• News Ticker alerts

Turmoil continues surrounding the shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in northern San Diego County.

Earlier this week, the city of Del Mar passed a resolution calling for a public Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing on the plant’s licensing. The resolution was adopted after hearing “nearly a dozen heartfelt pleas from citizens to take a stand on the issue,” as well as a report from a plant official regarding the failure of the plant’s steam generators and subsequent radiation release, the Del Mar Times reports.

A Commission meeting regarding the plant is currently scheduled for the evening of October 9, though it will take place in Dana Point, out of reach of many San Diegans though within 15 miles of the facility. The meeting is scheduled to include a discussion of the problems that have plagued the plant (which go beyond the failed generators, some of which are detailed here, here, here, and here), and will feature a public question-and-answer session.

U-T San Diego, meanwhile, reports that San Diego Gas & Electric customers have paid $185 million so far this year for the plant’s operation, despite its not having generated any power since late January. Included in the total is an 8.4% rate of return for the company, whose parent Sempra Energy has a 20 percent stake in the plant.

  • News Ticker alerts

Comments

Founder Sept. 27, 2012 @ 9:05 a.m.

Big money Utilities don't want to lose their market share and they are making it almost impossible for Solar to be installed! Until the people of California DEMAND freedom from their Energy Taskmasters, they will continue to be slaves to them...

It is amazing to think that the people of California and the USA who pride themselves on being so independent allow this Energy SHAM to continue, especially since they like many other Countries are totally dependent on Middle Eastern oil and or RISKY Nuclear!

Until our Governor decides to shake up the CPUC, California will continue to drag its feet instead of race toward Energy independence; just imagine, we could be Solar (of all flavors) Energy EXPORTERS and jump start our economy providing we have true energy Leadership instead of a Nuclear Fix*

The nuclear industries policy of donating massive amounts of money to insure that all levels of Government support Nuclear Energy to protect their market share despite it’s enormous environmental RISK of yet another Fukushima, instead of supporting less expensive, NON RISKY Eco Friendly Solar energy.

0

Founder Sept. 27, 2012 @ 9:15 a.m.

Open Letter to Southern California Ratepayers

The 1.2 Billion Dollar Question: Do we want to RISK Southern California Edison (SCE) restarting their heavily damaged San Onofre Nuclear #2 Reactor?

Background:

The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) ranks nuclear accidents by Levels between 1 and 7, with the number increasing with the scale of the accident. For example, a level one is a minor nuclear event, while a level seven is the highest rating and signifies a major nuclear accident.)

On February 9th, 1991, a leak of 55 tons of radioactive primary coolant occurred due to the failure of just one tube in a steam generator (SG) built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industry (MHI) in the No. 2 pressurized water reactor at the Mihama nuclear power station in Japan, caused wide spread public alarm due to that unsafe nuclear reactor.

Mihama was ranked a level three nuclear disaster, the first ever in Japan. Three Mile Island was ranked a level five nuclear disaster (loss of coolant). Chernobyl was ranked a level seven nuclear disaster (loss of coolant). Fukushima Daiichi was ranked a level seven nuclear disaster (loss of coolant).

Current situation of SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency):

On January 31, 2012, one tube leak was discovered at San Onofre SONGS Unit 3 that resulted in some radioactivity being released into the atmosphere. Upon further testing, eight more tubes in the steam generators (SG) failed pressure testing. What this means is that the SONGS accident could have been many times worse than Mihama Nuclear Disaster, especially if both reactors were online and we had a big quake, so all of us in Southern California were just plain lucky that day!

These almost new steam generators (SG) were just built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industry (MHI) to specific design specifications supplied and approved by Southern California Edison (SCE) engineers, without any additional Nuclear Regulatory Commission Design review because they were told that the replacement SG’s were just like the ones they were replacing, which was not the case! In reality, they were significant changes made to the design by SCE, which has caused the tubes to start to fail.

