Skip to main content

Yesterday, May 28, 2013, Friends of the Earth issued a press release entitled:

San Onofre: Internal letter reveals Edison knew of defects at crippled reactors but misled federal regulators to get expedited license

“This letter from Edison management is truly shocking,” said Damon Moglen, climate and energy director for Friends of the Earth. “It shows definitively that Edison was more concerned with keeping to a construction schedule and making money than with assuring safe operation of their reactors. It raises serious questions about their honesty and about the NRC’s handling of the San Onofre license. 

“The restart of San Onofre reactors is now off the table. No one can possibly argue for the further operation of these crippled reactors when such an experiment places the lives and livelihoods of millions of Southern Californians at risk.”

According to California Senator Barbara Boxer, the correspondence between Southern California Edison and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries demonstrates that "Edison intentionally misled the public and regulators," and her office is providing the correspondence to the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal and state officials so a determination about whether Edison engaged in willful wrongdoing can be made.

Dave Freeman, former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA] and now a senior advisor on nuclear issues to Friends of the Earth, made what may be a hopeful pronouncement based on this new evidence...

"The San Onofre restart plan is now deader than a doornail. It's over."
Of course, this conclusion remains to be seen, given the cozy relationship between the nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Especially since the recent less than satisfactory (to the industry and its apologists/promoters on the commission) chairman Gregory Jaczko, who came out just last month with the observation that what he learned about the commercial nuclear industry while serving as chair of the NRC has caused him to reach the conclusion that they all need to be shut down, asap. Because (as many of us have been saying for decades, every chance we get, once you turn 'em on, you can't turn 'em off.

Much as I'd love to see San Onofre's two recently operating units (unit 2 and unit 3) join their sister unit and so many others* of the fleet that will never operate again and will not be replaced, I think both Boxer and Friends of the Earth are jumping the gun by declaring San Onofre's plants to be down for the count. Nukes lying to the regulators as well as to the public is nothing new, they've been getting away with it for as long as the technology has existed. No one should expect that to change.

Still, we can hope. Best of luck to the people of southern California on this. Maybe one of these days they'll get this stretch of precious beach back!




* Power reactors currently undergoing decommissioning (or completed) include Dresden unit 1, Fermi unit 1, Humboldt Bay, Indian Point unit 1, LaCrosse Boiling Water Reactor, Millstone unit 1, Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, Trojan, Shoreham, Fort St. Vrain, Rancho Seco, Nuclear Ship Savannah, Peach Bottom unit 1, Three Mile Island unit 2, Vallecitos BWR, and Zion units 1 & 2. Most of these facilities still maintain tons of spent fuel in pools or casks on-site, and will continue to do so until there is a final repository for high level waste.

Spent Fuel in Storage (metric tons) map from NEI.

Originally posted to Joieau on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:49 AM PDT.

Also republished by Nuclear Free DK.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's hoping it really is (210+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dsb, Box of Rain, pvasileff, northerntier, Mr Robert, CwV, One Pissed Off Liberal, operculum, pixxer, wu ming, Mary Mike, zerelda, cotterperson, old wobbly, Lujane, PeterHug, Lily O Lady, bleeding blue, turn blue, Shockwave, alguien, AZ Sphinx Moth, S F Hippie, indie17, Urizen, wilderness voice, enhydra lutris, Sandino, John Crapper, dance you monster, gulfgal98, mookins, Youffraita, pgm 01, Bernie68, onionjim, Captain Sham, oldliberal, blueoasis, mrsgoo, randallt, Capt Crunch, aunt blabby, glitterscale, gmats, quill, kaliope, filkertom, doingbusinessas, Another Grizzle, mwk, toys, JML9999, ovals49, Jim Domenico, patbahn, 3goldens, cybersaur, socal altvibe, cany, atana, third Party please, nzanne, jes2, dturnbull, GAS, flowerfarmer, science nerd, pickandshovel, lcrp, Publius2008, Brian82, Russgirl, nomandates, offgrid, dfe, shopkeeper, AnnieR, 714day, Just Bob, blueoregon, DRo, FarWestGirl, kathny, Sylv, freesia, rapala, Rogneid, tegrat, xxdr zombiexx, Bluesee, pat bunny, WheninRome, eeff, SeekCa, Sam Sara, marina, tgypsy, pcl07, Powered Grace, thenekkidtruth, majcmb1, joanbrooker, hotheadCA, Sapere aude, gizmo59, kerflooey, SteelerGrrl, No one gets out alive, Onomastic, vahana, TracieLynn, Dallasdoc, mamamedusa, Cronesense, SanFernandoValleyMom, tommymet, Sybil Liberty, jeanette0605, Got a Grip, psnyder, HappyinNM, Debs2, Jim P, Marihilda, ConnDadFrank, jamess, Lefty Coaster, humphrey, wader, buckstop, rja, OldSoldier99, Gowrie Gal, Deep Harm, hubcap, CA Nana, plok, xaxnar, coldwynn, CA ridebalanced, eyesoars, Punditus Maximus, SueM1121, Ree Zen, Alice Venturi, Siri, Clytemnestra, Larsstephens, asilomar, Azubia, Involuntary Exile, ozsea1, RJDixon74135, Pluto, also mom of 5, Nebraskablue, Horace Boothroyd III, marleycat, KayCeSF, mungley, tb92, Simplify, linkage, crose, RLMiller, WakeUpNeo, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Pat K California, thomask, deepeco, Miss Jones, greenearth, fixxit, ItsaMathJoke, grollen, Nulwee, Creosote, joynow, melo, nancat357, Puddytat, chimene, ogre, pfiore8, ATFILLINOIS, SaraBeth, elginblt, OleHippieChick, YaNevaNo, Alma, Lisa Lockwood, radical simplicity, surfbird007, johanus, GreyHawk, greenbastard, cordgrass, beach babe in fl, Mentatmark, mbh1023, Pilotshark, mkor7, mofembot, California06, MKinTN, ColoTim, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, ArizonaLiberal, ladybug53

    "over" for San Onofre. It would be a good start...

  •  Nuclear reactors by the sea, earthquake faults... (56+ / 0-)

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Is President Obama still considering more nuclear reactor permits?

    It has to start somewhere. It has to start sometime. What better place than here, what better time than now? - Guerilla Radio, Rage Against The Machine.

    by Fordmandalay on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:58:13 AM PDT

  •  I live 50 miles south of the reactor. (29+ / 0-)

    Too close for comfort.  Hopefully, this never gets started again.

    can we all...just get...along-Rodney King

    by nspguy on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:12:22 PM PDT

  •  Idiots. There should be jail time. (10+ / 0-)

    But it's great news for Four Corners (guaranteed market) and the emerging California fracking initiative (SCE gets most of its power from burning natural gas).

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:35:45 PM PDT

    •  Looks to me like (24+ / 0-)

      they plan to frack the hell out of every square inch of this continent, and then they'll probably frack the hell out of the continental shelf. Who knew all that gas they used to simply burn off as an inconvenience was worth anything?

      It'll get more and more expensive as the ramifications of gross pollution of groundwater and whole aquifers starts to get assigned to the culprits in the courts, not to mention damages for frack-caused earthquakes caused in less stable regions than just the midlands - where they're sure to be much bigger and much more costly.

      But then again, that's a whole other issue even if it is directly linked to the Stupidity Of Man (as, of course, are nukes). Still, frack-liquified ground and polluted water supplies don't necessarily make for certifiable "dead zone(s)." A hefty sprinkling of fissile heavy metals and their nasty daughters plus fission product gases do cause such things.

      Of course, they can always lie about that too. Lord knows they've got plenty of experience.

      •  They all lie . . . (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cliss, samanthab, renbear, NYFM, greenearth

        it seems to be human nature.

        I don't favor nuclear power because I like "hot spots" (although I'd gladly live in the Fukushima exclusion zone if they'd let me) . . . I favor it only because it's the least worst option.  It also could be a whole lot safer.

        Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

        by Deward Hastings on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:04:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is not enough wealth (24+ / 0-)

          on this planet to make this technology "a whole lot safer." That's the plain truth, and I am still utterly mystified as to why its fans seem to believe otherwise.

          As Jaczko finally figured out (and most of the rest of us knew all along), you simply cannot turn them off once they've been turned on. Physical impossibility. And now we know for a fact that shit happens that can wipe out your backup power right away, or prevent you from maintaining backup power for extended periods if, by lucky happenstance, it works when you need it in the first place. Oh... and there's not a nuclear plant in this nation that is required to have backup power to the circulatory and makeup systems for all those grossly overcrowded spent fuel pools, so not a single plant has that capability. That water will boil away too, and the spent fuel will first burn off its cladding, then it too will melt. Almost as if it weren't really 'spent' at all. Heh.

          In a world scheduled to suffer all the nasty forseeable and unforseeable bad weather karma from global warming (not just sea level rise that'll take out ALL coastal-sited plants), nukes become dumber every day that goes by. And they were moronic from the git-go.

          Ah, humans. Suicidal and Proud Of It!

          •  "the plain truth" (8+ / 0-)

            never is.  But as with all "faith based" beliefs it is unlikely that anyone holding to it (whichever "plain truth" it is) will ever admit it.  Believers in the "anti-nuke" faith tend, as do "true believers" in many other "faith based" religions, to be "evangelical" about it, and to be "utterly mystified" when others see the world in a more nuanced way and are (a bit) more rational about it.

            Doesn't matter now . . . coal, gas and denialism won, and we're getting the world you enabled . . .

            Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

            by Deward Hastings on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:58:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Heh. I am actually quite proud (12+ / 0-)

              of my minor supporting role in stopping the nuclear jaggernaut from consuming this nation back when it had a working economy and wealth-generation capacity. Wish we could have done more, but in the end it was 'enough' that the truth was told, and that the industry understood what it meant even though the press and public did not. Never wanted to wake up to hippies camped on the lawn anyway... §;o)

              I would, however, take issue with your characterization of "faith based." Since we were in fact participating members of the nuclear industry, on more than one level. On those levels all the "True Believers" are hard core nukes. Which you do not here characterize as being faith based, though I might be persuaded to agree with that if you did.

              •  Lets stick to fact (6+ / 0-)

                How many people have been killed by operating nuclear power plants? Outside of Chernobyl, the total is ZERO.

                How many people were killed by the worst thing that can happen to a decades old nuclear plant: a triple meltdown caused by a once-in-500 year tsunami?  The World Health Organization says ZERO.  

                The Fukushima evacuation zone is defined by 20mSv/year.  This is many times SMALLER than the level that health-physics professionals know cannot cause any harm: 100 mSv/yr is accepted as a threshold below which no measurable harm is possible.  The ultra-low levels in safety standards are based on precautionary principles - as low as reasonably achievable - even though there is no scientific evidence for public health benefits flowing from such low thresholds. Some areas in the world have natural backgrounds as high as 200-300mSv/yr and no observable negative health consequences are observed.  

                Radiation is in our food (e.g. potassium-40) and air (e.g. carbon-14).  We live with it every day, yet low level radiation is treated like some incredible menace. In proper context, I'd be more worried about mercury, fine-particulates, NOx, SOx, ground level ozone and other such crap that we have been conditioned to just accept as normal business from fossil fuel plants that dump their shit into our air and water as S.O.P.

                How many people are killed by mining and use of fossil fuels?  

                Lets take a look at SONGS: what is the actual risk posed to the public by the steam generators?  How does that risk stack up against the amount of harm done by fracking and burning the equivalent amount of gas to be used to replace the power if that plant is permanently shut down?  If it is shut down, who will end up making more money and who will pay?

                Lets say your agenda is successful and all nuclear plants are turned off.  How does the world get its energy?  Japan's CO2 emissions spiked dramatically by turning off ~50 plants.  In the rest of the world, demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050, yet the world must cut CO2 by 80% to prevent climate change disaster, i.e. the end of habitability of this planet.  

                HOW do you do that?  Do you care?

                Why must nuclear be off the table when by any honest fact-based COMPARATIVE measure, it is the least bad option?

                I laud everyone's idealism desiring a world where we can have the energy we need but without ANY costs.  But, such a world is IMPOSSIBLE.  There are costs to any energy system.  We have to tally all costs and pick the least bad as the perfect does not exist.  In my opinion, nuclear has to be an essential part of that balance because, in spite of the best work of the fearmongers, nuclear power is far safer than fossil fuels with a hell of a lot less waste (about a few hundred thousand - to - one - to be more precise), which also is not dumped into our atmosphere as standard practice.  

                The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

                by mojo workin on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:49:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks! (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino, California06

                  Couldn't have 'explained' it better myself, no matter how hard I tried.

                  People, this is one to study. Pay attention, it exemplifies everything at issue in all this. Maybe Nadir will weigh in at some point. With everything nobody ever wanted or needed to know (but entertaining nonetheless).

                •  There is no safe level of radiation. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau, Sandino, randallt, AoT

                  No more so than there is any safe level of second hand smoke.

                  You're using "tobacco science".  Point to any one individual, and prove they wouldn't have gotten that tumor if not for X.

                  But that's not how it actually works.

                  Why must nuclear be off the table when by any honest fact-based COMPARATIVE measure, it is the least bad option?
                  Shouting doesn't make bullshit into truth.  

                  Nuclear costs more and produces more carbon that a wide range of renewable technologies.

                  "The thing about smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers." Robert Kirkman

                  by JesseCW on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:44:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If there is no safe level (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Deward Hastings, northstarbarn

                    then how do you explain wide variations in natural radiation background without variations in pathology?  This is long established fact.  This is based on statistically significant populations with variations of exposure - not "tobacco" science.  This has been done by health-physics researchers over DECADES.  This is not crap - simply you assuming you know better. You denying science doesn't make your bullshit truth.

                    Look, this is why there is a thing called "scientific method".  That is how reality can be established vs. bullshit.  Publishing with independent peer review; testable predictions that are independently verified.  This is the only way we know how to establish what is "real" vs. what is belief, superstition or simply crap.

                    If you deny the scientific method, if anything you disagree with can be dismissed as "industry shill" or "bullshit" then we have no means of actually determining what is reality.  I can claim there are fairies or that bad vapours cause disease and there will be no way to prove it true or false if we don't stick to evidence that rated "true" if supported by a diverse community of independent professionals using sound rational argument and repeatable observations.

                    That is where I come from re low-level radiation.  I can give you a long list of references from universities, health-physics professionals, journals, etc. ,but I doubt it will make one scrap of difference.  

                    It is much easier to dismiss me as an industry shill or spouter of bullshit that to re-examine YOUR biases, misunderstandings and prejudices...

                    The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

                    by mojo workin on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:30:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  By facts you clearly mean LIES (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau, randallt, JesseCW

                  Citing made up death statistics without providing links and going on with the scam about Nukes being somehow carbon neutral.  Your pitiful propaganda would be better spewed at some arrogant wingnut knuckledraggers, since they believe what they are told despite science and observation.

                  •  If (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    onanthebarbarian, alain2112

                    You weren't woefully ignorant of the subject, you'd already know these things

                    Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

                    by Mindful Nature on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:51:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Honestly (0+ / 0-)

                    If I gave you a long list of links, would it make any difference to your position?  

                    Honestly now?

                    If so, I'll gladly spend the time working through this with you and let the community share in the discussion.

                    It would take some work, but the truth IS out there.

                    The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

                    by mojo workin on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:44:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Like the truth about bananas? (0+ / 0-)

                      Links like that are pure disinformation.

                    •  On Second thought (0+ / 0-)

                      let's go.

                      I'll put this in a diary or something. I quote your claims:

                      How many people have been killed by operating nuclear power plants? Outside of Chernobyl, the total is ZERO
                      .

                      This is a BS line. First the qualification 'operating power plant' is a legal squirm word that lets you doge a huge part of the death toll. Second, peer-reviewed published research show many thousands of deaths in the US from Chernobyl, and it is still killing in Europe and Asia. Tepco has admitted that much of the fuel load in unit 3 and SFP4 were lost. Peer-reviewed research found increases in mortality in the US. There is no way that much poison can be released with ZERO deaths.  So will concede that that first point is untrue at least?

                      How many people were killed by the worst thing that can happen to a decades old nuclear plant: a triple meltdown caused by a once-in-500 year tsunami?  The World Health Organization says ZERO.  
                      Tepco has also admitted what the world observed, that the meltdowns were caused by the earthquake, though they have not admitted they were caused primarily by  an endemic culture of corner-cutting corruption familiar in SONGS, so this is a doubly untrue claim.
                      The Fukushima evacuation zone is defined by 20mSv/year.  This is many times SMALLER than the level that health-physics professionals know cannot cause any harm: 100 mSv/yr is accepted as a threshold below which no measurable harm is possible.  The ultra-low levels in safety standards are based on precautionary principles - as low as reasonably achievable - even though there is no scientific evidence for public health benefits flowing from such low thresholds. Some areas in the world have natural backgrounds as high as 200-300mSv/yr and no observable negative health consequences are observed.
                       

                      So you go live there. But seriously, you totally neglect internal radiation, bioaccumulation, and the well-known phenomenon of hot spots. In addition, dosage is cumulative, so adding a little bit always increases the risk, and thus the associated mortality. Claiming there are no health consequences to increased exposure is simply untrue.

                      Radiation is in our food (e.g. potassium-40) and air (e.g. carbon-14).  We live with it every day, yet low level radiation is treated like some incredible menace.
                      This is a standard disinformation factoid. I will take the time to briefly introduce you to the science, in case you are presenting this in good faith. Potassium 14 has an extremely long half life and is in equilibrium in the environment and our bodies, like 14C. Cesium 137, for example, has a much shorter half life, and is thus much more radioactive. While the potassium flows in and out of us in a sort of osmotic balance, cesium will be absorbed and stick around long enough to do damage. Strontium 90 is worse, both were released, and continue to be released in massive quantities from the ongoing catastrophe in Fukushima. And again, dosage is cumulative, so saying it was not much is saying how many deaths are acceptable.
                      In proper context, I'd be more worried about mercury, fine-particulates, NOx, SOx, ground level ozone and other such crap that we have been conditioned to just accept as normal business from fossil fuel plants that dump their shit into our air and water as S.O.P.

                      How many people are killed by mining and use of fossil fuels?

                      Now the standard jump from radiation denial, to the fossil fuels concern, and the false but implicit claim that Nukes are carbon free or that those who oppose them don't care about the climate crisis. Nukes produce about 1/3 the CO2 of gas plants, but the energy required for long-term storage and all the CO2 from generations of guarding weigh on the long end. New nukes contribute tons of CO2 for a couple decades before they produce their first watt, and the world cannot afford to waste that precious time and money on such front-loaded, over priced unsafe technology.

                      And your concern over mining, and the statistical results of particulate emissions is touching. Those same statistics must be applied to compute the death toll for nukes. But heck even James Hansen can forget to count the casualties on one side.

                      Lets take a look at SONGS: what is the actual risk posed to the public by the steam generators?  How does that risk stack up against the amount of harm done by fracking and burning the equivalent amount of gas to be used to replace the power if that plant is permanently shut down?  If it is shut down, who will end up making more money and who will pay?
                      Fracking will not be stopped by rubberstamping permits for a few more decrepit old nukes. SONGS cannot even afford to reopen. Economics are driving the shutdown of nukes. If you want to change that, ban fracking and institute a carbon tax. The solution is in efficiency and real renewables. And when you talk about estimating the risk from a plant that us demonstrably corrupt and poorly maintained, where an accident could take out a huge population/economic center, it seems cavalier.  How could another earthquake or tsunami happen after all?
                      Lets say your agenda is successful and all nuclear plants are turned off.  How does the world get its energy?  Japan's CO2 emissions spiked dramatically by turning off ~50 plants.  In the rest of the world, demand for electricity is expected to more than double by 2050, yet the world must cut CO2 by 80% to prevent climate change disaster, i.e. the end of habitability of this planet.  

                      HOW do you do that?  Do you care?

                      As I mentioned, efficiency incentives and a carbon tax would help a lot. Propping up crony capitalist rustbuckets that contribute marginal amounts of energy, compared to potential savings and renewable capacity, just doesn't make sense. The fact that the plutonium and other long-lived radioisotopes we are making will be killing things long after global warming has become the next ice age. Even pretending to estimate the ultimate death toll from nuclear energy is fundamentally ignorant or deceptive.
                      Why must nuclear be off the table when by any honest fact-based COMPARATIVE measure, it is the least bad option?
                      Ask Wall St. Why do all NPPs get funded by governments producing/seeking nuclear weapons?  Why can't they be insured?  Must be all those greens running investment banks.
                      In fact the rational assessment has been and the nukes have lost. Now all we have are industry lobbyists and those they duped into believing that there are dumb, emotional anti-nuke hippies messing everything up.
                      I laud everyone's idealism desiring a world where we can have the energy we need but without ANY costs.  But, such a world is IMPOSSIBLE.  There are costs to any energy system.  We have to tally all costs and pick the least bad as the perfect does not exist.  In my opinion, nuclear has to be an essential part of that balance because, in spite of the best work of the fearmongers, nuclear power is far safer than fossil fuels with a hell of a lot less waste (about a few hundred thousand - to - one - to be more precise), which also is not dumped into our atmosphere as standard practice.  
                      And your idealism and belief in the wonders and safety of Too Big To Fail technology in the hands of crony capitalists is truly terrifying. I actually hope you do not really believe all the deceptive talking points I just dismantled. I will summarize.

                      Nuclear energy, both in operation and accidents has a substantial and growing death toll.  Nuclear energy is not carbon free, and the EROI, (ENERGY return on investment) is so poor that dollars spent on renewables are a much more effective way to reduce CO2. The nuclear industry is endemically corrupt and the regulators captured. They have even had their regulators capture the WHO, so that any nuclear health issues are now handled by an agency tasked with promotion of nuclear energy.  Nukes could be safe, or they could be affordable, not both.

                      Nuclear Energy is not low carbon

                •  Not to mentions that coal releases more (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  onanthebarbarian, alain2112

                  Radioactive material than a typical nuclear plant.  But other than radioactive pollution and greenhouse gasses coal, the realistic alternative, is great

                  Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

                  by Mindful Nature on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:50:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No amount of uranium or thorium (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sandino, JesseCW

                    concentrated in fly ash from coal burning diminishes the daily releases of radioactive isotopes into the air and water from any nuclear plant anywhere in the world. Not for daily 'routine' or from semi-regular burps and oopses. Dumb argument.

                    •  Dumb (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mojo workin

                      Only if you don't know the actual data on the actual amount of radioactivity real eased by both sources.  Your typical operations include such minor releases which still do not come close to what fly ash contains.

                      It's only dumb if you don't care to look at the actual facts

                      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

                      by Mindful Nature on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:22:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not true. Worse, I suspect (0+ / 0-)

                        that you know that. What you don't know is the actual data on the amount of radioactivity released routinely by nuclear power plants. That's because they routinely doctor the release figures. And much of what they release - known to be human health hazards - have no correspondence to the uranium and thorium isotopes in coal. These sources are simply non-comparable. Unless you happen to be a shill, that is.

            •  Full troll stop (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, JesseCW, Sandino

              Check the wambulance at the door.

              The world we want, as you so immaturely put it, has nothing to do with "coal, gas and denialism".....and you know it too.

              The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

              by ozsea1 on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:39:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                onanthebarbarian, alain2112

                What is going to replace this power then over the next five years?  It ain't mostly renewables

                Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

                by Mindful Nature on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:53:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  of course renewables could provide power (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino, Joieau

                  It isn't as if nuclear plants are easier or faster to build than solar, etc. We just aren't bothering to do the investing needed to make it happen.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 06:02:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Nukes provide maybe 15% (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sandino, California06

                  of our baseload energy supply, given that they are not all on-line at all times. Minus the megatrons they draw from the grid to keep from melting moment to moment, of course. Many states are on line to have 15 to 20 percent of their energy needs supplied by renewables by 2020, and some look to be heading toward exceeding those goals.

