The had already removed the fuel from the first unit.
Well California doesn’t need any nuclear reactors or other power plants. Electricity is magically created by flying unicorns “somewhere else” in unlimited quantities and delivered to electrical outlets for free.
Every California democrat knows this.
Excellent. Now we can burn more oil and coal. Cool.
Thank you environmentalists.
Job well done. /s
1) I am pro-nuke. Big time.
2) I am somewhat ignorant of the geology around San Onofre.
Question:
How geologically unstable is that area? Historically, is it subject to tsunami (or other) flooding?
Just a little bit more info from someone who works in commercial nuclear power (me). A dying breed?
The Department of Energy was created in the 1970's for the purpose of ... wait for it.... yep "ending dependence on foreign oil". Heh.
Since then no one has taken up the cause or promoted nuclear power (at least not in a major way). We have an ignorant populace -- and not just about nuclear power-- unable to understand comparative risks of all kinds, and the accompanying return on investment.
Industries such as agriculture, chemical, drilling and refining, and non-nuclear power generation have HUGE accident, injury and fatality rates compared to nuclear power plants and occupational radiation exposure. (I have read that a worker receiving the average dose per year -- about 300 mrem, or several chest x-rays -- every year has about a 1 in 1000 chance of cancer related to their occupational exposure, contracted late in life. Airline pilots receive more dose and have about the same statistical risk.)
Yet the public is not informed about this.
A standardized pre-approved power plant design would go a long way toward making nuclear power safer and more affordable. But instead our regulatory agencies require plants meet the standards set forth in multiple volumes of the "Code of Federal Regulations". And multiple submittals of design and construction details are necessary over a period of years in order to determine if the standards are met and the approval eventually granted.
Carbon output? None.
Um... NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) does a poor job of promotion, even though that is one of their stated goals. INPO (Institute of Nuclear Power Operators, the industry's self-regulation group) has the sharing of operating experience, improvements in standards, and auditing performance at the forefront of their mission. This does help promote nuclear power, mainly by preventing problems in advance. WANO (World association of nuclear operators) is a good group for similar reasons as INPO. And EPRI (Electrical Power ~?research?~ Institute) contributes technical standards and comparative studies. NRC does nothing to promote nuclear power. Corporations may try, but they are --of course-- treated as evil empires by the media. Misinformation abounds, with anti-nuclear groups spreading fear and intolerance even where (or maybe especially where) nearby nuclear power plants keep the local economy afloat.
Its a shame.
And President Obama promised a nuclear renaissance "as long as a safe means of storing and disposing of waste is possible." Then he axed Yucca Mountain, the government project that many nuclear power plant companies contributed to so that their fuel could be moved and stored long term. The US Government owes companies millions of dollars for defaulting on that agreement, but chances are it will never be repaid.
So, of course, without a safe place to send spent fuel, companies have to safely store it themselves, leading to increased costs of engineering, construction, and security, thus effectively paying for storage/disposal twice. And without Yucca Mountain, our president can say -- if he chooses to -- "there is no safe way to store spent fuel, so we cannot go forward with new plants".
New plants are in planning stages in Georgia and South Carolina. don't know how far along they are.
Think they’ll make great GIANT pizza ovens? Fun house echo chambers? Death defying shooting ranges?