending. Billions have been spent on solar energy and wind-power, and yet these remain unreliable, unsustainable and anything but cost-effective – requiring massive government subsidies and government-mandated usage to generate significant profits for their politically-connected investors and owners. One merely needs to see how $500 million was blown by Solyndra who mysteriously received an investor guarantee that protected investors before taxpayers.
California, with its radical democrat, socialist, communist activism is a notice of the clear and present danger of what is facing the United States if we continue on the democrat path to socialism. I believe in engineering, in technology and to the progress which will allow us to live better lives. If it means replacing reactors, so be it. But you do not cede economic, commercial or military advantages to our enemies because a cadre of radical activists demonize nuclear energy.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS