California nuclear plant may be permanently closed

Published: April 30th, 2013 at 7:43 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
30 comments


San Diego Union Tribune: Operators of the San Onofre nuclear plant may decide to retire one or both reactors by year-end if regulators deny or delay a request to partially restart the plant. [...]  Edison CEO Ted Craver said a “decision likely made before year-end 2013 on whether to shut down Unit 2 and 3″ if the Nuclear Regulatory has not approved the company’s proposal to restart the Unit 2 reactor at partial power. Edison also pushed back its goal of restarting Unit 2 by June 1. [...]

AP: [...] SCE has asked federal regulators for permission to restart the Unit 2 reactor and run it for a five-month test period. Without that approval, Chairman Ted Craver told Wall Street analysts in a conference call that a decision on whether to retire one, or both, reactors might be made this year. [...] With questions about whether the plant can restart, mounting costs and who picks up the bill, “there is a practical limit to how much we can absorb of that risk,” Craver said. After the plant was shut down, tests found some generator tubes were so badly eroded that they could fail and possibly release radiation, a stunning finding inside the nearly new equipment.

Dow Jones: Edison International CEO: Could Decide by End 2013 Whether to Permanently Shut Nuclear Plant [...] Edison International (EIX) could decide by the end of 2013 whether or not to permanently shut down its California nuclear power plant, Edison’s top executive said Tuesday. [...] “Without a restart of Unit 2, a decision to retire one or both units would likely be made before year-end 2013,” Mr. Craver said during a conference call with analysts to discuss the company’s quarterly financial results.

See also: Anonymous Insider: "Something grossly wrong" at California nuclear plant -- Fears for his safety -- Potential reactor meltdown if restarted (VIDEO)

Published: April 30th, 2013 at 7:43 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
30 comments

Related Posts

  1. California’s San Onofre nuclear plant permanently shut down (VIDEO) June 7, 2013
  2. Death Blow? “Complete rejection” of plan to restart ailing California nuclear reactor without public hearing — Plant corroding as it sits idle May 14, 2013
  3. Anonymous Insider: “Something grossly wrong” at California nuclear plant — Fears for his safety — Potential reactor meltdown if restarted (VIDEO) April 27, 2013
  4. Expert: Report shows California nuclear plant “will progressively destroy itself” — AP: Could breakdown at full power (VIDEO) March 19, 2013
  5. Gundersen featured on PBS — Host: “Growing movement” to keep California’s San Onofre nuclear plant shut down permanently (VIDEO) April 26, 2012

30 comments to California nuclear plant may be permanently closed

  • pcjensen

    Thumbs Up! Put the heat on legislators – swamp them with reminders of the serious nature of SONGS steam gen tubes (not to forget the endless costs) and let polis know that if SONGS re-starts – their political life will be buried. They need pressure to get the right action done.


    Report comment

  • Cisco Cisco

    You want us to shut it down, no problem.

    Edison's rate payers (SO's customers) will pay for it, and maybe the taxpayers, too.

    Privatize the profits, socialize the losses…no problem.

    Is this a great country or what!


    Report comment

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      SDUT – "“Effectively, we’re underwriting the costs here until we have certainty around the rate-making treatment," Craver said. "That isn’t going to be resolved for some amount of time. … There is a general limit as too how much we can continue to rack up these costs.”"

      AP – "Edison is facing a tangle of regulatory obstacles that include a Nuclear Regulatory Commission review of the restart plan and a separate state investigation into who should pay for the trouble — customers or shareholders."

      There's no question SCE wants to dump the expenses on the ratepayers and taxpayers. What the ratepayers should do is sue SCE and Ted for lying to the NRC and installing non-compliant parts in the first place. This guy has overseen the loss of over $1 billion of ratepayers money, committed illegal acts, and he wants someone else to pick up the tab.

      If you or I lied to the NRC and wasted over a billion dollars of someone else's money, which we had a legal obligation to protect, we'd be in a Federal prison for the rest of our lives.

      Another example of government enforced wealth and protection for the rich, poverty for the people.


      Report comment

  • wetpwcas1 wetpwcas1

    No more bail outs or bail ins for these super rich families & the shareholders who could care less about the pubic, they can afford to run any where on earth, but the rest cant!


    Report comment

    • moonshellblue moonshellblue

      Like Arnie says you can't run or hide as the jet stream carries the devil's brew around the world. Thus there is no sanctuary from radiation spewing from these death traps. It doesn't matter how much money you have sooner or later it will find you. TimeisShort is right they should sue SCE and the NRC if they allow a restart, for failing to do their job, which I thought, was to protect the public. Those reactors should never be restarted as it's a real danger and they know it.


      Report comment

  • pcjensen

    they all need to be shut down – ratepayer will be bilked either way. best to pay for no nucs than ongoing issues and threats. And, actually – the operators ought be made to pay for shut downs on their own. They have not been responsible and should have been saving money for this day instead of lining their pockets and lobbying feds with taxpayer money. Nuc industry is just plain stupid when it comes to good business practices. I mean, really, they can't even protect their darned machines from paragliders, people with guns, and little old nuns! Ridiculous.


