.
Emphasis. Basically, we differ on emphasis. The environmentalists are right, in this case, but they’re not emphasizing what I think is the most compelling part of the story.
They are concerned about the possibility that a restarted San Onofre can “go Fukushima” on us under bad circumstances — a low probability event but one with unimaginably high costs. My concern is not with what’s possible, but what’s pretty much definite. Without restarting the Unit 2 reactor, So Cal Edison potentially has to recoup any money that it can recoup from Mitsubishi, the manufacturer of the defective generators. Getting a utilities commission to include it in what ratepayers must pay — as if it were the ratepayers rather than the shareholders taking the speculative gamble here — is far from a clear thing. Shareholders may lose money — and they’d rather than it come from the ratepayers. They’d be happy (probably happier) to get it from Mitsubishi, but Mitsubishi has other ideas about that. Of the three major sources of money to cover the cost of the reactors that may well have doomed San Onofre, only one of them — the ratepaying public — is snoozing and potentially losing.
And that, unlike an offshore tsunami, is not speculative. That’s probable.
“Anything you can find, Dr. Anon, I can steal.” (OK, it’s a Raiders of the Lost Ark reference. Just forget it.)
But let me give the environmentalists — my allies on this one, after all — their due.
Here’s what Friends of the Earth has to say on its page where you can submit comments to the NRC by tomorrow’s deadline about the prospect of the NRC allowing an “experimental restart” — whatever that is — of San Onofre for five months at a little under 3/4 power:
The comments included below are regarding Docket ID NRC20130070.
Both San Onofre reactors are severely damaged. Restarting Unit 2 experimentally, when the root cause of the problems hasn’t been found, Edison’s own experts disagree on even the secondary cause of the issues, and disagree on the length of time left before another accident could occur — which could be somewhere in the range of a few months to a little over a year — puts the public at unnecessary and unacceptable risk.
We ask that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission deny Edison’s narrow license amendment and request for a no significant hazard determination, both of which fail to address the significance of the problems at San Onofre and could lead to a restart of the San Onofre nuclear reactor Unit 2.
Additionally, Senator Boxer has asked the NRC to complete a comprehensive investigation and provide full opportunity for public participation and independent expert testimony. I agree. The investigation may reveal critical information that would provide important insights into the safety of the restart proposal. To pave the way for restart without having all relevant information in hand would be both premature and irresponsible.
The narrow license amendment request and request for a no significant hazard determination consideration amount to an end run by Southern California Edison to rush restart of their damaged reactors, rather than ensuring safety. As the regulatory body charged with ensuring safety, you must reject these requests and hold Edison accountable to a thorough vetting of all the safety issues raised by their restart plan and the numerous areas where the restart scheme does not comply with the terms of their license.
We were deeply disturbed when on April 10 the NRC staff ignored the requests of Senator Boxer — and the public — and instead announced a “preliminary finding” that a San Onofre restart at 70 percent power posed no significant safety risk.
The safety of Southern California cannot be reduced to merely wordsmithing and removing Edison’s requests from the context in which they are requested — which is to restart a severely damaged reactor.
I urge the NRC to reject Edison’s unacceptable license amendment and no significant hazard consideration requests. The NRC must ensure that Edison undergoes the appropriate thorough license amendment process for the multiple areas of noncompliance with their operating license, that all relevant investigations are completed, and that public hearings on these requests are held before any decision on a licenses amendment or restart proposal is made.
That’s nice enough, but I decided to write my own comment instead. I understand that this is an environmental issue, but it seems to me that it’s as much or more of a consumer and taxpayers’ issue:
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
The comments included below are regarding Docket ID NRC20130070.
I don’t think that the NRC should be propping up what is, for So Cal Edison, essentially a business decision. If they are allowed to start up the plant and run it for five months — and the odds are good that it would work well for that time, although that has little to do with how well it would work as a long-term power source — it would strengthen So Cal Edison’s case that the cost of the new generators should be passed on to ratepayers as part of the “base” they are required to pay. This would be so even if they can’t collect damages from Mitsubishi, which likely was primarily at fault, for the product defect. (Arguably, of course, this also undercuts So Cal Edison’s case to fight their hardest in court.)