                  Remember, Japan used to get about 50% of its electricity from nukes. Now there is all of one plant operating. Last I checked they were managing to get by without being reduced to third world status, and they are actively developing renewables at this time. The wind farm off Sendai - much closer to the earthquake's epicenter than Fukushima - didn't miss a beat on March 11, 2011 and is still providing electricity to northern Japan today. They have lots of coastline, plenty of mountain ridges, ample tap-able geothermal resources and an abundance of flowing water. They'll do fine. I find that quite inspirational.

                  •  No (0+ / 0-)

                    Japan is getting by by replacing nuclear with coal which is an unmitigated disaster.   As bad a nuclear is, coal is vastly worse.  

                    Now if a major renewable construction boom were to occur to replace nuclear that's would be one thing, but the facts are that when nuclear goes offline it is usually coal and some natural gas that fills the gap, not wind or geothermal.  Would that we lived in some other reality, but shutting down nuclear has proven to be out of the frying pan an into the fire in both Japan and Germany.  

                    Of course, different economies will use different replacement sources.  However, the key question is when a power source is taken out of the mix, what replaces it?  Without addressing that question any celebration is premature

                    Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

                    by Mindful Nature on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:30:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

                      Some elderly coal facilities have been reopened due to the dire nature of the Japanese disaster (all around), on a temporary basis until other sources can be built and put on line. Not just NG (also imported FF, but less bad than coal) but also offshore wind and new solar. It's not like those train-sized diesel backups are exactly carbon neutral or anything...

                      The Japanese are very crafty. I look to them to develop and deply geothermal technologies nobody else has thought of yet. That the whole world will benefit from in time.

          •  Exactly (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Russgirl, Joieau, CA Nana, ozsea1, Sandino, randallt

            There is also no place on the planet to store material that will be radioactive for tens of thousands of years. The earth is violate and every changing. It is a foregone conclusion that over time some of the buried  radioactive waste will poison the earth eventually.

        •  And to add to that thought line (12+ / 0-)

          there is this today from Science Daily, where a couple of notable nuke-pushers claim that nukes have 'saved' 1.84 million people's lives since 1971 by not emitting more CO2 than was emitted from mining, transportation, refining, fabrication and diesel maintenance. Which is considerable, yet never counted against the industry for these types of deceptions.

          Nor do they factor the very simple fact that nuclear power can never dent CO2 (and other ghg emissions) so as to contribute significantly to reduction thereof through the rest of this century and the next. Which would require not only the replacement of all nukes currently operating and in the process of decommissioning, but the addition of at least 4,000 brand, spanking new nukes to make up for energy now provided worldwide by burning coal and natural gas (ignoring transportation and shipping). For which there simply is not enough wealth on the planet, so it's a pointless fantasy.

          Which of course also doesn't count the number of deaths caused by the whole of the nuclear fuel cycle itself from the beginning, not just since 1971. Which includes (and probably why Hansen excluded those figures) the people who died from gross radiological contamination spread across the planet from atmospheric bomb testing days as well as from much bigger releases accompanying Chernobyl and Fukushima (and numerous other meltdown/blowouts you never heard of because they're 'secret'). Plus pollution of water and food supplies so you get the concentrated nifty effects of having your sensitive internal cells bombarded by radioactive isotopes point blank. All told adding up to well more than 1.84 million people.

          Bear in mind that at current averaged crude death rate of 8.3 per 1,000 annually (in the high teens from 1950 through 1965), a 6.5 billion figure for existent humans means ~54 million of us die in any given year. Cancer rates currently at 1 in 3 in most industrialized countries are scheduled to rise to 1 in 2 by 2020. Nowhere to go but up from there, particularly in this country where basic health care is rationed by class and cancer treatment has already been cut off for the poor by our splendidly callous Teabagger congress. Cancer is almost entirely an environmental disease. Our environment is continuing to become ever more cancerous, and nukes do indeed contribute to this.

          Still, we are all mortal, all of us will die of something before we're 115 years old or so, and the vast, vast majority of us won't get all the way to three digits. Perhaps a better way to sell nukes at this juncture of history is to remind people that they've all got to die of something, so it might as well be cancer from nuclear/industrial and food supply pollution instead of COPD or asthma from coal pollution. Any way you look at it, 1.84 million out of 2+ billion deaths since 1971 starts looking not so impressive.

          And just so you know, yes. Hansen & his Indian-American cohort in that link are extrapolating to gross CDR [Crude Death Rate] worldwide with their 1.84 million figure. All I've done is put that into context.

          •  Well of course . . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            alain2112

            Hansen's an idiot (and McKibben too), "global warming" is a hoax, and opposing nuclear power will get you into heaven.  After all, you know "the truth" . . .

            Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

            by Deward Hastings on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:52:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Now, now. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              randallt, CA Nana, JesseCW, ozsea1, Sandino

              I merely put their figure into context. Why would you get pissed off about that? Too 'Truthy' for you?

              I don't have an issue with global climate change, which evidence demonstrates is occurring. Why, USDA - a duly recognized department of the federal gub'mint - changed my growing zone to the next warmer one just last year. Which is good, because not once in all the 20 years I've been managing crops here on the 'stead have I ever seen it frost on May 10th. Though we came pretty close this year.

              I also made the observation that nuclear power is not and can never be a player in the mitigation (of global climate change) game. You cannot offer anything to challenge that observation because you know as well as I do that the resources for such an attempt simply do not exist. The industry can't even keep up with the shut-downs and decommissioning of the current crop of power reactors. Hell, Japan's doing just fine with only one out of their previous 54 in operation, at least a dozen of those are so damaged they couldn't ever restart even if the people would allow it (and they won't). Simple first or second grade math skills would inform you that this ol' world isn't even going to try to build the 4,000 or more it would need to have nuclear backstop the phase-out of coal generation in the gnarly midst of an engineered global depression scheduled to last at least another two decades.

              And yeah, since you mentioned it, that is indeed "the truth"...

              •  Oh, climate change is good (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mindful Nature, alain2112

                because you can grow your peas in April rather than in May?

                Sigline? What Sigline?

                by Khun David on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:49:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yawn. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW, Sandino

                  I plant my peas in late January, early February. Same time I plant potatoes. They can handle a little frost (ground hasn't frozen around here for at least 40 years). You probably aren't aware that those of us in Zone 5 and above get three full crops with 1 full rotation per year, with cole/alliums and hard tubers (beets, rutabega, parsnip, turnip) throughout the winter. That's okay. Most people don't know that.

                  But I never said climate change is "good." That's you hearing the echo of your own words shoved down my virtual throat. I certainly don't own them.

                  Now that this has been dealt with, please do frequent your local tailgate and farmer's markets, patronize groceries who proudly label their organic and/or local produce, eat lots of it. Won't hurt you a bit!

            •  Yup. A class of ad hominem's all you got. (7+ / 0-)

              Nukes less carbon-emitting (the whole process) than oil, but still an additive.

              And nowhere near as clean (the whole process) as the Kinetic energies...

              And several times more expensive...

              And years longer to build than equivalent Kinetic energies sources...

              And more expensive for decades, costing even when they are no longer generating electricity...

              Leaves you with an attack on her character.


              Actual Democrats is the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats

              by Jim P on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:34:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This comment qualifies as personal insult n/t (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, CA Nana, Sandino
            •  Hansen became a Nuke shill (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, randallt

              when he published outside his realm of expertise. This has been demonstrated. but you know that, and present a false equivalence as a way to attack. The biterness form the losers in the plutonium 'debate' is palpable. Maybe you'll be the next NNadir?

              •  and your area of expertise is ? ? ? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alain2112

                (mine's chemistry, btw, like NNadir's)

                But unlike NNadir I don't have kids and their futures to worry about, so for me "anti-nuclear induced climate change" is more academic (and thus more amusing) than "bitter".  There is something almost . . . literary . . . about watching the faithful wave their arms about saving the planet with . . . windmills.  Don Quixote reincarnate.