    Report comment

  • dosdos dosdos

    The only way to shut down the nukes is to make it too expensive to run them.


    Report comment

  • WindorSolarPlease

    Don't stop at California, shut them all down!!!!


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Absolutely DO NOT restart San Onofre. Chernobyl and Fukushima have already contaminated the Northern Hemisphere. Enough is enough.


    Report comment

  • harengus_acidophilus

    They have a choice?

    "[...]may decide to retire one or both reactors
    by year-end if regulators deny or delay a request
    to partially restart the plant. [...]"

    To decide?
    What kind of decision is to be made,
    if the request is denied?
    They MUST follow!

    …I know, they follow only $$$.

    h.


    Report comment

    • moonshellblue moonshellblue

      Yep, it's all about the money and if the NRC makes it too expensive they will shut them down voluntarily for that sole reason. I keep hearing that song "oh that mean oh mean, mean green almighty dollar" playing in my head.


      Report comment

  • ftlt

    Closer costs along with insurance costs are never factored in the coting of Nukes!!!


    Report comment

  • combomelt combomelt

    SHUT SONGS DOWN already! So sick of their LIES…

    RESTART application results…..

    DENY=SHUT THEM DOWN

    DELAY=KEEP THEM SHUT DOWN


    Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    They may do one good thing. Well, one good thing is still better than NO good things….


    Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    The decisions must be made to have more Fuikeshimas or no more fukeshimas shut down Nuclear reactors all over the world.


    Report comment

  • buzzz buzzz

    “there is a practical limit to how much we can absorb of that risk,” Craver said.

    Yes, I’m with him on that. The practical limit is called bankruptcy. It could possibly be extended through law suits against the manufacturers of equipment that corrodes prematurely. But – and this is one of the prime dictates of capitalism – society stops squeezing you for your poor business decisions when there is nothing left to take back.
    The beauty of true capitalism is that none of this hinders criminal proceedings – which may be opened in parallel – in any way.

    Where are the alleged proponents of capitalism when they even consider spreading the risks/losses to the customers and/or taxpayers?


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    This is a good thing..


    Report comment

    • weeman

      Yes it is a good thing but it still leaves the decommissioning and disposal of waste to be determined and that is just as important and should go hand in hand, but you know and I know that the real cost of closing a nuclear plant is only the beginning and the decommissioning will cost three times more money than the cost of building a reactor and you still have not disposed of waste, the biggest problem for millions of years.
      Guess who will pick the tab up, hint not big business or operators.


      Report comment

      • DisasterInterpretationDissorder DisasterInterpretationDissorder

        Strip wall street of all its bonusses above 100000$ a year , do this everywhere with all decadence money.
        Bring it to nasa , put some serious argument to their heads and tell
        them space priorities have chanced a bit.
        They are now to fling our nuclear crap across space in to the nearest black hole, NOW.
        After that they will have to coöperate with a few "master" gardeners for a few hundred years untill live on this planet is stabilising again.
        If they behave , maybe later we can talk again about space…
        when there is a new conscious replacing all capitalist or communist crap… and we are selfaware enough to be no longer braindead cancer…


        Report comment

        • pcjensen

          "Strip wall street of all its bonusses above 100000$ a year , do this everywhere with all decadence money." indeed, I'd go deeper, tho, and take away all bonuses from industry execs whose corps have cut jobs, lost revenues, and caused earth tremendous damage, from Brownfields to Fukushima and everything in between, every waterway toxified, every community burdened with oil spills…strip them bare and toss them in the gutters like the dirty mongrels they are. freaks.


          Report comment

  • MaidenHeaven MaidenHeaven

    PLEASE VOTE YES to shutting the San Onofre nuclear plant down & ~SHARE~ http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/apr/30/nuke-plant-future-uncertain/


    Report comment

  • Baha 2012 Baha 2012

    Heat is produced in these plants by the radioactive decay of fission products and materials that have been activated by neutron absorption. This decay heat-source will remain for some time even after the reactor is shut down. Just think about it .. Japan plant was shut down a few years ago, but things are still critical and oozing nuclear waste and contaminated water return to keep it cool ..

    Found HERE http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000P7y Technically what ought to worry most is keeping the core cool after you've terminated all fission chain reactions, which you can do in milliseconds by dropping all the control rods.

    Trouble is, this doesn't stop radioactive decay of unstable isotopes formed during the previous operation of the reactor. This means the fuel rods are still giving out heat. The amount of heat falls as the isotopes decay.

    For some amount of time, you have to be able to pump cooling water around the core. Someone might like to find out whether they can do that long enough without any electricity supplies from offsite? Without any oil supplies from offsite? If the answer to the latter is no, they should damn well stockpile more oil (diesel?) now, while it's cheap and plentiful and transport arrangements aren't a problem.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.