Slashdot Mirror


NRC Analyst Calls To Close Diablo Canyon, CA's Last Remaining Nuclear Plant

An anonymous reader writes Michael Peck, who for five years was Diablo Canyon's lead on-site inspector, says in a 42-page, confidential report that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not applying the safety rules it set out for the plant's operation. The document, which was obtained and verified by The Associated Press, does not say the plant itself is unsafe. Instead, according to Peck's analysis, no one knows whether the facility's key equipment can withstand strong shaking from those faults — the potential for which was realized decades after the facility was built. Continuing to run the reactors, Peck writes, "challenges the presumption of nuclear safety."

216 comments

  1. In other news... by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    US starts buying more nuclear power from Canada, quickly pulling a Germany. In 5 years, subsidies much like those in Germany will then be gutted, and there will be a mass rush to build new coal and NG power plants until reactors can be refurbished or built anew.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:In other news... by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      Solar doesn't provide energy in the evening or nighttime, wind is unpredictable and hydro involves environmentally damaging waterway modifications. The end result is that fossil fuels and nuclear will always have a place on the grid.

      The worst thing we could possibly do is to start installing solar cells on each individual house, while trying to maintain our current consumption. The challenge is that there is a profitable multi-billion dollar market selling grid-tied personal solar and wind power systems to millions of eager Americans, but that approach would be woefully inefficient (several thousand dollars worth of electrical hardware installed in each house across the nation, a glut of home-generated electricity during the day as everyone attempts to sell surplus back to the grid).

      Instead, it's time to look at how we're using electricity. Stop building chipboard McMansions that require excessive A/C and heating. Increase the energy efficiency of appliances. Try living in smaller spaces. Discourage people from trying to build cities in the middle of scorching hot deserts, And so on.

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That glut can be avoided with battery or other storage systems. While heavy, nickel-iron batteries do last a long time.

      With enough reserve and sufficient solar in the day, power companies could take generators offline for maintenance without need to buy from the grid at spot prices.

    3. Re:In other news... by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually it is wind and hydropower coming from Canada. Should put Indian Point Nuclear out of business. http://westfaironline.com/6503...

    4. Re:In other news... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Not exactly true.

      Renewables are not yet ready or cost effective and there isn't enough that can be cost effectively developed. Solar panels have just recently become self sustaining (where they create more energy than is needed to make them). Solar also only works well in areas with lots of sunshine and when there are no clouds which is a small part of the USA. Industrial scale solar plants out in desert areas have their own issues, they use lots of water, some kill lots of birds and make significant changes to the environment when they are installed. Windmills are a bit better, but are still not cost effective, use water in dry areas, kill birds and some say they look bad. Geothermal is only possible in a very small area, uses local resources but is actually limited in capacity. Other renewables are already fully developed (hydroelectric) or the possible further development involves significant environmental impacts.

      The problem with your solution is that if the issue is about who we buy our energy supplies from, you are going about it in the wrong way. If we stop buying their stuff, the price just goes down and folks like China and poor countries in Africa will just burn what we don't, and the terrorists get rich off of them. In the mean time, we cripple ourselves by producing our energy at costs that are many times more than the competition. So what's your goal?

      My solution is "all of the above" plus conservation and development of new energy sources. We need to drill and frack for natural gas with a purpose. We need to get to the point where we are the major exporter of CNG, drive the prices down and undercut the competition. Then we need to become more efficient in how we use the energy we collect. Finally, we need to fully fund a project to industrialize Fusion power, more than fully fund it. It is only Fusion that will finally replace fossil fuels, the rest can only supplement. Until we get there, fossil fuels are here to stay, unless you want start killing off the world's population.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:In other news... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Solar cells on every house is great as long as there is local storage in every house too.

      Wind power is great as long as there is good power distribution infrastructure: It's always blowing somewhere.

      Nuclear power is great as long as you address operational safety and waste storage, both of which are addressable if you do engineering rather than politics. Part of that is again, good infrastructure so you can build the nukes in good places for nukes.

      It's easy to point at any single generation or harvesting technology and identify it's flaws as a sole solution. However there are many technologies and combined together they form a robust and comparatively clean solutions.

       

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re:In other news... by geoskd · · Score: 3, Informative

      US starts buying more nuclear power from Canada, quickly pulling a Germany. In 5 years, subsidies much like those in Germany will then be gutted, and there will be a mass rush to build new coal and NG power plants until reactors can be refurbished or built anew.

      Almost: Germany has been in a mad rush for quite a while to build solar and wind power production. The whole country is dotted with thousands of wind turbines, and a massive percentage of the country have solar panels to reduce their power demands from the grid. In short, Germany has been preparing for a while to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, and was consequently in a position to abandon nuclear power instead. At their current build rate, in 10 years, they will only need 50% of the fossil fuels they use today, even with the nuclear plants shut down

      The key to their success is that, for Germans, the overriding goal is environmental protection. Its a national obsession (Probably owing to complete lack of available land, and limited fossil fuels). Like Japan, one bad nuclear accident is guaranteed to affect a massive percentage of the population, fossil fuels leaves them too reliant on foreign powers. It means that Germany's only real option is renewable energy sources, and they have the political will and industrial might to make it happen.

      Unlike American politics, the anti-environment sociopaths don't last long in German politics.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    7. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Wind power is great as long as there is good power distribution infrastructure: It's always blowing somewhere.

      Power transfer isn't free. Good power infrastructure is not enough to result in decent distribution (certainly not enough for the current demands).

    8. Re:In other news... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      So read the rest of the post. FFS.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:In other news... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      However there are many technologies and combined together they form a robust and comparatively clean solutions.

      And that is the answer. Too bad it eludes so many in search of their own vision of the holy grail of green. Unfortunately, politics and ideology will get in the way, rather than a common sense evaluation of cost, risk, reliability, environmental impact, technological maturity, and ability to implement given our current state.

    10. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Germany, they pay $0.36/kWh for electricity. In the US, we pay, $0.08 to $0.17/kWh. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

      When electricity costs that much, renewables become much more attractive. People would lost their minds here if electricity prices tripled.

    11. Re:In other news... by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 2

      Actually, solar and wind provide a consistent output that is very predictable. The key is upgrading the grid to handle it properly.

      Photovoltaics built on existing and new structures is something that most experts in the field strongly recommend, because it decentralizes power generation and can potentially provide enough power alone to exceed current consumption.

      Energy efficiency is important, but we're not going to get rid of fossil fuels that way. Right now, the only thing that can replace them are nuclear and renewables, especially solar.

    12. Re:In other news... by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need local storage for solar. Solar peaks during peak energy usage and an upgrade to the power grid can send it where needed or even store the electricity for later.

      The problem is, infrastructure is a big investment and it is not sexy. Congress will keep on kicking the can down the road because they lack vision and foresight and Americans want action today rather than investment in the future.

    13. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how you seem to leave out other sources... but NG will obviously be the one that gets the most overall gain. Not coal.

    14. Re:In other news... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Solar also only works well in areas with lots of sunshine and when there are no clouds which is a small part of the USA.

      Germany is cloudier than Chicago.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:In other news... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      People would lost their minds here if electricity prices tripled.

      Energy costs make up a small part of a family's budget compared to health care, education, etc etc.

      No, people would not "lose their minds" if electricity prices tripled. You just might not have as many houses decorated with extravagant Christmas displays for two months every year. There's so much energy wasted in the US it's not funny. Living in the same home, working at the same place and using the same gizmos, my family's been able to cut our energy outlay every year by more than 60% and without impacting our quality of life one bit.

      Once they're installed, solar panels don't send you a bill every month.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:In other news... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Germany is cloudier than Chicago.

      Solar doesn't work in Germany without huge subsidies.

    17. Re:In other news... by geoskd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People would lost their minds here if electricity prices tripled.

      Thats the difference between the US and Germany. People in Germany have *chosen* to pay more for electricity and gas. They did so because they know that their money is buying better living conditions for everyone. Thats is why they have such high taxes. Funny but the typical standard of living in Germany is much better than the US in spite of the high taxes. In the US, its the exact opposite. Everyone wants theirs and Fuck everyone else. In the end everyone in the US suffers except the dwindling few who can hold on to upper middle class or better.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    18. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an overly optimistic dream just like obomacare will reduce healthcare costs and improve health outcomes . I am for consumers who want to to instal solar or wind or compact turbines in home but you need nukes. Let's find a way to recrosses fuel .

    19. Re:In other news... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Germany has been in a mad rush for quite a while to build solar and wind power production.

      Germany has also been in a mad rush to build more coal fired power plants, and Germany is buring more brown coal than ever before. Germany's environmental policies have been a disaster. They have sky high electricity rates, are heavily dependent on Russian gas, and are spewing more CO2 than ever before. The only thing they have accomplished is to set an example of what not to do.

    20. Re:In other news... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Solar panels have just recently become self sustaining (where they create more energy than is needed to make them).

      Ignoring the other issues with your post that statement is just plain silly. You're saying that over the (at least) 20-30 year life span of a solar PV panel it just barely produces more power than it took to build it. I'd like to see you try and justify that statement with actual facts.

    21. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it won't reduce the almost 30 cents a kilowatt hour I pay in nyc including transmission having to pay for a power line to bring power in com canada when Indian point provides clean power is ridiculous . What the anti nukes fail to state is that the nukes won't be out of Indian point completely for another 20 years of decommissioning . We should keep Indian point online and use the Canadian power to take coal and natural gas generation of line . Plus we should be pushing nat gas for trucks . The extra cng that is not being used is being flared off. Flood the market with cng and cut Russia's nat gas dominance do Europe. If Obama was competent he would have. Realized this power and we would be exporting nat gas right now

    22. Re:In other news... by lgw · · Score: 0

      Solar doesn't really "peak during peak energy usage" for homes. Most people aren't even home during early afternoon on most days. Peak home use is in the evening (later in places where heating is the dominant energy use, but they tend to suck for solar anyhow).

      Americans won't vote to build infrastructure, but they will buy it themselves if it gives advantage. A magic battery that could (safely!) store a day's home power would is necessary for solar to be practical. Also necessary: solar panels that don't require rare materials to build.

      Solar is the only thing that will scale to eventual human energy needs. To get 11 billion humans consuming at current US rates, only solar works (unless the fusion pipedream somehow happens). But significant technical obstacles remain, starting IMO with viable home power storage.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re: In other news... by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      The article indicates consumers should see reduced rates as a result of the new power. Exporting natural gas will raise domestic electricity costs substantially. The competent thing to do is to treat natural gas as strategic. Build the export facilities but only use them when Russia tries blackmail.

    24. Re:In other news... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The best place for solar PV is on our vast acreage of low-rise rooftops in sunny parts of the country. A 2000-sqft home occupied only by a retired couple in the right place can cancel out all its daytime power consumption by using solar. If you have a few children, PV can still mitigate your grid draw.

      But now look at a city highrise apartment or office. Its roof area, tiny in comparison to all the people and businesses inside it, cannot hope to generate enough power to service its inhabitants. Then there's the problem of high-energy industries that smelt steel or fab silicon, the industries that provide jobs for thousands of people at once. These all need high-density energy sources. If you want city people to ride transit and drive electric cars, add that to the demand.

    25. Re:In other news... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      We can also develop energy uses that can tolerate fluctuations in supply. Have your offshore windfield deliver desalinated water instead of varying amounts of power, and you have near-free local water (after construction costs) for coastal cities, every liter of which is a liter that doesn't have to be delivered from a thousand miles inland.

    26. Re:In other news... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      Renewables are not yet ready or cost effective

      I'm sorry but the use by date has expired for that argument.

      Wind generation PPAs are currently as low as 2.5c per kWh, the subsidy only amounts to about 1.25c per kWh
      How Low Can Wind Energy Go? 2.5c Per Kilowatt-Hour Is Just The Beginning

      Solar is getting cheaper every year and reached grid parity for most of the worlds population 2 years ago. In UK and Germany we are installing residential Solar PV for a small fraction of the US installation costs and even in rainy cloudy England Solar could pay for itself without subsidy and then go on to provide extremely cheap electricity.

      Wind and Solar can be complemented with Hydro, pumped hydro, geothermal, biogas, battery storage, compressed air storage, wave and tidal power etc.

      Windmills are a bit better, but are still not cost effective, use water in dry areas

      Windmills use water!!!! No, they don't! lol.

      Not much geothermal potential!!! Wrong.
      http://www.treehugger.com/rene...

      If we stop buying their stuff, the price just goes down and folks like China and poor countries in Africa will just burn what we don't, and the terrorists get rich off of them.

      No, it doesn't work like that, if 10% of world demand disappears then mines shut down, any price drop is temporary. "terrorists get rich" doesn't deserve a response.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    27. Re:In other news... by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      California is adding so much solar that it is covering reduced hydro from the drought. Shouldn't be tough to cover this as well. http://grist.org/news/solar-is...

    28. Re:In other news... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Germany is switching its baseload from nuclear to coal, which has meant digging the world's largest strip mine:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
      covering 48 square kilometers. Think of it as an anti-nuclear exclusion zone, like Fukushima but getting bigger instead of being cleaned up..

      But when all the nukes are phased out, Garzweiler won't be enough. This even bigger lignite pit:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
      will top out at 85 sq. km when fully developed. Lignite has the approximate energy value, and pollution profile, of damp firewood.

    29. Re:In other news... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      He's assuming the energy required to create the building and equipment that made up the factory that made the solar panel is included in the solar panel's cost, and that they only sold one solar panel before going out of business. In a practical sense, he may be more right than wrong, but its definitely a contrived argument.

    30. Re:In other news... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Here in Ontario, "windpower" accounts for under 1% of our daily generation. Nuclear accounts for ~70-75%, while hydroelectric makes up ~10% give or take a bit.

      http://www.ieso.ca/Pages/Power...

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    31. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, they do. The "coal subsidies" only affect the profit of a few politically connected democrats^H^H^H^H^H^Hdonors, and have a trivial affect on the price of electricity. However, solar continues to be implausible without subsidy, while simultaneously damaging grid stability.

    32. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gott bless you, from Americans who wish the trains ran on time and the criminals didn't run the show.

    33. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, almost all Canada's nuclear power is in Ontario which is closer to Detroid than anything remotely close to California. Largest exporters are Ontario and Quebec and those go to the east coast.

      BC sold power to California before and they are mainly hydro.

      From memory, and going east, you get coal and gas for Alberta, some coal for Saskatchewan, Manitoba is almost 100% hydro with some wind augmentation. Ontario has 50% nuclear and rest was hydro/coal but coal is going away. They had their terrible renewal energy making solar installations cash cows. I think their FIT program got canned. Quebec is hydro and then there are smaller provinces New Brunswick has 1 nuclear plant and I think rest is coal? The rest is basically a mix of fossil fuels.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

    34. Re:In other news... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fossil fuels don't work in the US without huge subsidies.

      Not true. The taxes on gasoline and other fossil fuels far exceed the tax breaks for oil exploration. Fossil fuels in America do not receive net subsidies.

    35. Re:In other news... by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 2

      According to PG&E, peak usage in California is between 1400 and 1800, the same time when the sun would be strongest on a westerly-mounted array.

      I'm not sure what people "being home" has to do with peak energy usage. The most people are home between 2130 and 0830 but that is the lowest energy usage time.

    36. Re:In other news... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Energy costs make up a small part of a family's budget compared to health care, education, etc etc.

      Really? Last study I saw on this done by the frasier institute here in canada put energy costs right up around 46% of where yearly expenses go. I'd go hunt for it but far too lazy at the moment.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    37. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Diablo Canyon is some of the most expensive power you can buy. Bills nearly doubled after it opened and the PUC decided the ratepayers were responsible for that clusterfuck.

    38. Re:In other news... by Namarrgon · · Score: 2

      That seems highly excessive, even allowing for fuel and Canadian winter heating costs. I find it hard to believe that energy costs outweigh food and/or housing.

      By comparison, in 2012:

      Australian households' average expenditure on energy represented 5.3% of total gross weekly household income (2.0% for dwelling energy and 3.2% for fuel for vehicles).

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    39. Re:In other news... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Once they're installed, solar panels don't send you a bill every month.

      The problem with solar is that it requires an upfront investment that pays back over a long term but does not significantly increase the value of your home. This means its only worth installing the panels if you can guarantee staying in your current property for a considerable length of time. Sure, some people can make that commitment (notably the older generation) but a lot of people can't.

      i.e. if I spend £20K on PV panels and then sell the house, no one is going to pay £20K more for it just because it has PV panels on the roof.