The restart isn’t helping the public; it’s helping So Cal Ed’s ability to obtain additional money from its ratepayers and pass it to its shareholders and managers — in exchange for those ratepayers not getting the service they had been told they had the right to expect.
This is not about generating power to serve the community; it’s just about claiming that a defective product sold to the public “obviously” isn’t THAT defective (or how could it run for five months?) so the public should just shut up, give up, and pay for it.
So Cal Ed is asking the NRC to sneak in the change before the ruling of the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board goes into effect. That ruling appropriately requires Edison undergo a relicensing process so that it is not allowed “to operate beyond the scope of its existing license” — at which time So Cal Edison can just scoop up what money it can and then decommission the plant anyway rather than trying to comply with the committee ruling.
This is shabbiness. The NRC’s role is not to help So Cal Ed shove an additional pile of money into its pockets on its way out the door — and the NRC should have no part of such a scheme. At best, it’s siphoning money from ratepayers; at worst, there could be another accident during that five months — and ratepayers are the ones hurt in that case as well.
To understand my reference to the licensing board, you can check this link, among others.
The NRC has been considering whether to allow Unit 2 to restart and run at reduced power, which engineers from plant operator Southern California Edison believe will stop vibration that damaged tubing.
Friends of the Earth, an advocacy group critical of the nuclear power industry, argued that the plan to restart San Onofre’s Unit 2 reactor is a change to the plant’s operating license, which requires an extended, court-like hearing.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board agreed. The three-member board concluded that the restart would allow Edison “to operate beyond the scope of its existing license.”
So that’s the environmentalists’ attempt, my consumerist attempt, and some background from earlier this week. What do you have to say — while you still can? Clock’s ticking — deadline tomorrow!
Greg,
How are we not already on the hook as it were, for the costs of it now?
I thought that we were…
SCE certainly contends that, if they bought a bad part from Mitsubishi and Mitsubishi won’t cover the resulting damage, the loss falls entirely on the ratepayers.
There is a contrary argument to be made — but not here, not yet.
SoCal Edison Girds Public For Summer Power Outages – Uh, this doesn’t sound good.
A day after federal judges ruled that Southern California Edison (SCE) can’t reopen its troubled San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) without a full public review–something that won’t happen for months–SCE is announcing a Friday media relations meeting to discuss possible power outages throughout Orange County this summer.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/05/socal_edison_to_announce_summe.php
Oh — well then, certainly, the public must just stop struggling and let them do what they will.
Start by reading what I wrote, skally — most likely, SONGS ain’t coming back, no way, no how. This is just about how much money they can stuff into their pockets on the way out of the room.
If this prompts more and better use of renewables and recycling in OC — so much the better, eh? OK, maybe I’d best direct that to someone else.
It is going to prompt more use of fossil fuels to generate electricity … nice goin’.
Skally, are you for controlling the burning of fossil fuels?
Next you’re going to tell us that you believe in climate change.
The climate changes all the time – watch the weather reports – pretty much different from day to day.
“Climate = weather.” Right. Is that your way of toppling over the game board?
If you really don’t understand the difference, I’m sure someone here can explain it to you.
We could explain it, but that doesn’t mean that Skally would understand it.
I have a hard time believing that.
Look, skally is a smart guy. It defies belief that he doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate. My question is why he is pretending otherwise.
So Greg, are you also not buying Skally’s sudden concern for the ill effects of burning fossil fuels ?
Duh, this doesn’t sound good…..
We got through last summer just fine. Can’t you see through their propaganda?
Oh, and by the way, no power is way better than the eternal power of an “accident.”
“engineers from plant operator Southern California Edison believe will stop vibration that damaged tubing.” So, Dr. D., what does Homer Simpson say about it?
“It’s the tubes ….stupid!” It is also the old worn out design…….dummy! The new tubes
went to hell in no time. This is such a guess………hard to believe people are buying it.
*This is somewhere between “The China Syndrome” and “Fractured Flickers”.
Wonder why the radio reception is all static going under those power lines that go over the 405? Coincidence…..ha!
The reception is way better since they shut it down ! Check your Thomas Guide, but I think that freeway is the 5.
Homer says that the old design was fine, and it worked for a long time.
They got into trouble with the new design, which I think was in an effort to reduce vibration and thus wear, and instead they got more vibration. That led to tubes leaking and a release of radioactive steam.