                Fat chance that will work, though . . . and almost certain that you'll go to your grave thinking the changed climate isn't your fault.  You saved the world from nuclear power, after all.  Surely a little "global warming" is a small and inconsequential price to pay for that great "victory" . . .

                Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                by Deward Hastings on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:21:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Is irrelevant (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau

                  though more relevant than yours. Why would someone with a respected scientific reputation publish in a field he has no previous publications or qualifications, that of historical speculative epidemiology?  The answer is that he clearly seeks to use his credibility to sell a point of view. He doesn't even deny it in his opinion piece tarted up with handwaving statistics.  He swallows plutonium cartel statistics unquestioningly, then turns around and conjures up a number of deaths from fossil fuels.  Either only direct causes count, or statical estimates are valid for inferring mortality.

                  You go on fighting for the right of a corrupt industry to roll the dice with the lives of billions for 10-100 generations, the markets are leaving you in the dust, with the only active development in countries pursuing nuclear weapons. This is still the only real justification for civilian nuclear generation.

                •  CVs are not required here. (0+ / 0-)

                  Please stop being a dick in my diary.

                  •  tell it to Sandino . . . (0+ / 0-)

                    he's the one that raised the issue re. Hansen . . .

                    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                    by Deward Hastings on Thu May 30, 2013 at 07:42:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, Sandino pointed out (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sandino

                      that Hansen has been publishing outside his actual area of expertise, therefore does not speak authoritatively to the technology he is now paid to promote. That is true, for what it's worth. Though obviously the opinions expressed here by most commenters are also outside their various areas of expertise.

                      One need not be a nuclear engineer or physicist to have an opinion on the subject of SCE's very bad f*ck-up at San Onofre. Because it is what it is, and that's all anybody needs to know.

                      •  Actually, Hansen is something called a... (4+ / 1-)

                        ...a "scientist."

                        It is unsurprising to me that invective and contempt is now being directed at him by mindless bourgoeis brats on this website, since they are neither interested in truth or tragedy so much as reciting their dogma, simply because he produces science questioning their faith based approach to nuclear energy.

                        Irrespective of the faith based reactions of people who can't stand science because they don't know any, Hansen is more qualified to discuss scientific issues than say, a clown in sockpuppet suit du jour who has never done anything but publish - here at least - outside of their area of expertise.

                        Now we hear two, count 'em two, hypocritical complaints, one the (sexist) term about "being a dick," and the other a complaint about areas of expertise from a clown who has no qualifications, zero, to discuss the form of energy invented by Nobel Laureates like Enrico Fermi, Hans Bethe, Glenn Seaborg, Eugene Wigner...etc...etc...

                        Now I fully understand the citation of the lack of need of credentials here.    I mean, this is, after all a place, where a clown with no science education whatsoever can declare herself a "health physicist" without knowing or caring about human health and without knowing a smidgeon of physics.

                        Let me give an example of a loudmouth demostrating that the only thing she knows nothing about nuclear energy.

                        I wrote a diary on this officially anti-nuke website - in which a person being a dick showed up to demonstrate how little science she knows to - get this - "answer my questions" - I already know the half lives of pretty much every damn neutron rich nuclide in the table of nuclides - producing this gem of a dickish comment:

                        To your questions: (0+ / 0-)
                        1. A single half-life of cesium-137 or strontium-90, of course. The most limiting isotopes in all nuclear burps, along with the iodine-133 and cesium-134, both of which have shorter half-lives.

                        2. I don't care how many papers have been written about radionuclides at Chernobyl. It released the core inventory of gases, and a large amount of fuel and the full retinue of fission products. Because it melted, exploded, and burned. That's what melted, exploded and burned nukes do.

                        3. A few choice among the long-lived radionuclides released by melted, exploded and/or burned nukes (also present in spent fuel), with half-lives noted…

                        Technetium-99 [2 million years]
                        Tin-126 [4 million years]
                        Selenium-79 [3.2 - 6 million years]
                        Zirconium-93 [15 million years]
                        Iodine-129 [157 million years]
                        Palladium-107 [65 million years]
                        Cesium 135 [23 million years]
                        Uranium 234 [2.46 million years]
                        Uranium-238 [4.468 million years]
                        Uranium-235 [7030.8 million years]
                        Plutonium-239 [480,000 years]
                        Neptunium-237 [20.14 million years]
                        Ruthenium-103 [390 days]
                        Americium-243 [70,300 years]
                        Holmium-166m [12,000 years]
                        Berkelium-247 [13,000 years]
                        Radium-226 [16,000 years]
                        Molybdenum-93 [40,000 years]
                        Holmium-153 [45,000 years]
                        Curium-246 [47,000 years]
                        Carbon-14 [57,000 years]
                        Plutonium-240 (65,000 years]
                        Thorium-229 [73,000 years]
                        Americium-243 [73,000 years]
                        Curium-245 [85,000 years]
                        Curium-250 [90,000 years]
                        Proactinium-231 [327,000 years]
                        Lead-202 [537,000 years]
                        Lanthanium-137 [600,000 years]

                        Halfnium-174, Zinc-70, Rhenium-187, Neodymium-144, Cadmium-113, Vanadium-50, Vanadium-50, Chromium-50, Calcium-48, Zircon-96, Tellurium-130… I could go on and on all night. There's about a thousand of 'em, a bit more than 90 which are particularly nasty and present in significant amounts in spent fuel pools, operating reactors, and fallout plumes from melted, exploded and/or burned reactors.

                        4. Yes, air pollution does shorten the lives of many. I consider any and all of the pollutants listed above, plus all the more than 900 not listed above, as well as the beta nobles (to the tune of millions of curies), plus I131 and the cesium sisters [134 & 137] and strontium-90 to be very nasty pollutants that are known to be deadly and should NEVER be released to the atmosphere. Alas, all of them are out there now. Have been since way back in the 1950s. Civilization will not last long enough (nor will the human species) to see the end of their biological damage.

                        We all die in the end - nobody gets outta here alive. Cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, liver disease, renal disease, communicable diseases, deficiency diseases, TSEs, violence, natural and unnatural disasters...

                        I especially enjoyed the line at the end that I bolded in which the climate change denialist expressed contempt for any form of death that can't be attributed to nuclear energy, as well as contempt for those millions of people whose lives have been saved by nuclear energy.

                        Cold unfeeling cretin, isn't she?

                        Of course, everyone - no exceptions - of the half-lives listed by the twit is wrong and one wonders how any literate person trying to discuss nuclear energy could do that.   I mean, it's a fairly long list, and not one right, zero.  F minus, minus, minus.

                        The reference, including the comment from the "dick" - to employ the sexist term - who shows up in every one of the (fewer and fewer) nuclear diaries to spout fear and ignorance is here:   New Threat to Chernobyl Area Wildlife Observed

                        For instance, there is an anti-nuke clown on this website who once produced for my benefit a list of all the radionuclides that she thought were involved in nuclear energy technology - predictably including many that were irrelevant -

                        As a scientist, Hansen merely pointed out, in a refereed scientifici journal, that nuclear energy saves lives.   Using something called "data" - hated by clown mystics everywhere  - that nuclear energy saves lives.

                        The reference is here:   Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power  

                        The paper which I have before me - and let's be clear that Environmental Science and Technology is one of the most respected scientific journals in the world, not a place where incompetent illiterate superstitious clowns publish - contains 35 scientific references.   Now, the American Chemical Society does not publish papers that are "outside of an area of expertise."    By definition you need to have expertise to publish, period.

                        The obvious corollary to Hansen's paper - for anyone not invested in cult rhetoric - is that anti-nuke fear and ignorance kills people.    The scale it which anti-nuke fear and ignorance is told in the death tolls from air pollution, roughly 3.3 million people per year, and, as we're seeing in the scientific literature that mystic clowns don't know shit about, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people from plain old heat.