    40. Re:In other news... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Here in Germany my energy cost is small fry compared to all other expenses. In fact, I probably spend more for hookers than for electrical power and heating.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    41. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah...unless you count the US Military around the world keeping the peace and the price of oil stable. Then it becomes what? 50 trillion over the past 100 years?

    42. Re:In other news... by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      The problem with solar and wind is that they do not provide the energy density to run a simple thing like an injection molding shop, compared to energy rich nuclear able to power the whole country, as in France, that runs 80% of their electric on nuclear power. Storage of intermittent renewable energy is an issue - pumped storage is near capacity as it is, and batteries are very low in energy density and expensive. For instance a 300 gallon plastic tote battery might run your 220V electric drier for half an hour before it runs out of juice, and you might need 4 of these to run your drier for 2 hours, and then 2 days of windmill power + solar collectible near an average home for a full recharge, before you can run the drier again. Same with electric stoves, though washing machines and vacuums and power tools are better than heat-devices. For off-grid, at-home applications, or as an addition to the grid power, renewables are great, but they can't carry the backbone load when it comes to serious juice and serious consumers of electric power. Same with biofuels burnt in a powerplant - the accumulation rate of energy per arable acre is very low, and it's best used for high value and structure food, not as burnt it away in a power plant energy. What a waste that would be.
      By the way expensive electronics at home would not be that expensive if you can make them yourself. I'm talking having a hillbilly glass melting furnace where you can blow your glass bubbles for high power vacuum tube mercury rectifiers and frequency generators and the like. Not everyone is smart enough to do it, and you only find out if you're smart enough if you try. Sometimes I've done things I have no clue to this day how I did it, or could not repeat it, but I was lucky when in the moment of thinking of the right things. Like some of the stuff I type on here, I come back months or years later, and it's like wow, holy crap, I said that? I don't even remember some of it, others very vividly. But a lot of stuff could be constructible, and you don't necessarily have to go on-grid. Like you could use standard junk car alternators and standard 12V automotive equipment and battery stacks - though the lead does get expensive in large quantities, even though it's cheap on the world market because nobody really wants it. Also lead shows up as high atomic weight dense material on routine x-ray scans done by these overhead airplanes, meaning it could be nuclear material too. And they should do these scans, but they become difficult with underground things. My landlord bought like a ton of smoke detectors, like 30 or something, a box full, for rehabbing, and left it in the house, just to see if it sets off the airplanes I guess. Also I have some portable power pack lead acid battery in the house that must be glowing on the radar screens, I also have a habit of collecting old school crt televisions people put out in the trash - they work awesome - but the lead glass that blocks the x-rays from the electron gun shooting at the screen, is heavy, and got to show up on the low altitude flight airplane scans. I set off all kinds of triggers and alarms at the NSA, from what's in my car, in my home, and what I type on Slashdot. Tee hee. If you're bored and want some attention, all you gotta say online is Oklahoma City Bombing, Waco TX, Timothy McVeigh, Unabomber, Boston Marathon, 9/11, uranium 235 238, thorium, americium, and I'm leaving out the really scary one, 2nd amendment, vegetarian, hmm, what else, oh yeah, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Jonestown, who else, blah.. there's probably a long shitlist of these phrases, and they send the freshly hatched youngin recruits with the eggshells still stuck to their butts for basic routine training. As I don't even like hurting flies, if I catch one inside, I carry it outside and let it go, but it gets weird, cuz as long as you're off the norm, you hang out of the pack like that, they worry. I keep telling them quit worrying, build a bunch of huge space stations from Moon materials, and put like a billion people up there, who are

    43. Re:In other news... by larpon · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what people "being home" has to do with peak energy usage. The most people are home between 2130 and 0830 but that is the lowest energy usage time.

      It's funny how some governments campaign for it's citizens to be more green at home when it's really the industry that ought to be taught to be more green as a whole (given your statement is correct of course - the average working hours, at least were I come from, includes 1400 to 1800).

      It's difficult to be more green at work if the machines you operate aren't.

    44. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everywhere that you can build hydro in the US, pretty much already has it.

      Ask the end of the Colorado River how that's worked out for them, and that environment.

    45. Re:In other news... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power is great as long as you address operational safety and waste storage, both of which are addressable if you do engineering rather than politics.

      Safety is not a purely engineering problem though, much of it is politics and business. If you want to design a safe nuclear plant you have to figure out how to deal with those as well as the engineering challenges.

      How do you ensure your design is free from defects and flaws? How do you make sure your design is followed exactly and no cost-cutting changes are made? How do you ensure that over the plants operational life-time, which is likely out outlast your working and possibly your actual lifetime, no corners are cut and standards maintained? How do you ensure that extra money is spent as soon as new problems are discovered, like new geological fault lines or flaws in your original design? How do you get investors looking to make a profit on-board with all these potentially unknown costs down the road? How do you ensure that waste will be dealt with in a timely fashion, without corner cutting?

      Most of the problems are not engineering ones, they are political and business problems.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    46. Re:In other news... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Germany is reducing the number of coal plants it has: http://energytransition.de/201...

      Most of the closures and new builds were announced before Fukushima, and some of the new builds have been either cancelled or mothballed since. The ones that are opening are unlikely to ever make much money, if any.

      The difference between a strip mine and Fukushima is that the mine is planned and will be cleaned up and returned to a re-usable state when finished with, and didn't destroy multiple towns and villages or kill hundreds of people. The mine can be managed, Fukushima cannot.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re:In other news... by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      The gasoline tax is for road repair. It really should be an axle weight tax, but to call it a fossil fuel tax is a mistake.

    48. Re:In other news... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

      > US starts buying more nuclear power from Canada

      Ummm, only one province in Canada really has any nuclear capacity, and we're shutting it down, slowly but surely.

      A bunch of the reactors are already permanently offline. Another group at Pickering is slated to go in 2017. Darlington is slated for a rebuild starting shortly (but already 300 million over budget).

      The last build was in the 1980s, and the last effort to build a new reactor set at Darlington B was cancelled last year.

      Canada tried nuclear. We're done.

    49. Re:In other news... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > Solar doesn't provide energy in the evening or nighttime

      And nuclear doesn't (generally) peak. Either way you need some other generation capacity to make up for the peaks and valleys. Which is precisely why Ontario had the west's largest coal plant, and now has significant gas peakers, in spite of getting half our power from nukes.

      In fact we now have so much load following capability that we can deploy a WHOLE LOT of renewables, essentially for zero upstream cost. Which is precisely what we're doing.

    50. Re:In other news... by orzetto · · Score: 2

      Think of [Hambach Tagebau] as an anti-nuclear exclusion zone, like Fukushima but getting bigger instead of being cleaned up..

      Quite ridiculous proposition: you cannot get cancer by entering the mine, nor is it incompatible with human life, and once depleted the mine reverts to normal soil on which you can grow crops. See the map of open-pit mines near Cologne that you mentioned, and compare the satellite images of the same area. Notice how the areas of previous development (Frechen, Zukunft-West, Bergheim) have been re-converted to agriculture.

      Try doing that in Chernobyl, smartass.

      Also: I know Muricans have issues with proper units of measure, but the size of the Fukushima exclusion zone is a semi-circle with a 20 km radius. That gives 3.14*20*20/2 or 625 square kilometres, 13 times the size of Garzweiler.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    51. Re:In other news... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

      > And that is the answer. Too bad it eludes so many in search of their own vision of the holy grail of green

      Oh don't go blame this on the "greens". The only green involved is money. *Everyone* selling a particular solution claims it is the only solution needed for everything. You hear this *far more often* from nuclear supporters than PV people.

      Example. In this article, the engineer proposes that we should supply most of Ontario's power from a fleet of refit CANDU reactors. CANDUs don't throttle, so what does he propose? Spending billions on adding steam bypass, and then dumping the excess power at night into the St. Lawrence Seaway. So basically reducing the CF from around 90 to maybe 60 to 65%, and thereby increasing the price up into the 10 cent/kWh range FOR BASELOAD (which is currently selling for about 2 cents in Ontario).

      http://canadianenergyissues.com/2011/11/09/ontarios-nuclear-electric-generation-can-be-more-flexible-than-natural-gas-fired-generation/

    52. Re:In other news... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Only if you discount all the damage they do, paid for by private health insurance and by people cleaning up the soot from cars that ends up in their homes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    53. Re:In other news... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      While that particular proposed solution may make no sense, it doesn't mean there isn't one, and the need for that solution is partially the result of poor overall planning. Yes, nukes can load follow quite easily if designed that way, but that was not a design need when this generation of plants was built. The fact that other sources are being put on line that needlessly offset or are not compatible with the characteristics of existing generation is more the result of a political push to renewables than an engineered and planned approach. Placing renewables on line without appropriately valuing the required backup assets, and making best use of already available power, causes unintended consequences like this as well.