In short, Californians were VERY LUCKY that San Onofre was not running under full power and we suffered a big earthquake, because if those tubes failed then we would now be having a major nuclear accident on our hands thanks to SCE's design debacle!

Additionally SCE should immediately refund all rate payers the est. 1.3 billion dollars that we have been charged (so far) for this debacle, since we are not receiving any ENERGY!

Now the question is, "Why have we heard nothing about this in the Union Tribune and or the local TV News programs? I believe that SCE and SDG&E are putting massive pressure on them to stay away from this story, because of the BIG MONEY INVOLVED!

Kudos to the Reader for "not taking a dive" in this fight to publicize THIS BIG RIP OFF!

1

Founder Sept. 27, 2012 @ 9:30 a.m.

Decision time:

If we allow SONGS Unit 2 to be restarted without our approval, any problems with or without an earthquake or main steam line break could cause an unknown number of already damaged and or stressed/weakened tubes in their poorly designed Replacement Steam Generators to rupture like just ONE tube did in Mihama, Japan and cause a Level 3 nuclear accident! San Onofre already has more tubes that have failed testing than any other reactor facility in the USA! These failures could even cause a potential reactor meltdown of SONGS Unit 2 resulting in a Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear or Chernobyl level seven disaster here in Southern California.

Are you willing to live with that threat?

If not, write to all your Congressman and or City Councilman, then join the protest against the Restart of SONGS Unit 2. After all, we are the ones paying for Southern California Edison (SCE), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Officials and all the other Elected Politicians in the Country to protect us.

If a Nuclear Disaster were to happen, if your property became radioactive (and basically worthless) where would you and your family be relocated to; and for how long would you have to stay there? As an example in Japan, a year and a half after Fukushima, there are still many hundreds of thousands of nuclear refugees still living in camps, unable to return to their homes because of radiation!

California now has a 40% power surplus without San Onofre (or even Diablo Canyon) nuclear power plants (per the CPUC), with more risk-free solar capacity being added daily, so it just does not make any sense to gamble our future restarting Unit 2, just to save SCE shareholders some big bucks!

Now is time to decommission San Onofre.

1

Founder Sept. 27, 2012 @ 4:21 p.m.

FLASH: The #1 US Nuclear Safety Concern ==> San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station http://shar.es/50B8K

1

tomjohnston Sept. 28, 2012 @ 6:12 p.m.

This should be: "The Number 1 US Nuclear Safety Concern ==> San Onofre's Replacement Steam Generators"

FYI, anytime you are supporting a cause, the posting of incorrect, incomplete or inaccurate information only aids the opposition.

0

Founder Sept. 28, 2012 @ 7:06 p.m.

Ha Ha Ha Please post anything you even think is close to not being 100% Spot On...

Good Luck...

1

tomjohnston Sept. 28, 2012 @ 10:46 p.m.

I was referring to your "The #1 US Nuclear Safety Concern ==> San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station" The actual headline is "The Number 1 US Nuclear Safety Concern ==> San Onofre's Replacement Steam Generators", which is there in the link YOU posted.

0

Founder Sept. 29, 2012 @ 3:53 p.m.

So What?

Any relevant comment on the topic instead of just the wording?

0

tomjohnston Sept. 29, 2012 @ 7:40 p.m.

So What??