                        Now mind you:   There is not one fucking stupid anti-nuke in this intellectual hellhole of fear and ignorance who can point to even one person killed by San Onofre.    Mind you as well.   There is not one fucking stupid anti-nuke who gives a fuck about the hundreds of thousands of Californians who have died from air pollution in the last several decades, or the tens of millions who have died world wide in the same period.  

                        Zero.  None.

                        But this same set will burn tons upon tons of coal and gas to hope and pray that at least one person will die from radiation at Fukushima to justify their fear and ignorance.

                        The good news however, is that fear and ignorance have won the day, as is we can see being widely applauded here.

                        It's kind of Orwellian how at this website though, in a matter of weeks, Jim Hansen went from hero to villian for the questionable practice of telling the truth.   This is, afterall, an echo chamber wherein people only hear what they want to hear, and hate anything and everything that involves a telling of a truth that they wish to, need to, avoid.

                        I can't recommend telling the truth, especially not here. Congratulations though on your literally literally pyrrhic victory over
                        science and scientific knowledge, and of course, your victory over the planetary atmosphere.

                        It is increasingly unlikely that humanity in any semblance of decency will survive the fear and ignorance that has brought us here, and thus it is unlikely that there will be history, but if there is history, if history continues to exist, the contempt that will be placed on the bones of the ignorant for what they have done, will be unmeasurably large.

                        Have a nice evening.

                    •  I called Hansen a shill (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Joieau

                      And demonstrated the truth of it.

        •  Can't be a whole lot safer (7+ / 0-)

          Too expensive.

          Libertarianism is something that most people grow out of, not unlike, say, hay fever or asthma. Bob Johnson

          by randallt on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:28:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Tepco has hardly been forthcoming about (8+ / 0-)

          "problems" at Fukushima. When recent radioactive hotspots were discovered in surrounding seawater they basically said "How'd that happen?"

        •  It's simply not the "least worse option". (7+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau, Bronx59, randallt, ozsea1, crose, Sandino, AoT

          Renewable is cheaper.

          "The thing about smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers." Robert Kirkman

          by JesseCW on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:18:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  One small step... many more to follow! (11+ / 0-)

        The ONLY THING that will stop the madness of nukes + fracking is
        PEOPLE WAKING UP and getting involved.

        Water is money and the jerks running things are quickly making it even more scarce than it already is... the better to charge you cash for water to live.

        Positive steps are occuring...

        NS: Councillors pass bylaw that bans fracking in Inverness

        http://www.ns.dailybusinessbuzz.ca/...

        and

        Appeals court upholds local fracking bans in NY

        http://www.nbcnews.com/...

        We have no choice but to do the right thing...if we expect ourselves or our children to survive.  I refuse to be a nuke, GMO, fracking, pharma... experiment!!!

        The obscure we see eventually.
        The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer.
        Edward R. Murrow
        •  Eventually we're all (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CA Nana, ozsea1, Sandino, AoT, Russgirl

          going to need stills. Mine will be solar...

          Good to remember that there is only X amount of H2O on this planet, it will continue its cycling even when the temperature rises. The groundwater may be terminally polluted, and the rain will be too (I actually remember the year when we were informed we could no longer eat snow or splash around in mud puddles, many of which in certain regions of the world/nation were emitting 10 Rem/hr or more of gamma from fallout alone).

          Water purification tech is the Next Big Thing, and even then you're gonna need to use most of it for growing food. Very, very sad, but we've no one to blame but ourselves. The rest of the world's critters aren't going to thank us for it. Hell, they probably won't be around to thank anybody for anything!

      •  "every square inch" (12+ / 0-)

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...

        Monterey Shale Shakes Up California's Energy Future

        It's easy to tick off the ways in which California is a leader in clean energy: It harvests more solar energy than any other state, has a program to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the vehicles on its famously long highways, and launched its own cap-and-trade system this year. (See accompanying photo gallery: "Pictures: Oil Potential and Animal Habitat in the Monterey Shale.")

        And yet, a move is afoot for a quite different type of new energy development in the Golden State, beneath the same valley that beckoned gold seekers and migrant farmers generations ago. That ever alluring land happens to lie atop the Monterey shale formation, a vast rock formation that is believed to hold one of the world's largest onshore reserves of shale oil.

        Is this as scary to you as it is to me?

        Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

        by Just Bob on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:48:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  Just heard about the huge harbor they (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau, Just Bob, crose, KenBee

            are surveying to put in Koos Bay, Oregon for gas tankers.

            All the waste and carnage caused by fracking is going to be borne by the people of Southern Oregon, while big energy sells off the gas to be shipped out to China and other Asian countries.

            Profit will probably end up in non-taxable Cayman accounts, per usual.  

        •  state water project and the new water tunnels plan (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Just Bob, Joieau

          to steal the Sacramento Delta's water is and has been for fracking.

          The oil companies have bragged they have fracked oil wells in the Kern,Santa Barbara, Ventura county region for 50 years

            That's what the State Water project was about..the invisible ink mentioned the water for fracking, but was sold as 'safe reliable supplies for residents on southern california'...the invisible ink said..'the water left after we sell it to the oil companies and the central valley cotton (!) farmers to ruin the infertile dry  land farmed presently.'

          And now that Central Valley farmland is home to Selenium poisoned lands in the southern and western areas, and they still want water...for cotton (!). 'They' say.

          And to do that they will be ruining valuable Sacramento area fertile farmlands, and destroying the Sacramento Delta  by stealing the water.  

            Tye promoters probably even have socal developers believing they will get that water. haha on them too and everybody else in california. It pays...

          Monterrey Shale fracking fluid coming to a water well near you...

          This machine kills Fascists.

          by KenBee on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:43:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Selenium? Hmmm... (0+ / 0-)

            They should grow sweet yellow onions, might even beat Vidalia at its own game! (Yeah, California's got a big water problem. They should learn to play golf on sand and rock instead of rolling green.)

      •  they will never pay money for that damage... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau

        there will be no human left here healthy enough to make them pay....

        Mother nature tho.... She'll shake them all off in a heart beat, along with the debris and death they caused, and all their worthless paper money too.

         And then she'll star over. Hopefully with something less stupid than humans.

  •  Shut Down Costs (19+ / 0-)

    Several years ago the Wall Street Journal had a front page article about the cost of shutting down a nuke.  There are three methods.  Cut it up with a remote controlled crane, then cut up the now-hot crane and ship all to a nuke waste dump.  Or, entomb everything in a mountain of concrete.  Or, fence it and guard it for eternity.  Any of those cost more than the outlandish cost of building one in the first place.

    •  Great ideas... (15+ / 0-)

      if there were such a thing as a nuke waste dump. Right now, there's not. So it's all still sitting there.

      Those release stacks and cooling towers sitting uselessly about on nuclear reservations could be demolished, though. Then the utilities could erect some really huge and impressive wind turbines, and cover the entire ground with solar panels, and even install kinetic hydro generators in whatever moving water sources they've been outrageously heating all these years, probably generate as much electricity as the nuke did (once you've subtracted the amount per their generation rating that they draw from the grid just to keep going).

      Hmmm... Maybe there's a use for all those "National Sacrifice Zones" after all!

      •  I counted 18 decommissionings in your (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, randallt, JesseCW, CA Nana, ozsea1, Sandino

        note at the end. At what, $1B, $5B, $10B each, and over decades? And we're still left with a pile of toxicity. And is it the company which made the profit on these paying it, or the rate-payers?


        Actual Democrats is the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats

        by Jim P on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:29:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's supposedly a 'fund' (7+ / 0-)

          they pay into, but it's sorely underfunded for a number of reasons. Since there's no place to put the shit anyway, they just let it sit wherever it's at, and call it 'process'. You and I and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will end up footing the bill, if they ever manage to find a place to put it all for the million or so years it'll remain positively antithetical to life itself.

          Trying to figure out how they'll manage to mark it as deadly even 10,000 years into the future none of us can see is a real exercise in mind-stretching. But for ten times longer than humans have even existed as a species on this planet? There's probably nothing we can do. Even if we put it all thousands of feet below the scary-ugliest demon-headed Sphinx atop pitch black super-pyramid, some future Indiana Jones is bound to dig it up and think this glow-in-the-dark stuff must be worth a king's ransom... then he'll drop dead, of course.