      With that said, your point is well taken and I don't presume that the green agenda is 100% to blame for anything. Canadian nuclear operators have done a poor job at reliably keeping those plants running over the years. That's not the example of how to do it.

    54. Re:In other news... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The "coal subsidies" only affect the profit of a few politically connected democrats

      Man, you're behind the times. I'm not talking about those subsidies. I'm talking about the externalities, like the health care costs for the people who get sick from coal, or the environmental costs of coal or the way coal destroys communities.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    55. Re:In other news... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Not true. The taxes on gasoline and other fossil fuels far exceed the tax breaks for oil exploration.

      Not if you start to examine the externalities of the fossil fuel industry.

      Like the wars in the Middle East and the environmental cleanups. The money BP put into the Gulf repair wasn't but a small fraction of the costs. The rest have to be picked up by government. You and me.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    56. Re:In other news... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Thorium molten salt reactors are quite capable of load-following. In fact, load-following happens as an intrinsic feature of their design and can be optimized for as described in the linked paper which specifically investigates TMSR's as solar fill-in power sources.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    57. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please post sources, otherwise I'm going to call bull on your wind and solar.

    58. Re:In other news... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      You started off pretty well with a reasoned and comprehensible response on the topic of what the future's energy generation profile might have to look like. ....Then you went waaaay off topic and into paranoid-insane areas and crash-landed into talking about Noah's ark and space space stations. Don't you hear how crazy that sounds? I mean, at least it was interesting, but joking aside, maybe get that checked out or something.

    59. Re:In other news... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yes, Windmills and solar both use water to clean their collection devices for efficiency. Solar cells get dirty/dusty and have to be cleaned. Windmill blades collect bug guts which disrupts airflow over the carefully designed airfoils and spoils the efficiency. It doesn't take much to really take a bite out of the energy a windmill can produce. The cleaning method involves spraying blades with fluids (water with surfactants) to soften the offending material enough to get it to fall off.

      For the rest of your post.. I'll call the careful reader's attention to the various qualifications you make and from where your links come (TreeHugger.com? Really? No bias there.. ) Renewables are not cost effective and environmentally friendly, or they would be adopted on industrial scales. As you freely admit, Wind is not even at parity in the USA without the subsidies. Even with the subsidies, it's not proving cost effective. It's the nearest, but still comes out a few pennies above Natural Gas which has the distinct advantage of working even when the wind is calm and the sun isn't shining.

      Now if you are really serious about this... I suggest you just go whole hog and cut yourself off from the power grid. Slam up solar cells and windmills with a pile of batteries in the basement, buy yourself an electric car and go totally without fossil fuels. You CAN do it, I am just going to maintain that it's not likely you can afford it, but if it makes you feel better, go and try. Problem here is, most people would not be able to afford to live this way and going back to the 1800's technology is simply not an option, unless you want to draw straws to figure out who's going to be allowed to live..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    60. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wind power is great as long as there is good power distribution infrastructure: It's always blowing somewhere.

      Guess again. While the writing style of this website is quite extreme, it does raise some very valid points and uses freely available data from Australia's national electricity market operating agency.

      http://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/04/more-australian-wind-power-fails/

      Summary: About 3GW capacity of wind generation installed in an area 5x the size of the UK and there are numerous instances where it's struggling to put out 50MW.

    61. Re:In other news... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      This is spot on. I have thin, cheap, builder-grade (i.e garbage) windows that were original to the home's construction in 1986. They leak heat like crazy but it'll cost $20k to replace them. Meaning I'd have to live here about a decade to make that cost back in energy savings. But I've also picked up a new job where relocating for 2-3 years is a strong prerequisite for advancement. The major outlays in energy efficiency that would make a big difference for me are incredibly wasteful from a financial perspective. I would love to get my windows replaced, improve wall insulation, get solar panels, solar water heating, the works...if it meant I could save money in the long run. But because I can't take any of that with me, or recover a decent portion back in the home's sale price, I'm never going to do any of those things until I move into a permanent home. Even when I think I'm settling in for the long term, life can be unpredictable, and I'll always have some uncertainty as to how long I'll live in a home before I'll want or need to move. Just last night I was reading in the local paper that a company is attempting to assert right-of-way to build an oil pipeline straight through my suburban NJ township to pipe oil to NYC, which will further impact my home value. Not something I had been planning on happening 4 years ago, but something I might have to move to escape from.

    62. Re:In other news... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Germany wishes it could start reducing the number of coal plants. To do that, it would have had to keep its nuclear plants open, and eventually build more of them. But in getting "environmentalists" to defend strip mining, and for the dirtiest mineral ever dug up, and in the green hills of a crowded continent that values its open space, and directly in the face of their own fears about carbon-induced warming, I'm not just after neener cred. I'm pointing to a real and emerging problem of energy sprawl.

      A high-density energy plant might be controversial to install, but low-density energy occupies a large amount of ground. Replacing a nuclear reactor with windmills means having hundreds of them twirling away across the landscape. Lignite has not much more unit energy than wind, but in the absence of nuclear would be Germany's only 24/7 power source. Photovoltaic can be installed on existing rooftops, but what does a cloudy country without deserts do when that diffuse energy source needs large arrays of ground-mounted panels?

      Furthermore, sprawling renewable sources require a whole new generation of transmission lines, routed in different ways than the traditional grid. The transmission lines for Engergiewende are already eliciting protests:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02...

      Something tells me that the closure of the rest of the nuclear plants will never take place. The high cost of small-source energy can't be concealed in subsidies forever. At some point the ratepayers and the taxpayers are going to revolt.

    63. Re:In other news... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Renewables are not cost effective

      That is no longer true, what part of wind costing 2.5c per kwh don't you understand?

      Renewables are right now being adopted on industrial scales, large industrial scales. A very large proportion of new energy capacity being installed globally is now renewables.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    64. Re:In other news... by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Distributed power means the 'unreliable' figure melts away in the average power distribution. Rooftops are good, parking lots are good, reservoir collectors better.
      The worst possible thing to do of course is McMansions far from the workcenter, but any kind of sprawl is equally a problem, and rooftops won't change that.
      The problem isn't 'space' used, it's DISTANCE TRAVELED which shows up as UPS routes, more mail delivery, more delivery vans at your Safeway, more Walmarts.
      Cities aren't the problem, they are part of the solution.
      The real solution, of course, is to drop back to 1 billion population.
      We'll do it voluntarily...or it will be done to us BY us in some horrible conflagration.

    65. Re:In other news... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Peak energy usage in the home is highest when people are in the home. That's not contentious, right?

      So rooftop solar panels on people's own roofs aren't going to generate power where and when it's needed. People buy them, however, because the directly see the savings as money in their pocket. Rooftop solar is growing in popularity. Building public infrastructure is falling in popularity, and as local governments go broke (especially in Cali) it just won't happen, except where cities see the same immediate money-in-pocket rewards. We're going to have an infrastructure crunch regardless of power generation method. And obviously, a pure solar generation strategy can't work today.

      All of that gets vastly better with safe dense power storage. With that, home solar doesn't mean dumping power into the grid a 2, then pulling it back at 8- and people will buy it. With that, industrial solar power generation can become base load.

      It that a more clear statement? Power storage (together with solar panels that are easier to make) will let mankind move to solar to meet our power needs for quite some time to come, perhaps long enough for fusion power to finally become real. But those are significant technical obstacles.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    66. Re:In other news... by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 1

      Peak usage in the home is irrelevant, because homes (and their solar arrays) are generally connected to the power grid. It is only really an issue if you want to live off the grid.

      Also, "pure solar energy strategy" can "work today". There's no technological barrier that prevents us from adopting such a strategy like there is with electric cars or fusion power. It's simply a matter of political will.

