My primary complaint about nuclear plants are they tend to be built to the most minimal standards in order to keep costs low. It is also my understanding that at least one plant is located almost on top of a fissure and in the event of an earthquake could suffer catastrophic damage. As long as important things are built as if they were burdens on society and to the low end of all standards, our infrastructure will remain over delicate.I worked at a nuke plant for a year and liked it. Much better than coal or oil plants, though much more expensive. However, there are many other ways to generate power and we are foolish to not invest education resources and money in order to lead the world in the development of such tools.Respectfully,C.
Used to SCUBA off San Onofre before they built the reactor. The ocean was very productive and rich with life, we voiced concern about increased temperatures reducing diversity. Only a couple years after operating, they bragged how the plant had “increased” sea life. Well, while the numbers of basically worthless sea urchins had increased tremendously, they were about the only species left, all the fish, abalone, and other species were gone from near the plume.
NEW designs of reactors may indeed be needed to meet our ever increasing (stupidly) “energy demands”. Planned solar and wind farms ARE seriously damaging or destroying ecosystems out on the remote reaches of land, and the desert areas. There ARE serious problems, but the REAL PROBLEM is our ever increasing populations refusing to CONSERVE energy, and use both devices and “lifestyle” that places less demand per capita on the environment.
BTW, when we were working to “clear” the right of way proposed between Phoenix(Palo Verde) and Palm Springs(Devers) for the power line from that nuclear plant, SCE was very cooperative, even willing to modify routes to preserve critical habitat, and provide us with their helicopter to do the review. As one of their guys pointed out, letting us use the helicopter for a week wasn’t any big sweat, as when the line was shipping electricity, the cost would be less than 17 SECONDS of revenue from the line!
There’s big money in “energy”, whichever source is used.
Most active plants in America are far past their intended lifespan, including this one.You base that on what? Your years of experience in nuclear technology and engineering? Didn’t think so.The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station provided baseline load and stability to the entire Southern California Grid for almost 30 years and if it been re-licensed would have done so for another 20 years.Nuclear generation is the most regulated and has more oversight then any other source of generation, the federal government, the state government, local authorities and even the industry watchdog all have a say in the continued operation and ranking of the plants ability to satisfy safety requirements. The re-licensing would have been based on destructive testing of key test pieces of the power plant to ensure the longevity of the components. Don’t expect you do know or understand, you would rather get your information from the sensationalist media and like sources.Compared to other sources nuclear is just as clean, cheap and safe. The fly ash from coal burning carries 100 times more radioactivity into the surrounding environment then what is emitted by a nuclear plant of the same generating capacity. Oh, and coal burning produces almost half of this countries current energy demand. Fly ash is dumped in regular land fills as well, not specially designed waste facilities. Ounce for ounce, fly ash waste from coal burning delivers more radioactivity to the surrounding environment then a similar load of nuclear waste in a shielded container. Waste that leaches into the ground water as well as being subject to distribution by wind and storm activity.The lack of knowledge and narrow sightedness is somewhat interesting, but not suyrprising.
thegreatack almost 11 years ago
What will remind Drebin of his long lost love???
chazandru almost 11 years ago
My primary complaint about nuclear plants are they tend to be built to the most minimal standards in order to keep costs low. It is also my understanding that at least one plant is located almost on top of a fissure and in the event of an earthquake could suffer catastrophic damage. As long as important things are built as if they were burdens on society and to the low end of all standards, our infrastructure will remain over delicate.I worked at a nuke plant for a year and liked it. Much better than coal or oil plants, though much more expensive. However, there are many other ways to generate power and we are foolish to not invest education resources and money in order to lead the world in the development of such tools.Respectfully,C.
Dtroutma almost 11 years ago
Used to SCUBA off San Onofre before they built the reactor. The ocean was very productive and rich with life, we voiced concern about increased temperatures reducing diversity. Only a couple years after operating, they bragged how the plant had “increased” sea life. Well, while the numbers of basically worthless sea urchins had increased tremendously, they were about the only species left, all the fish, abalone, and other species were gone from near the plume.
NEW designs of reactors may indeed be needed to meet our ever increasing (stupidly) “energy demands”. Planned solar and wind farms ARE seriously damaging or destroying ecosystems out on the remote reaches of land, and the desert areas. There ARE serious problems, but the REAL PROBLEM is our ever increasing populations refusing to CONSERVE energy, and use both devices and “lifestyle” that places less demand per capita on the environment.
BTW, when we were working to “clear” the right of way proposed between Phoenix(Palo Verde) and Palm Springs(Devers) for the power line from that nuclear plant, SCE was very cooperative, even willing to modify routes to preserve critical habitat, and provide us with their helicopter to do the review. As one of their guys pointed out, letting us use the helicopter for a week wasn’t any big sweat, as when the line was shipping electricity, the cost would be less than 17 SECONDS of revenue from the line!
There’s big money in “energy”, whichever source is used.
dpbriley almost 11 years ago
Most active plants in America are far past their intended lifespan, including this one.You base that on what? Your years of experience in nuclear technology and engineering? Didn’t think so.The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station provided baseline load and stability to the entire Southern California Grid for almost 30 years and if it been re-licensed would have done so for another 20 years.Nuclear generation is the most regulated and has more oversight then any other source of generation, the federal government, the state government, local authorities and even the industry watchdog all have a say in the continued operation and ranking of the plants ability to satisfy safety requirements. The re-licensing would have been based on destructive testing of key test pieces of the power plant to ensure the longevity of the components. Don’t expect you do know or understand, you would rather get your information from the sensationalist media and like sources.Compared to other sources nuclear is just as clean, cheap and safe. The fly ash from coal burning carries 100 times more radioactivity into the surrounding environment then what is emitted by a nuclear plant of the same generating capacity. Oh, and coal burning produces almost half of this countries current energy demand. Fly ash is dumped in regular land fills as well, not specially designed waste facilities. Ounce for ounce, fly ash waste from coal burning delivers more radioactivity to the surrounding environment then a similar load of nuclear waste in a shielded container. Waste that leaches into the ground water as well as being subject to distribution by wind and storm activity.The lack of knowledge and narrow sightedness is somewhat interesting, but not suyrprising.