Comments on: San Onofre: What Happened And What Must Not Happen Now

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:27:00 +0000

Completely agree. People demand transparency today. And nuclear simply can’t offer it (safely/intelligently) — since everyone would see what a ripoff it is.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:36:00 +0000

It’s an economic issue and one that could seemingly be solved with an aggressive PV installation program.

It’s only during sunny, hot days that San Diego is pressed for supply. That’s when San Onofre’s absence is leaving them short. That’s also when solar panels produce electricity.

Quit spending money on rebuilding San O’s steam generation system every few months. Offer a great big, short term rebate for new solar and fill up a bunch of rooftops. There’s plenty of panels available and the construction trade would love some job creation.

And if there would be unmet late afternoon/evening demand then put some money into getting more wind turbines on line.

By: dynamo.joe

dynamo.joe — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:12:00 +0000

Ya, I don’t really see the problem. There is a 5% chance of it breaking at the 15 month mark and they are proposing a inspection/repair/replace cycle of 5 months.

Matthew, they are failing the 95% criteria at 1.3 years, not they have a 95% failure rate at 1.3 years. I’m guessing regulations say “no component can have a probability of failure greater than 0.05″.

I’m no nuclear expert, but if this is a steam generator tube then it doesn’t ever enter the core, it’s a secondary water line. If that is true, even if it failed, there is no radiation and the only danger is to anyone who happens to be standing next to it. It’s an economic and worker safety issue, but not a public safety issue.

By: Matthew Todd Peffly

Matthew Todd Peffly — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:24:00 +0000

Just a minute, I not a fan of Nuclear; but the above graphic looks a bit faked. First the label on the left implies a 5% change of failure when you cross the red line not 95%. Second if the failure is vibration induced, the chance of failure wold not be zero for a year and then jump, you would expect the curve to grow some before going vertical. So while I agree that the US should be following Germany’s lead in turning away from nuclear, using what looks like faked data is not the way to go. The truth is bad enough.

By: Ivor O'Connor

Ivor O'Connor — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:27:00 +0000

The lack of transparency these energy monopolies generate is what makes nuclear power an obvious mistake. It is just too complicated to be anything but totally transparent and they will never make it transparent. The energy monopolies will instead buy the politicians and we won’t know what’s going on until it falls apart. Large companies can’t even manage to keep pipes from breaking and leaking oil. No way should they be trusted with potential dangers of this magnitude. They need to keep it simple and idiot proof. Use solar power and wind turbines instead.