      In fact, California and most of the west has already spent a ton of money upgrading the power grid. It requires further upgrades, but it is time the rest of the country catches up. It just is not politically sexy to spend $100 billion dollars on needed upgrades (especially the ability to send excess power from one part of the US to another), but we'll have to do it eventually, so we might as well start now.

    67. Re:In other news... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Renewables are not cost effective

      That is no longer true, what part of wind costing 2.5c per kwh don't you understand?

      I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, but when I look at the following: http://www.awea.org/Resources/... It shows that Natural Gas is still slightly cheaper than Wind. This from a site that is obviously pro-Wind power. I'm digging out their original source material. But, what this site assumes is that you build both kinds of plants. Build your wind farm, just remember the wind doesn't always blow so you need to pop for a Natural Gas plant too. I don't see the savings when you still have to build the NG plant....

      But look at my original post.... "All of the above" where it makes financial sense. When and where it's cost effective, build it. Wind is still not quite there and requires subsidies to make it close. I'm betting your number reflects the subsidized price, not the actual price, in the USA.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    68. Re:In other news... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The problem with solar is that it requires an upfront investment that pays back over a long term but does not significantly increase the value of your home.

      It may surprise you, but some people buy homes to live in them. Not to flip in 3 years for a profit.

      And I don't believe there's enough data in various markets to know whether or not solar panels would increase the value of a house more than their installation price (which is coming down, by the way).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    69. Re:In other news... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      That is no longer true, what part of wind costing 2.5c per kwh don't you understand?

      Not even close, not even close to reality. $25 MW/h? You wish. It's more like $80 MW/h when you consider the full costs (setup, maintenance, transmission costs etc) for wind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

      Natural Gas is cheaper, thus wind is not cost competitive. It makes sense for peak load production, but if your investment only provides you a return during peak load when the wind's blowing, you made a bad investment and should have built a Natural Gas plant instead.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    70. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Germans don't live in American-style dwellings made of sticks and paper, but in energy-efficient actual houses.

    71. Re:In other news... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      It may surprise you, but some people buy homes to live in them. Not to flip in 3 years for a profit.

      Yep, so do I. I've been in my current home for 6 years. I was in my previous home for 7 years (then I relocated by a few hundred miles). A quick Google shows solar power companies around here quoting break even points of 8-12 years (and its only that low because of the artificially high feed in tariff, which has a very questionable future). So whilst I don't "flip in 3 years for a profit", I have never actually reached the break-even point in either my current home or my previous one. I don't know what I'll be doing in 6 years - I may still be here, or I may have decided that my family needs a bigger house and moved, and 6 years ago I certainly couldn't have predicted how my life currently is.

      And I don't believe there's enough data in various markets to know whether or not solar panels would increase the value of a house more than their installation price (which is coming down, by the way).

      Ok, I've not done any research into this, but IMHO around here house prices are so high that people are already really stretching their budget to buy a house. If they see two identical houses, one with freshly installed PV cells and the other without, I really can't see them laying down anywhere close to the installation cost of those panels extra to get that house. Yes it might save on the energy bills, but most of those savings are going to be used up paying off the extra large mortgage. Remember, that "8-12 year" ROI doesn't take into account the interest you're going to be charged on any loan you got to cover the cost.

    72. Re:In other news... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Peak usage in the home is irrelevant, because homes (and their solar arrays) are generally connected to the power grid. It is only really an issue if you want to live off the grid.

      In fact, California and most of the west has already spent a ton of money upgrading the power grid. It requires further upgrades, but it is time the rest of the country catches up. It just is not politically sexy to spend $100 billion dollars on needed upgrades

      Even in the west, the grid is woefully behind (Texas is doing the best, but it's not great). Our 3 big power grids have been running on capacity that was originally intended as redundant for years now, and we've about exhausted that. It's a real and serious problem that no one is fixing. With most state governments going broke, it's not going to catch the interest of voters as a priority until the worst happens. And since that level of infrastructure buildout takes 20 years, it will be bad for some time once it goes bad.

      Large scale blackouts due to cascading failures that take hours or days to recover from is the next step. "Off the grid" won't be optional, unless we change our ways and build infrastructure, or people can generate their own, thus taking load off the grid. "Off the grid" solutions are already somewhat popular in places where electrical power is unreliable - which increasingly will be "most places".

      Also, "pure solar energy strategy" can "work today". There's no technological barrier that prevents us from adopting such a strategy like there is with electric cars or fusion power. It's simply a matter of political will.

      I hope we never have to "political will" to impose some guy's idea of what's best on everyone else. It's too expensive and awkward to store power today. There's not really a good, cost-effective solution for using solar as base load generation. The panels that are cost-effective are too tied to rare materials to be more than a nice product. We could make solar thermal work if we had to, at industrial scale, but since we don't have to, we won't. However, with better energy storage and panel technology, it all becomes practical.

      Solar power will happen on its own when it's cheap and practical, no dictatorial imposition required. And it seems like that's getting close, just a couple of breakthroughs away. But not today.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    73. Re:In other news... by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about Texas, but California has zero concern with cascading failures. It has a modern power grid that is able to prevent that sort of thing by shifting supply to meet demand and, if necessary, instituting rolling blackouts to keep the grid from going down (which is something that has occurred several times on the East Coast).

      It's not really expensive or awkward to store power. Hydroelectric plants store so much potential energy that it has measurably changed the length of the day. We have over a century of experience with that.

      Also, the costs of solar are not particularly great. The Department of Energy estimates that new photovoltaics total levelized cost per watt is less than 40% more than coal. [1] That means the entire cost per watt to the power grid to replace a coal plant with photovoltaics is less than 40 cents more for every dollar you spend. That amount can easily be made up simply by mandating greater energy efficiency. The cost of photovoltaics is higher than gas or coal, but it is not prohibitively higher.

      Considering the hundreds of trillions of dollars in damage that is slated to be caused by the continued burning of carbon-based fuels over the next few centuries, I would say that it is time to start dictating to the power companies how we are going to move away from fossil fuel burning as soon as possible. After all, they are not going to be the ones that have to pay to build seawalls or to relocate hundreds of millions of people displaced by rising ocean levels.

      [1]http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

    74. Re:In other news... by lgw · · Score: 1

      California has zero concern with cascading failures

      "There's zero chance it can fail," said the young engineer.

      Hydroelectric plants store so much potential energy that it has measurably changed the length of the day

      Right, so it's just a matter of building a river, a dam, and a hydro plant next to my solar plant in the desert. That'll work. Some ideas have been tried like pumping water uphill, or molten salt for thermal storage, but are overly lossy. I'm a big fan of the idea of hydrogen-based energy storage (storing hydrogen as a palladium hydride is quite dense and safe), and that can work at small scale so individual home systems can use it, but again that's not yet practical, just another "looks great on paper" idea.

      Also, the costs of solar are not particularly great ... That means the entire cost per watt to the power grid to replace a coal plant with photovoltaics is less than 40 cents more for every dollar you spend.

      An abrupt 40% increase in power cost (totally do-able with solar thermal) would destroy the economy. It's a non-starter. Over 20 years, though, maybe. Of course, that's plenty of time for better solar panels to happen (today the good ones simply can't be made in the needed quantity, but technology marches on).

      Considering the hundreds of trillions of dollars in damage that is slated to be caused by the continued burning of carbon-based fuels over the next few centuries, I would say that it is time to start dictating to the power companies how we are going to move away from fossil fuel burning as soon as possible

      I don't share your religious beliefs, and object to your suggestion that they be imposed by force. Maybe you can persuade one of the governments that will actually matter though - China and India. China might be an easy sell there since imposing crazy economic ideas by force is the norm. Pushing down coal use in the US, though, that seems to have some popular support. Natural gas is so cheap, and vastly better in terms of genuine pollution.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    75. Re:In other news... by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 1

      Any time you transform energy from one form to another, it is "lossy". Petrol engines lose about 75% of their energy (not counting all the energy it takes to extract it from the earth and get it into the car). By contrast, pumped-storage hydroelectricity results in only about 25% lost energy overall, making it incredibly efficient. [1]

      Your claim that a 40% increase in power cost would "destroy the economy" represented an unsubstantiated opinion that flies in the face of empirical evidence. The economy, for instance, relies heavily on petrol and the real cost of a liter of petrol has doubled in the US over the past 20 years but the US GDP per capita has increased.