What are you, some kind of an indolent hanger-on? Do you not understand the basic tenets of presentation and persuasion? Do you not understand the importance of clarity AND accuracy of information and/or evidence are equally essential when trying to support your position? The goal is to present the better argument AND make the other sides argument appear weak and less reasonable. I realize it's only 1 little "adlib", as it were, to emphasize your own personal position. But look at the larger, global picture. One little "adlib", with even the slightest inaccuracy will be latched upon by those in the opposition as a way to discredit the accuracy and validity of the argument, thereby turning it into a fissure in which they can jam their apposing arguments. The idea is to present the absolute best argument you can while at the same time attacking the arguments of the other side. No room for even the smallest “ad lib” in a debate of this critical importance. My own personal feeling is that if someone overlooks a detail, no matter how small, in something of relatively small import, that person usually will do the same when the stakes are higher. Perhaps my dad said it more succinctly when I was a kid: If I can’t trust you with the little stuff, then I can’t trust you with the big stuff. Is there anything bigger than the future of the planet? As for a relevant comment on the topic, well let’s just say the both my wife and I have been involved in the anti-nuclear movement since the 70’s. We were part of the largest non-violent civil disobedience actions in US history, the blockade of Diablo Canyon. We have owned a condo in Dana Point for a couple of years and made a point of being there in March to attend the “protest” as San O. We made the drive from LA; did you come up from San Diego? Unfortunately, I have to say it was a pitiful protest with at best a couple of hundred people showing up. A far cry from the 15-20k of us that showed up about 30yrs ago. So what do I think? I think construction should have been terminated 30 yrs ago and now that it’s in a non-operational status, I think it should be decommissioned and dismantled; the only problem is where to put the fuel. A final comment: As I said, we have been part of the anti-nuclear movement for over 30 yrs, supporting it with both our time and money, and quite frankly, the participation today is pitiful. That 15-20k could show up while a facility was being constructed, when it was 3-4 yrs from going online, and only a couple of hundred , if that, show up to protest the same facility after it was shut down due to malfunction absolutely blows my mind. No Nukes was a serious movement of thousands trying to make a change. Today, you get 25 people showing up at a meeting and maybe a couple of hundred showing up a protest. I’ve seen more people than that show up for the opening of a 99cent store. You tell me. What do you think that portends for our future?

0

Caroljahnkow Sept. 28, 2012 @ 2:48 p.m.

The Encinitas City Council also voted unaimously 5-0 on Wednesday night to send a similar letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Over 25 people showed up in support!

1

Founder Sept. 29, 2012 @ 3:58 p.m.

Fukushima proved to all of us, that Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365 for any number of "reasons" such as any one or more of these:

~ Tornado strike? ~ Earthquake? ~ Human error? ~ Tsunami? ~ Power outage? ~ Pipe break? ~ Test gone wrong? ~ Old fuel issues? ~ Terrorist attack? ~ Hurricane? ~ Plane crash? ~ Heavy rains/River floods? ~ Metal Fatigue? ~ Nuclear Ransom? ~ Solar Flair? ~ EMP? ~ Lightning? ~ Dam Failure? ~ Fire? ~ Operator suicide? ~ Jihadist? ~ CME? ~ Carrington Effect? ~ Cyber-warfare? ~ Meteror? ~ Aliens? ~ Volcano/Eruption? ~ Stuxnet ? ~ Bad Luck? ~ Murphy's Law?

... Just a few of the ways Nuclear Power Plants (NPP's) can FAIL.

Added to the above, is the fact that SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency) now has more weakened/damaged SG tubes than all the other US reactors combined and yet SCE still wants to play with it " at partial power" while charging US 1.2 Billion Dollars for doing it...

Just Say N☢ To Restarts and *Refund Our Money WITH INTEREST ASAP

0

Founder Sept. 29, 2012 @ 4:23 p.m.

Why not look instead at Germany, they are now going GREEN and NON Nuclear by decommissioning their nuclear reactors, if they can do it so can the US and especially CA IF (and it is a BIG IF) We start doing it ASAP, before China buys up* all the Copper, Silver, Gold and rare earths we need to do it with...

Think what that could mean to not only US but the Planet...

Remember as the Earth's resources start "peaking out" (which many believe Oil, copper, coal and even silver have done) what NSW has in the Earth will become ever more valuable, why sell today what will be worth double or much more later?

*Read Red Alert for more on what delaying conversion to Solar will cost...

0

Founder Oct. 1, 2012 @ 6:50 a.m.

Update: California ISO prepares for another potential summer without San Onofre... is.gd/eyetRe

Why is SDG&E talking to them but not its ratepayer?

Where is our rebate?

What is the total amount including interest?

Ask SDG&E: (800) 411-7343

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close