They also had dirty data entered into their calcs for steam velocity in the new design.
I think that they should quit pressing their luck and quit before they really make a mess of it all.
*Correct….on all counts….thank you Dr. Demo…
*What did they say in Metal Shop? Don’t mix old parts with new…..but hey that was in 1957……
here in newport, we live under a dome (sort of like the dome in logan’s run). and while some people might call it a bubble, the point is that we are protected and immune from things such as rolling brown outs, climate change and even rain. and we have those moats which can hold burning oil, if necessary. and finally, if you study the design of the new civic center, it can withstand an ons;aught from illegal aliens, outer space aliens and tourists from the inland empire. so, again, i do not see what all the fuss is about
*Willie…dude….funny….withstand a nuclear attack?….not likely with all that glass, twisted metal and plastic wood in our brandy new Civic Center in NB.
The funny part…is ….they still haven’t installed cameras, infrared or otherwise
for surveillance either in the building or the parking stucture. Very dangerous
pronosis……for the future.
The Emergency Response Center….is supposed to be in the underground cellar that the construction team is currently using for an office. You might inquire as to the cost of that center, when it will be up and running and who will be manning it…..24/7?
Diamond: “It defies belief that he doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate. My question is why he is pretending otherwise.”
Too make a point about the silliness of the libs change from “global warming” to “climate change.” There are natural climate change cycles and we don’t know enough about “climate change” to legitimately ascribe purported climate changes to man-made causes.
Demagogue: “So Greg, are you also not buying Skally’s sudden concern for the ill effects of burning fossil fuels ?”
I prefer nuclear to fossil fuels – if nothing else to shut up the “climate change fanatics” – and it’s cheaper energy to boot.
By far the biggest problem with nuclear power generation in the US was caused completely by Democrat Jimmy Carter. You’d think as a former USN nuclear officer he’d have known better. But no……
And here we are today. Crappy manufacturing by Mitsubishi, they should be paying 100%.
In any case nuclear power is the cheapest by KWH. By far! Well, except maybe hydro, but there’s not nearly enough hydro to make a difference.
The Southern California electric rates are the highest in the country, probably the world, a good portion of this was as part of the deal to pay off “stranded costs” of SONGS as part of the failed electric deregulation scheme. Also the work of….. wait for it…… Democrats.
Edison negotiated that with the legislature.
Greg Diamond, we are paying 4 or even 10X the normal cost of electricity in most parts of the country.
Why do you think we should be paying that much?
Breaking it down by paragraph:
(1) No idea what you’re talking about, because you don’t say.
(2) Yeah, many things that should happen won’t happen.
(3) Depends how you figure it. How do you manage the actual cost of Fukushima? Do you figure in cancers that may be caused, right now, right here in OC?
(4A) Easy statement to make without evidence. Go find out if that’s true — or even remotely true. (“Highest in the world,” rilly?)
(4B) Are you talking about the desperate reaction to the Enron manipulations of our energy prices? (Enron was not the work of Democrats.)
(5) Happy to hear you bash deregulation. Please do go on.
(6) I’d like to see you document these assertions.
(7) I don’t — I’d like to see much more solar and wind power here. Who’s standing in the way of that?
1) Jimmy Carter passed a law that made spent fuel reprocessing illegal in the US. That’s why we have 50000 tons of spent fuel laying around. If it were reprocessed that reduces the amount 80%.
The reason? During reprocessing some weapons grade material is produced, and they were afraid it would be stolen.
My response to that kind of fear is to post a guard.
Carter’s was to stockpile tons of old fuel that can no longer be used, well, it could be used in a CANDU reactor, those run on spent US nuclear fuel.
Maybe we should mothball SONGS and build some CANDU reactors next to them, we will *never* need fuel.
2) Why not?
3) We don’t have that problem nor will we.
4) Check the cost of power from the TVA. You really won’t believe it. Get your own bill and analyze it to compare.
The rates are this high because as part of the failed deregulation plan edison wanted to be paid by the ratepayers for their “stranded assets”, which was SONGS decommissioning.
They have already been paid for the eventual decommissioning of the two remaining units.