      Meanwhile, the real cost of household electricity has been almost cut in half since 1960. It seems pretty unlikely that a less than 40% increase in electricity per watthour phased in over decades would "destroy the economy" when the real cost of electricity was nearly 100% more decades ago and the economy did just fine.

      The economy adapts to fluctuations in the cost of goods and services.

      [1]"Energy storage - Packing some power". The Economist. 3 March 2011.

    76. Re:In other news... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      " I don't see the savings when you still have to build the NG plant..."

      1. Is gas free?
      2. Gas has a carbon footprint when generating, wind doesn't.
      3. Wind will be around for billions of years, Gas won't, it makes sense to ration gas as much as possible. Right now we are glutting on gas. Current estimates for gas are that it will last 40-100 years and the lions share of it is in Russia.
      4. Gas is not the only type of complementing power, there is solar, geothermal, solar thermal, heat exchange, hydro, pumped hydro, battery storage, compress air storage etc.

      Wind Technologies Market Report Page 11 "wind power price trends" The subsidies amount to 1.15c per kWh for a total real cost of 3.65c over 20 years by which point the wind farm will be paid for and modern wind generators are built to last 40 years, after that the wind farm could be upgraded at substantially reduced cost.

      Reminder that oil, gas including fracking are subsidised and nuclear is supported by incentives/guarantees. Coal has massive external costs which would make it the most expensive if those were included in the price (they should be).

      The report with the 25$ per mWh figure is written by the US dept' of energy. The $ figure is what will be paid for the wind energy rather than some hypothesised amount.

      I actually don't believe 100% in CO2 caused global warming but think it is likely and prudent to guard against damaging the worlds atmosphere.

      Note, the link you gave is looking backwards at cost, the govt report I linked is new (aug2014) and looking at future cost which is course the more relevant amount.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    77. Re:In other news... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Wind Technologies Market Report

      $25 per mWh is the price agreed in the power purchase agreement (PPA), so it is not "I wish" it is actual contractual average price paid over a bunch of contracts - some are cheaper.

      Page 11, subsidies over 20 years amounting to 1.15c per kwh

      Wind still getting cheaper: 2013 Wind PPA Prices In US Interior Averaged 2.1 Cents/ KWH

      Can a gas powered station give 10, 20 or 30 year price guarantees?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    78. Re:In other news... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So you don't care about cost, you care about CO2. So it doesn't matter to you what anything costs, we have to reduce CO2.

      This debate has been about ROI and cost not CO2 emissions. You've been barking up the wrong tree with me.

      Logically your position leads us to having to greatly reduce human population of the world. If CO2 is your primary concern, there is no other way. So let's just cut to the chase here and start talking about who you plan to kill and why? And start discussing how one can enforce this mandate in places where the USA has no control.

      You need to start asking yourself a lot of "what happens then" questions and thinking though how you think all this will work on a geopolitical scale, because if you don't have a world wide solution that everybody follows, you will have failed in your goal and killed the industrialized world in the process. You will be responsible for the unnecessary deaths of billions of people both at your own hands and as a side effect of your policies.

      IMHO, going down this road is stupid, even if we have to deal with global warming. We need to be careful with the environment in all respects, but just living on this world has environmental impacts so we cannot avoid it, in order to survive, we must deal with it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    79. Re:In other news... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You are talking different prices. You are discussing what they get paid, I'm talking about the TOTAL burdened cost which includes all costs (setup, transmission, maintenance, fuel, decommissioning) over a 30 year plant life.

      The difference is how much money they are loosing on those wind farms.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    80. Re:In other news... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Huh? GP is concerned about CO2, which is perfectly reasonable. We can reduce the amount of CO2 produced for power by several different ways. As you suggest, we can shoot large numbers of people, so we produce less CO2 overall without reducing per capita use. Many people have problems with this approach. Another is to reduce per capita power consumption. Certainly we can do some of this, but too much of it will reduce quality of life. Another way is to produce power with techniques that don't produce much, if any CO2, such as solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, and biofuels (which don't inherently add CO2 net).

      This isn't a binary proposition, where either we stop all CO2 production or keep going at present rates. Reducing the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere at least buys us some time and perhaps options before the temperature rises too horribly high. Having a combination wind turbine and natural gas generator produces less CO2 than just the natural gas generator. If we can blunt peak energy use with solar, we can use the more efficient generators for more of the non-solar power.

      I really have no influence over what CO2 India and China produce. I have at least a little influence over what CO2 the US produces, and the US is a truly major producer (#2 overall, last I looked). A small local positive change that happens is better than an overall, very positive, change that doesn't.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    81. Re:In other news... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The cost of power from a given plant had better take into account all costs, or the plant will find itself losing money. People who are in the business are in it to make money, not to lose it. I'd take contractual prices with private parties as very strong evidence that the private parties think they can make money on the price, and they're the ones with the best-informed beliefs on the matter. From the cited report, 83% of wind power is from independent power providers, and 15% from utilities. The remaining 2% may not have a profit motive, but I think we can disregard that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    82. Re:In other news... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I really have no influence over what CO2 India and China produce. I have at least a little influence over what CO2 the US produces, and the US is a truly major producer (#2 overall, last I looked). A small local positive change that happens is better than an overall, very positive, change that doesn't.

      Everything up to this last statement makes sense. If you don't control India and China though, it doesn't matter what the rest of us do. Think about it. IF CO2 is going to kill us then everybody (not just the industrialized countries) needs to participate in fixing the problem. But, you can bet that they won't unless they are forced. We can cripple our economies willingly to limit our CO2 production, but in the end it doesn't matter if everybody is not participating in CO2 reduction. If China continues to burn fossil fuels when we stop, and if alternatives are more expensive who will suffer? It won't be China.

      Like I said before, think though the obvious results of what you are suggesting. Yes, we can reduce our CO2 emissions unilaterally, but it is the moral equivalent of disarming unilaterally. If somebody doesn't follow your example and disarm too, you just sealed your fate, just as if you decided to take your own life. Think about it...

      There is also the problem that in order to sustain our current population, even marginally, we will simply have to use fossil fuels and continue to produce CO2. It cannot be avoided without subjecting the world's population to some serious problems staying fed. People WILL die, and most likely it will be the poor disadvantaged people who are hit hardest by the ever increasing food costs that your ideas about CO2 emissions reductions bring. Or are you willing to live with the results of CO2 emissions?

      So, I"m just logically cutting to the chase here. Who do you want to eliminate from the world so humanity can survive? Your side's "reduce CO2 emissions!" battle cry really just hastens the deaths of the poor and disadvantaged who cannot afford to pay more than they do now.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    83. Re:In other news... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Your argument regarding killing people is absurd, you don't seem to be able to accept the fact that wind is cheap and solar is about to get very cheap too.

      There is currently $5 trillion invested into fossil fuels, I happen to think that renewables can do just as good as job especially if we invested 5 trillion.Where Can The Fossil Fuel Investments Go?

      Places where USA has no control? China has some good reasons to cut down coal usage, not least because half their population is choking to death.
      Chinaâ(TM)s Coal Consumption Has Finally Decreased

      Cutting down on coal use cuts CO2 emissions, cutting down on gas use cuts CO2 emissions, cutting down Diesel use cuts CO2 emissions.

      Different forms of power emit largely different amounts of CO2.

      According to Sovacool's analysis, nuclear power, at 66 gCO2e/kWh emissions is well below scrubbed coal-fired plants, which emit 960 gCO2e/kWh, and natural gas-fired plants, at 443 gCO2e/kWh. However, nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar photovoltaic, at 32 gCO2e/kWh, and six times as much as onshore wind farms, at 10 gCO2e/kWh.

      http://www.nature.com/climate/...

      We need to be careful with the environment in all respects,

      I agree.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    84. Re:In other news... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Everybody expected Electric prices to be going though the roof about now. Wind farm operators chief among them. There are a lot of unprofitable generators who are going out of business, mainly because of the huge reductions in fuel costs for Natural Gas due to fracking, but also because of the extremely slow economic recovery since 2008.

      Once you have spent the money to build a windmill, your incremental costs (what it costs you TODAY to generate power) is pretty low, at least if the thing doesn't need maintenance. So you will sell your power at what ever price you can, TODAY even if it means you are not able to make enough to service your debt, maintain your equipment and turn a profit. It's a case of loosing all your money or loosing some of it. Sure, I'll take a fraction of what it costs to generate this power so I don't loose as much money, but electric rates better go up or my creditors are going to end up holding debt for an operation that cannot pay it back..