          •  is the fuel still stored at the Humboldt facility? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau

            they have converted the plant to be a gas powered plant using the site and the generators....back in the 70's?

            Are the fuel rods still there?

            There is a long standing rumor there that two fuel rods were 'lost' in the decommissioning process.

            It has also been quoted that there are statistics showing that the Humboldt Hill region right downwind (almost moved there) has the third highest thyroid cancer rate in the world/state/nation...do you know about that?

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:49:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Every time I drive past San Onofre I'll cheer... (18+ / 0-)

    ...the hard work of so many that made this shutdown permanent.

    San Onofre photo SanOnofre_zps48c091a6.jpg

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:42:23 PM PDT

  •  This is good news and I hope the final nail. (8+ / 0-)

    Nuclear - one hell of a dangerous way to light a lightbulb.  

    If we really want to straighten out all this crap we really need to think about shit - Holy Shit.

    by John Crapper on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:21:17 PM PDT

  •  Oh yeah, they lie (8+ / 0-)

    Vt Yankee owned by Entergy, lied like crazy then ran back to the NRC for cover. We are trying to shut the damn thing down.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:14:41 PM PDT

  •  i read the letter (6+ / 0-)

    i thought it made clear they knew that the new SGs were
    outside the design base. I'd say the big issue is the SGs aren't safe to restart and uneconical to replace.

    •  Well, sure, I'll buy (6+ / 0-)

      that Boxer and FotE may be overreacting. Which I mentioned in the diary because I'm highly skeptical that it's anywhere close to "over" just because of this particular communication between SCE and MHI.

      Hell, MHI informed SCE early on with the FIRST pair of RSGs that there were issues with the new tubing design (nice U-bend in there, DUH), SCE told them they were cool with the failure to pass spec.

      When the second set - which didn't have the same manufacturing defects but did have the stupid U-bend - started failing, I wondered how come SCE went to the Utilities Commission for another rate hike/pass-along instead of just telling MHI to cover at least half replacement costs (their liability, at least 50% on SCE's stupid design) for new-but-regular design RSGs. They'd be up and happily running by now. Something's crooked right at the base of all this, and I doubt we've heard from its real source.

      I don't honestly care WHY they decide to close up shop and decommission, so long as they close up shop and decommission in the end. The end really must come in the next 3 or 4 months or so. Maybe sooner since this has come up.

      •  let them raise rates (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau

        it will just drive more people to renewables.

        Honestly, I think Nuclear is dying.

        It could never get to the right cost base, and
        now it's just a closing chapter.

        I don't know much about the SONGS steam generators, just they were trying to uprate them soemthing fierce.

        I think they realized they were pushing the state of the art kind of hard and were planning to work with MHI to try
        and pull this offf

  •  Good. I for one am (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, Russgirl, randallt, Sandino

    glad to hear it.

    Nuclear power = too dangerous

    •  Fraking (0+ / 0-)

      = too dangerous.

      Sigline? What Sigline?

      by Khun David on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:53:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No nuke has ever managed (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, Sandino, crose

        to prevent a single frack from happening. No nuke will prevent future fracks from happening. Why, there were 3 frack sites on the Google overheads within 2 miles of North Anna when an earthquake - maybe, maybe not on causation - threw all the steam pressure out the Emergency Main Steam Dump Valves just a couple of years ago.

        Apart from the Mid-Atlantic groundwater supply (which they obviously care nothing about), how is it "too dangerous?"

        •  Some of us (0+ / 0-)

          do live in the Mid-Atlantic.

          But then again, I guess fraking doesn't matter.

          Sigline? What Sigline?

          by Khun David on Thu May 30, 2013 at 04:40:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then you've a vested interest (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino

            in protecting your water resources. Or do you buy drinking water and/or filter it at the tap with the nifty triple system (which includes activated charcoal)? If you are one of the millions who have taken to buying drinking water, I hope you have some nice reusable containers for it and aren't contributing to the ridiculous amount of ghg released from manufacturing all those "disposable" plastic bottles and caps, which are clogging landfills across the country.

            The Natural Gas divisions of the major oil companies will frack all they like wherever they like, until the people they're dumping on get together and force the issue on the pet politicians that take bribes of one sort or another to allow wholesale environmental destruction for private profit. No nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar or kinetic energy facilities in the fracking zone will stop them.

            I suggest you get involved and help turn the tide.

  •  Pull all Con-Ed PUC licenses in CA. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Russgirl, randallt, Joieau, Sandino

    Can't have a public utility this untrustworthy.

    "To recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government." Historian Barbara Tuchman

    by Publius2008 on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:22:33 PM PDT

    •  I doubt that'll happen. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino

      Government doesn't like being in the electrical generation business. TVA is a constant pain in their ass, they let go of the RECs to their localities many years ago.

      Sad to say, in this day and age of corporate crookedness on all levels, gub'mint has no corner on the "honest dealers" market. Decline and fall of a once-great nation, soon to become the decline and fall of a once-great civilization. We'll have to start over from scratch, but bottom-up is the only possibility for avoiding Mass Die-Off these days. If we've the gumption to avoid it, that is.

  •  Yes, of course. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Russgirl, Joieau, goodpractice
    It shows definitively that Edison was more concerned with keeping to a construction schedule and making money than with assuring safe operation of their reactors.
    Edison's legally binding fiduciary duty to its shareholders is to make. money.

    It has no such duty to protect the environment.

    Edison is following the rules of the game as written. Their hands are tied.

    It turns out that the skill set required to get elected is completely different than the skill set required to effectively govern.

    by VictorLaszlo on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:24:13 PM PDT

  •  Hope it stays off for good (5+ / 0-)

    I live about 20 miles from the plant. I use to pass it daily on my way to and from work and it always troubled me sitting there on the beach. In trying to find out how much radiation the plant released before being shut down, I was shocked to learn that there are no radiation monitors within 50 miles of the plant. Apparently the EPA is very disinterested in monitoring radiation in CA and has ignored all requests for more monitors near nuclear plants.  After all what could possible go wrong with nuclear power plants built on the ocean in high seismic areas surrounded by several million people run by such principled human being?

    http://sanonofresafety.org/...

  •  Dave Freeman is a great quote on this (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, JesseCW, randallt, KenBee, Sandino

    While head of the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, he helped shut down a nuclear reactor near Sacramento after holding a vote by the ratepayers. His solution to replace the power? Plant 1 million shade trees.

    Both accomplished.

    "Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel

    by greendem on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:21:12 PM PDT

    •  Requiring white roofs (5+ / 0-)

      on all buildings would lower AC consumption by about a third all by itself. Require new homes, factories, metal churches, strip malls and commercial buildings to come with installed solar to provide at least a bit of their own energy use (site generation doesn't suffer the big line losses big centralized generation facilities do) would go a long way as well. Throw in some rational conservation - energy efficient light bulbs, LED lighting, turn off the lights at night, cut back on neon overload - and we'd be honestly starting to address the issues.

      In this the current depression can be a godsend for the big-picture view and known-to-be necessary changes in the way we do things. Demand is flat or diminishing as people and businesses go broke, real estate market is decimated with millions of properties abandoned and falling into ruin, the cost of white roof paint/shingles is still equivalent to black, and solar tech is getting cheaper every day. We have an opportunity, we need to jump on it as a nation and culture.

      Then there's those nutty Teabaggers, who wouldn't buy an efficient light bulb or white roof if their lives (and personal economy) depended on it, because that might cause Jesus to delay showing up to save us from our own suicidally stupid selves. Go figure.

      Still, there's not that many of them. The rest of us shouldn't wait around for them to grow a brain cell, because it's never gonna happen.

  •  Just pass a law (6+ / 0-)

    that says that nuclear power plants need to be insured. They aren't.  Robert Kennedy Jr. often points out that no underwriter will insure them.  The ramifications of that is that taxpayers insure them.  If they blow, we pay the bill.