BTW, the first unit? That was torn out for business reasons, the safety features of that unit could have been upgraded and they could be still running it, but edison would have had to pay for that. The decommissioning was already paid for. So we don’t get needed electricity because of that business decision. If the upgrading of the safety features had been paid by the ratepayers that unit would still be there.
4b) Steve Peace, democrat legislator, the architect of the deregulation plan. He broke our electric bills.
5) The deregulation plan put forth by the California legislature was ridiculous, and it was odd that democrats would have fallen in line. Edison’s lobbyists wrote that plan IMHO.
If you will recall, the bills you received were separated in three parts, generation, transmission, and distribution. Only generation was deregulated and only constituted 20% of your bill.
So if you got your electricity for free you could save a max of 20%. If it were me that ratio would have been 80%, and I would have allowed the incumbent utilities much less for transmission and distribution. But they packed it in and the legislature let them. They could not lose money at all. It was impossible.
6) I just did.
7) Nothing except it’s too expensive and wimpy, such that it makes little sense to build. You can build it for yourself driven by ideology. No company that wanted to make money would with their money, it just doesn’t pencil out.
That was a better post, including several things that you could and should have said the first time.
(1) Oh, that. I’m old enough to remember that, at the time, we were maintaining the fiction that spent fuel could not be reprocessed into fissile material. This was necessary to maintain our policy of providing nuclear assistance to third world countries (maybe including Pakistan?) that we supposedly did not want to see develop nuclear weapons. It was a national security issue. As for your “fix” — a glib “post a guard” may have problems that you are not equipped to evaluate.
(2) Because it rarely does happen in contract disputes and the case against Mitsubishi’s defective design and/or manufacture is probably not airtight. For example: if the problem is cavitation (small divots) in pipes, perhaps that may be caused by more salt water vapor. Why would there be more salt water vapor now than when SONGS was first designed? Maybe because SONGS itself is heating the water; maybe it’s climate change. If Mitsubishi built the materials to SCE’s specs, but SCE created its specs based on out of date assumptions about vapor-caused cavitation, then Mitsubishi wouldn’t be liable.
By the way, that theory may be entirely and even ludicrously off-base. Mitsubishi will likely have its own exonerating theories — along with paid experts to back them up. Still wonder why they’re not likely to pay 100%?
(3) Now you’re just sounding ignorant.
(4A) If you were trying to defend either “highest in the country” or “highest in the world,” you failed. If you were only trying to defend “higher than TVA, you may be off to a solid start. Or may not, for all I know.
(4B) I’m not going to defend deregulation and I wasn’t here at the time to know its history.
(5) And did Republicans oppose deregulation — at least on some grounds other than the likes of “it does not go far enough”? If so, good for them. I’d need to see evidence beyond your assertion.
(6) You did to an extent — with more assertions (but to your credit at least more specific ones.)
(7) How’s solar power doing in Germany? Again, you’re sounding like a shill rather than someone approaching this issue honestly.
1) That sounds ridiculous.
2) I find it incredible that the original heat exchanges lasted 30 years and the replacements lasted one year. I don’t much feel responsible for paying the cost of that. If Mitsubishi is not liable who the heck is writing those contracts? I feel people who got paid can be responsible.
3) Spoken like a guy with a vivid imagination.
4) Ask anyone, anywhere for a copy of their electric bill and compare the KWH rates on that to your own. Let me know what you find out.
5) That’s quite a leap. I made no such allegation.
6) Hm.
7) I don’t know anything about solar power in Germany. Do you?
What I said was the alternative energy proposals you made would not survive without government handouts. I think that’s true. Would those companies on the radio who want to install solar panels on your house and lease them to you be willing to do that without the government incentives? I doubt it.
I sure wish the alternatives would work without those incentives, because I am an environmentalist, I don’t much care for oil and coal fired generators running and spewing smog. Unlike you I was here when smog alerts dictated we stay inside. We haven’t have that in 30 years.
However, I don’t want to sit here in the dark, can’t go out in the car because gas is so expensive. Can’t turn on the AC because electricity is so expensive. Can’t turn on more than one light for the same reason.
There are people who feel you and I should move to a highrise near our work and walk or ride a bike to work. They feel we should not be able to enjoy our lives because we are evil, ruining the world with our SUVs.