      But, all this also ignores the fairly large subsidies for wind power, which is about the only thing that makes it even close to possible to break even. However, even then, they are loosing money operations even where the wind conditions are the most favorable.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    85. Re:In other news... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      All power stations have transmission costs.

      Why would the wind farms enter into long term contracts if they thought they would be losing money, that makes no sense, back up your frivolous negative assertions with something concrete please.

      Wind is cheap, get over it. And they don't use fuel!

      The money paid to the wind farms through the PPAs and subsides mentioned amounting to an average of 3.65c per kwh pays for those wind farms.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    86. Re:In other news... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Your argument regarding killing people is absurd, you don't seem to be able to accept the fact that wind is cheap and solar is about to get very cheap too.

      Yes, I know it's absurd, but it's the argument you are making, not me. I'm saying that your position logically leads to that. I'm just cutting to the chase and bypassing all the sideline arguments (like your last post).

      Look, you can put on the rose colored glasses if you want, but until it makes financial sense enough to get places like China and India to start using this stuff because it's cheaper than the CO2 emitting stuff you are trying to replace, it's USELESS. If they don't follow suit, all your efforts are only going to cripple you, your people and your economy and weaken our position in the world, and not have any effect on the issue you are trying to solve. The Chinese will just burn more of the fuels that you only succeeded in making cheaper for them. The ONLY way this works is if the renewables you are pushing become CHEAPER, actually CHEAPER, not including subsidies. Until then, blather on, it's pointless.

      So Solar will never be cost effective. It's 4-5 times more expensive now. Wind is close, but it's still more expensive by 2 times. Geothermal is a limited resource, but it's still 1.5 times natural gas. There is ZERO chance that solar will knock off 3/4ths of their costs in the next decade. Wind is not going to get 1/2 of their costs cut either, being it's a more mature technology now. The engineer in me says "NOT GOING TO HAPPEN" at least not without a huge jump in technology. So far I am unaware of any technology advances that could possibly lead to such cost reductions. Oh I see all the prognostications of the "save the world" advocates, I just don't see any technology on the horizon that is going to allow their ideas come true.

      So, Yes, the case you are advocating is stupid and absurd, when pushed to it's logical conclusions. Either that, or it's already doomed to fail and a stupid thing to advocate. Take you pick...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    87. Re:In other news... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Your argument is "Nobody is stupid enough to sell something at a loss!"

      Consider this. Lets say you are thinking that gold is going to rise, so you buy $10,000 worth. You figure that it's going to double, so you buy your gold and pay the dealer $1,000 (10%) to store it for you. You own $9,000 in gold, but you paid $10,000. You also know that the dealer collects 10% on the sale too, so your $9,000 in gold is only going to net you $8,100. You hold on to your gold, but the price doesn't double as you expect, but starts to fall. What do you do? Eventually you sell at a loss so you loose less money.

      That's where the wind farm guys are. They where expecting higher electric rates though increased demand and higher generation costs for fossil fuels. Problem is, the rate increase has not yet materialized. So what can they do but sell the power they can for whatever the wholesale market will pay? You got to make the debt payments, you have to pay your maintenance costs, you have to take the cash, even if you are loosing money in the long haul so you can try and stay in business. So YES, they sell power at a loss, it is what they can get for it.

      So your logic is faulty. Yes, they are selling at a loss. $0.024 KW/h is not enough to cover their costs, despite not having to pay for fuel. They need about $60 MW/h to turn a profit, which is about 3x the wholesale baseload rate.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    88. Re:In other news... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      "but until it makes financial sense enough to get places like China and India to start using this stuff"

      They are:
      Chinaâ(TM)s Coal Consumption Has Finally Decreased
      Beijing Cut Coal Use By 7 Percent, Proving Intentions

      How many times do I have to say renewables are getting cheap?
      http://costofsolar.com/cost-of...
      (2013 charts out of date - solar is cheaper now!)

      Solar is not 4-5 times more expensive now, it is reaching parity with coal.
      Solar at Grid Parity in Utah, a Coal State With No RPS

      "a huge jump in technology."
      Lots of them, and they're not slowing down.
      http://bxhorn.com/wp-content/u...

      I have given you the proof that wind is cheapest and you choose to ignore it. How can a generator that requires fuel competewith a generator that doesn't require fuel?

      Like I said, your arguments are all out of date.

      There is ZERO chance that solar will knock off 3/4ths of their costs in the next decade.

      It's funny, because if you care to look, you'll see that from 1977 the price of solar went from $76.00 a watt to less thaqn $0.74 a watt now, that's one hundred times less.

      You seem to be having difficulty facing the truth of the current situation.

      Global installed wind:
      http://www.eenews.net/assets/2...

      Global installed solar (take your pick):
      https://www.google.co.uk/searc...

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    89. Re:In other news... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Your fail to understand that the Power Purchase Agreements are to sell all of the power they generate. That depends on how much wind there is since they are not ever meeting 100% of demand.

      There are many billions being invested in wind, do really think that those investors can't add up and are too stupid to be able to negotiate agreements for new wind farms, please, give me a break.

      Those 2.5c agreements are new agreements recently negotiated.

      I see not point debating with you if you are just going to make stuff up after I have provided concrete evidence that newly negotiated agreements between rich investors for new wind farms are only costing 2.5c and less according to the govt's own literature based upon those agreements. FFS. Those investors have done the math, those investments are a done deal, they know how much wind there is going to be, they know they are going to make money on the investment.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  2. Getting a whiff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting a whiff of mdsolar. He should show up soon (assuming he didn't submit this). Come on, here mdsolar mdsolar mdsolar... Get your trolling snackie...

  3. Oblig Simpsons Quote by DaveM753 · · Score: 1

    Said closure would cast a great Homer Simpson quote into obscurity:

    "Oh, Diablo Canyon 2, why can't you be more like Diablo Canyon 1?"

  4. Plan? Nuclear Plan?!?!?!? by RyanCheeseman · · Score: 0

    How does an atricle make it to the front page of /. with a typo in the title.... *shakes head*

    1. Re:Plan? Nuclear Plan?!?!?!? by DaveM753 · · Score: 1

      Maybe samzenpus prefers coffee over t?

    2. Re:Plan? Nuclear Plan?!?!?!? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      It's probably not a typo, but the stupid short title length limit striking again. The limit is guaranteed to be one character less than the title you really want.

    3. Re:Plan? Nuclear Plan?!?!?!? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      That's the beauty of it. It works with out without the 't'. The headline is fail-safe. Nothing can go wrong with it. Trust us.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:Plan? Nuclear Plan?!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      atricle

      Yeah, we need someone like you who doesn't make mistakes! You broke the first fucking rule of bitching about other people's mistakes.

    5. Re:Plan? Nuclear Plan?!?!?!? by RyanCheeseman · · Score: 0

      :) what can I say..... I suck at life and at spelling.....

  5. Does this involve TripMaster Monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know what happened to notable Slashdot user TripMaster Monkey? For years he was known for submitting the stupidest shit around, and he was also pretty well known for posting idiotic comments, too. But then one day he disappeared, never to be seen on Slashdot again.

    Does anyone know what happened to him?

    Is he apk? Is he mdsolar? Are there any connections between them?

    1. Re:Does this involve TripMaster Monkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it could be all in you head...

  6. Not really new. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is not a new story, basically a reprint. With that said, if there is any indication the the plant cannot withstand postulated earthquake levels it should be shut down. This was not ignored, and the article does mention that an evaluation was performed based on the new information.

    "In 2012, the agency endorsed preliminary findings that found shaking from the Shoreline fault would not pose any additional risk for the reactors. Those greater ground motions were “at or below those for which the plant was evaluated previously,” referring to the Hosgri fault, it concluded."

    Given our experience with plants holding up extremely well to seismic events and the large margins that are included in seismic design of these plants, the finding is not surprising. Work continues, as it should, to look for anything that could possibly have been missed or not enveloped by the new data.

    The basis for the inspectors complaint is, in large part, not that the plant is not capable of withstanding the quake, nor that the analsyis is faulty or incorrect, but rather that the licensing basis document has not been revised to require a higher peak acceleration design level. It is debateable whether such a would make any difference, since they are already required to analyze for the higher levels. Meanwhile, the concern is being handled through the appropriate processes.