    I suggest we insist that a nuclear power plant be privately and fully insured, or it gets shut down.  That'll hot things up.

    Take your hands off my fkn Third Rail.

    by thenekkidtruth on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:24:28 PM PDT

    •  Utilities do carry a minimum (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thenekkidtruth, ozsea1, Sandino

      of commercial liability insurance, mere mills on a Trillion Dollar Oops, of course. But since they have carte blanche to lie their asses off and deceive with doctored figures until the cows come home, so far the government - via Price-Anderson - have never had to come to the rescue. Sure, that means that thousands of people harmed through the years see not a single red cent to cover anything, but hey. It's a dangerous world.

      They learned that lesson at TMI-2. Lie, lie, and lie some more. Even if the people harmed don't believe a word of it, the gub'mint will back it up with its "full faith and credit," or just its control of the judiciary if need be (the judge was named Rambo, I kid you not). It's been a really sweet deal for a tragically long time.

  •  Congratulations Joieau (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, randallt, ozsea1, KenBee, Sandino

    for making the top of the recc list!  

    "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

    by gulfgal98 on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:00:32 PM PDT

    •  Aw, thanks gg! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      randallt, ozsea1, gulfgal98, Sandino

      Ours is not to reason why... so I don't. No clue how the algorithm works these days. It got some recs and good comments early on, was busy scrolling off, but I figured I'd have a shot at being rescued by Meteor Blades for the green diary roundup (a big enough thrill for me). Went out to shoot a round of 'skunk' disc golf putt-off with The Bearded One [aka Duck-Meister], and next thing I knew I was on the wreck list.

      Go figure... §;o)

  •  You're wise to be skeptical (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, Joieau, randallt, Sandino

    Past history shows that facts are not likely to get in the way of giving industry whatever it wants. But, the problems of the nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries are piling up as plants age and waste accumulates. A couple of examples:

    "Smoldering landfill could threaten nuclear waste"

    "When...customers get a bill, they are being charged for a nuclear power plant that doesn't even exist."

    Anyway, thanks for the diary, Joieau.
  •  State of California only has to look to how (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, randallt, Sandino

    PG&E and the Public Utilities Commission (cozy cozy)  has made a mess out of their Gas distribution.  So many toads jumped out of the can concerning their operations after the gas pipe explosions.

     

  •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alain2112

    "Tube wear and eventual plugging".  Wow - that's almost a meltdown right there, that is.  

    Not.  Try reading the letter.  It is a list of potential problem areas the customer wants the supplier to pay particular attention to.   That's called engineering, not a "cover-up".

    Those opposed to the use of conventional nuclear fission power (and I've not said whether I oppose or not in this comment) do themselves no favors with this type of hype.

    sPh

    •  Because industry corruption (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau

      and regulatory incompetence and/or capture have no relevance to energy policy?

       The point behind requiring like-for-like replacement is that doing otherwise is basically performing a live experiment on SoCal. The point behind not doing that is that the operator saves money. Are you saying that the regulations were followed and the replacement was like-for-like, or that it wasn't, but that this is not a smoking gun or the cost savings were just an accidental benefit of an honest misunderstanding?

    •  I am not Senator Barbara Boxer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino

      nor am I Friends of the Earth. I have merely reported on the press releases from these sources per the letter in question. In fact, I even suggested in comments that I am not convinced "It's Over," because I know all too well how nukes get away with their constant skullduggery.

      That said, I do not believe SONGS will ever run again. That's based on financial analysis and the fact that the California Utilities Commission isn't going to let SCE double-charge the ratepayers for yet another set of RSGs. Their board and stockholders will cut the losses and move to decommission instead.

  •  It should be a law that the owners, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, Joieau

    managers, and board of ALL nuclear facilities should be forced to live within one mile of their facilities.

    That single law would be the end of nuclear power.


    "So I'm at the wailing wall, standing there like a moron, with my harpoon." - Emo Philips

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu May 30, 2013 at 07:07:00 AM PDT

    •  Back in the day (0+ / 0-)

      most of the nukes I knew (and most of the people I knew were nukes or related) lived between 20 and 30 miles from their facility. That is less easily accomplished in some regions fairly surrounded by nukes, but where it is feasible that's the 'usual' distribution.

      Our place was 20 miles (as the proverbial crow flies) from the Peach, but 50 miles from TMI. We convinced sis and her hub in Lancaster to go visit his Mom in Florida for awhile, shipped our children out to Oklahoma. Had to ship them from Dulles, every other airport in the region was swamped by the 100,000+ people who evacuated while the state was still fighting with Met-Ed and the feds for some shred of truth about the danger.

      When we got home some of the neighbors were busily packing up their vehicles. Told us they'd waited until they saw us getting the kids out before deciding it was time to go.

      I was impressed with their smarts - nobody 'official' was going to do the right thing, everybody else who knew the score was forbidden to warn them directly. So they figured that when the nukes themselves started evacuating they'd best follow suit.

Pat K California, felix19, Sylv, Alma, Mogolori, oofer, filkertom, murphy, melo, grollen, teacherken, glitterscale, Powered Grace, Shockwave, billlaurelMD, cotterperson, eeff, dsb, Sandy on Signal, recentdemocrat, hubcap, Creosote, 714day, TracieLynn, whenwego, cosmic debris, ivote2004, Alna Dem, psnyder, MrSandman, Dallasdoc, mrkvica, Miss Jones, Urizen, coldwynn, brainwave, johanus, Brian82, ybruti, Kitsap River, mungley, randallt, KayCeSF, Josiah Bartlett, Sybil Liberty, xxdr zombiexx, Frank Vyan Walton, Gowrie Gal, rapala, humphrey, Bluesee, marina, 3goldens, Alice Venturi, Simplify, fixxit, bleeding blue, majcmb1, SaraBeth, GreyHawk, ladybug53, alabamaliberal, Sandino, kaliope, Lisa Lockwood, Pluto, Box of Rain, Alan Arizona, kathny, Jim P, RJDixon74135, third Party please, Captain Sham, Clytemnestra, Russgirl, kck, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, DarkestHour, onionjim, thenekkidtruth, CA Nana, James Hepburn, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, Bernie68, bstotts, Little, Nulwee, tegrat, One Pissed Off Liberal, Sapere aude, pgm 01, pfiore8, asilomar, Cronesense, tgypsy, Debs2, ColoTim, offgrid, Mary Mike, jeanette0605, operculum, deepeco, mbh1023, Got a Grip, eyesoars, Azubia, gizmo59, Mighty Ike, also mom of 5, HappyinNM, OleHippieChick, mamamedusa, Youffraita, Involuntary Exile, VL Baker, jamess, Deep Harm, Lujane, RandomNonviolence, hwmnbn, pickandshovel, mofembot, Gemina13, 6079SmithW, LaFeminista, maggiejean, Nebraskablue, Methinks They Lie, WakeUpNeo, socal altvibe, dfe, shopkeeper, JesseCW, EquationDoc, aunt blabby, nancat357, jan0080, Just Bob, indie17, mookins, alguien, ATFILLINOIS, cordgrass, gulfgal98, pixxer, elginblt, Puddytat, Publius2008, rja, science nerd, cany, kerflooey, ozsea1, vahana, freesia, FarWestGirl, California06, mrsgoo, marleycat, thomask, SueM1121, peregrine kate, Be Skeptical, Marihilda, SteelerGrrl, RLMiller, joanbrooker, DRo, Mentatmark, No one gets out alive, YaNevaNo, quill, greenbastard, Siri, IndieGuy, dance you monster, turn blue, tb92, S F Hippie, AnnieR, CA ridebalanced, radical simplicity, jes2, T C Gibian, fauve, AZ Sphinx Moth, CalBearMom, Lily O Lady, nomandates, John Crapper, atana, Sam Sara, SanFernandoValleyMom, goodpractice, Ree Zen, northerntier, marcr22, Another Grizzle, Jim Domenico, OldSoldier99, Capt Crunch

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site