That’s not how America is. I like that Americans can go on vacation. Get a recreational vehicle. Can enjoy a lifestyle unlike 80% of the world has but mostly wish for. Which is why so many immigrants love America. And so many others want to move here.
SONGS is part of that, cheap electricity at least when it was built. That cheap energy is what makes life enjoyable here but it’s gone now. The environmental concerns about SONGS are 80% caused by silly policies, and those can be solved. I don’t mean bad engineering by Mitsubishi.
Build 100 more nuke power plants, reprocess the fuel, keep electric rates down so we can afford our air conditioners. I’d be for that.
(1) Be that as it may. Care to look it up? When I was young, we also wouldn’t acknowledge the very existence of the CIA HQ in Langley, which was commonly known.
(2) Are you saying that SCE/SONGS may have written a crappy contract with Mitsubushi because at worst it could force ratepayers like you to bail them out and maintain shareholder profits and managerial compensation? Do tell us more!
(3) So is it that you think that a tsunami could not hit the coast, that an earthquake of above planned-tolerance levels could not hit the faults under and around San Onofre, or what? Or are you just willing to make confident statements under the blessed cover of anonymity without caring whether they are true?
(4) Your assertion, your burden.
(5) So if your point is both parties are too beholden to corporations, fine. Too often too true, though on my side we’re working on that. You seemed intent on tying the albatross solely around Democratic necks, though.
(1) Be that as it may. Care to look it up? When I was young, we also wouldn’t acknowledge the very existence of the CIA HQ in Langley, which was commonly known.
(2) Are you saying that SCE/SONGS may have written a crappy contract with Mitsubushi because at worst it could force ratepayers like you to bail them out and maintain shareholder profits and managerial compensation? Do tell us more!
(3) So is it that you think that a tsunami could not hit the coast, that an earthquake of above planned-tolerance levels could not hit the faults under and around San Onofre, or what? Or are you just willing to make confident statements under the blessed cover of anonymity without caring whether they are true?
(4) Your assertion, your burden.
(5) So if your point is both parties are too beholden to corporations, fine. Too often too true, though on my side we’re working on that. You seemed intent on tying the albatross solely around Democratic necks, though.
(6) …
(7) You should really learn about how solar power is doing in Germany. (They get more paid vacation time, too.) Learning about that will be enough to address the rest of your post. Well, except for this: how much of that could also have been said by the Japanese regarding Fukushima, which TEPCO (their counterpart to SCE) promised unequivocally was safe, prior to the earthquake and tsunami? (Substituting “Japan” for “America,” of course.)
“Build 100 more nuke power plants, reprocess the fuel, keep electric rates down so we can afford our air conditioners. I’d be for that.”
I’m for that too!!
The enviro-animal lovers are standing in the way of both solar and wind, I will bet they will will stand in the way of large scale wave generation as well once it’s proposed because it will interfere with some ESA protected species or habitat. If you don’t know any of that then you aren’t reading the papers or listening to the news on TV.
Windmills “kill raptors and condors”, but then so do a lot of other things. The large solar projects have been driven nuts by “desert tortoise migration patterns”, that nobody can actually prove exist, but that isn’t stopping their court actions.
ESA court protection not only stops projects it also fuels further court actions since the lawyers get nice fat paychecks, generating further $ for the next battle & we all pay for it.
Greg,
Reprocessing was used sine 1943, till Jimmy Carter made it illegal. Go look it up!
Not the best source but here, low hanging fruit for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/01/clash-of-environmental-ideals-in-the-mojave-desert-solarenergy-project-vs-endangered-desert-tortoise.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/7123-environmentalists-dilemma-green-wind-farms-threaten-endangered-species
Skally, if I have to die from nuclear radiation, pollution, global warming, or even lack of affordable health care, I want to be cool while I do it.
Carl, while I consider myself an environmentalist, and while I take species extinction (especially on a global scale) seriously, this is one area where I part company with some others. If it’s seriously important for public welfare to encroach on such habitats, I would consider it. Last I heard, by the way, the concern about windmills killing birds, while not negligible, is … sorry for this one … “overblown.”
As for nuclear reprocessing — yes, it was legal until concerns about proliferation became more pronounced in the 1970s. I just don’t plan to put in the time to produce evidence that at least one major basis for banning reprocessing was concerns about proliferation, especially given that it’s explicit in your “post a guard” reply.