    1. Re:Not really new. by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 1

      The basis for the inspectors complaint is, in large part, not that the plant is not capable of withstanding the quake, nor that the analsyis is faulty or incorrect, but rather that the licensing basis document has not been revised to require a higher peak acceleration design level. It is debateable whether such a would make any difference, since they are already required to analyze for the higher levels. Meanwhile, the concern is being handled through the appropriate processes.

      I agree with your conclusion however I took away a different interpretation from TFA: the Hosgri fault was discovered during construction and not properly accounted for in the first place- making the comparison of the Shoreline fault to the Hosgri fault data questionable.

      "Peck wrote that after officials learned of the Hosgri fault's potential shaking power, the NRC never changed the requirements for the structural strength of many systems and components in the plant."

    2. Re:Not really new. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I think we are saying the same thing. The 'requirements' are in the form of the licensing basis of the plant. They did the evaluation but did not revise the basis. When the actual fault data was finalized and useful is, however, unclear to me.

      Meanwhile, there is a fleet wide re-evaluation of all sites underway to ensure any new seismic data for each regions/site is evaluated against the plants' existing capabilities.

    3. Re:Not really new. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, the concern is being handled through the appropriate processes.

      I'm sure officials in Fukushima would have said the same thing on March 10, 2011.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Not really new. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      A huge difference is that in this case, there is analysis to show the plant can withstand the postulated event. In the case of the tsunami, it was not so, as the plant was never designed to handle a tsunami. The key failing being placing a plant not designed to handle a tsunami in a potential tsunami path.

      Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand an earthquake.

    5. Re:Not really new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as the plant was never designed to handle a tsunami.

      The Fukushima plant was designed and built to withstand a 33 ft tsunami, it was hit with a 43 ft tsunami.

      Just sayin'.

    6. Re:Not really new. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      there is analysis

      There's always analysis. The problem is, who's doing the analysis, what is their agenda, and who's tasked to act on said analysis.

      I don't doubt that nuclear energy could be an amazing boon and used to a much greater extent, safely and profitably. If we could trust the energy industry and government regulators to do the right thing.

      My analysis shows that's not the case, however.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Not really new. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The basis for the inspectors complaint is, in large part, not that the plant is not capable of withstanding the quake, nor that the analsyis is faulty or incorrect, but rather that the licensing basis document has not been revised to require a higher peak acceleration design level. It is debateable whether such a would make any difference, since they are already required to analyze for the higher levels. Meanwhile, the concern is being handled through the appropriate processes.

      The documentation is the beginning of the process to either revise processes or install modifications. This was the primary issue at Fukushima as the documentation to improve the sea walls was resisted and stopped. This meant the process to improve the seawalls there did not commence planning or other things required to improve the safety of the plant.

      The author probably understands this because he has a deep understanding of reactors and the processes under which they operate. The belief system that surrounded operating processes at Fukushima was the real danger, more than likely the reason why he has reacted the way he has.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    8. Re:Not really new. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The fundamental flaw in your response is that the Fukushima units had no design features to deal with a tsunami from the start, so analysis was never part of the equation. If you postulate a tsunami that breaches the wall, then you must analyze the plant to ensure it can withstand, and this was never done. In the case of Diablo, they designed the plant with the ability to withstand an earthquake from the start. They postulated the earthquake, performed the analysis, then obtained new earthquake information and validated that the existing analysis enveloped the new data. None of this happened at Fukushima.

    9. Re:Not really new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fundamental flaw in your response is that the Fukushima units had no design features to deal with a tsunami from the start, ...

      The Fukushima plant was designed and built to withstand a 33 ft tsunami, it was hit with a 43 ft tsunami.

      Just sayin'.

    10. Re:Not really new. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The fundamental flaw in your response is that the Fukushima units had no design features to deal with a tsunami from the start, so analysis was never part of the equation.

      The report commissioned by the Diet specifically pointed to active resitance on the part of TEPCO to resist documentation efforts that would support an increase to the height of the sea wall because they relied on historical data instead of geological data and more modern techniques for assessing the risk.

      If you postulate a tsunami that breaches the wall, then you must analyze the plant to ensure it can withstand, and this was never done.

      Exactly. Like an aircraft crash, more than one thing has to go wrong to produce the failure. This is reactor failure caused by long term mis-management of the technology, not the actual technology. No enhancement to the sea wall or improving back-up power redundancy, operator training, more intensive drills and simulations - the list goes on. In the 60's Fukushima was state of the art and the sea wall was built according to what was reasonable at the time.

      Over time a belief system, 'Nuclear is Safe', developed. That produced a dogmatic skepticism, re-inforced by social proof so no actual challenges to the beleif system, even those based in science, were accepted. No machine is immune to human foley. And this is a point made in the official report into the Fukushima disaster:

      The Nuclear industry learned nothing from the lessons of Chernobyl.

      In the case of Diablo, they designed the plant with the ability to withstand an earthquake from the start. They postulated the earthquake, performed the analysis, then obtained new earthquake information and validated that the existing analysis enveloped the new data.

      Great. I haven't looked at Diablo Canyon. I was more concerned with San Onofre, Palo Verde, Davis Besse and, Indian Point but for different reasons. I'm glad SONGS is being decommissioned, it was on the other side of the Pacific in a fault zone with a greater density of fuel rods. It looks like the people who actually matter making the decisions about operating them in the US are smart enough to understand the dangers and not affected by social proof, but actual scientific proof.

      None of this happened at Fukushima.

      That's right - we all lost. The collusion between TEPCO and the regulator meant doing that work was actively resisted. It looks like there is a real movement in the NRC to grow some and challenge the operators of the reactors to shut them down if they can't be re-certified. This is a positive thing and the NRC should be commended for protecting the US from an accident caused by the same collusion that caused Fukushima to explode and melt down.

      It looks like a really beautiful countryside from the pictures in the wiki too.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    11. Re:Not really new. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of destroyed countryside, villages, and lives along the northern cost of Japan due to the tsunami. I find it interesting that so many people seem to care primarily about only the small percentage near the nuclear plant, simply because it gives them platform.

    12. Re:Not really new. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of destroyed countryside, villages, and lives along the northern cost of Japan due to the tsunami. I find it interesting that so many people seem to care primarily about only the small percentage near the nuclear plant, simply because it gives them platform.

      According to the US Geological Survey an earthquake of magnitude 9 will occur once every 500 years.

      This means in up to a decade, maybe two, the population will rebuld, as there have indeed been earthquakes and tsunamis before.

      The radio isotopes released by Fukushima also decay in geological timeframes. Picking a sample of sr90, one of the shorter lived radioisotopes has a 600year*20 half lives as it decays through its daughter products. Being generous in allowing extra time for another eruption that roughly means there will be 20 magnitude 9 earthquakes before that radio active effluent will become benign in the environment.

      For the toxic pu-239, its oxides and chlorides it will decay in 25000years*20 half lives as it decays, which means there will be 1000 magnitude 9 earthquakes before that radioisotope becomes benign in the environment. There will be 50 magnitude 9 eathquakes before it decays into its first daughter product. Though I expect that the organic binding of pu-239 into biota will accelerate the process.

      This is the long scale of nuclear accidents, they are mind numbingly slow. Most people can't see a year into the future, so it's completely understandable why the earthquake seems like a greater impact. Perhaps you hadn't considered it that way.

      Long after everyone alive today is dead, those radioisotope will remain toxic to life in the environment for up to 500,000 years. Bioaccumulation of these radioisotopes will ensure that it has a significant impact on the birthrate of human beings over time with genetic and transgenic disease for those born, so in comparison, the impact of the earthquake and tsunami is quite small.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    13. Re:Not really new. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Of course, you forgot to mention that the actual levels/concentrations of the will be insignificant with respect to human health risk for almost that entire area in a relatively very short period. (Actually, it is already safe in most areas, but logistics, conservatism, and validation efforts all prevent a quicker return). And, have you ever even thought about the relative risks associated compared to the overall benefits we have gained from offsetting "mind-numbing" masses of air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. Or is your whole position based on your fear of radiation, lack of risk perception accuracy due to the ongoing anti-nuke FUD, which the oil and gas industry thank who wholeheartedly for supporting.

      So, it seems you think its quite OK for those entities that decided tsunami walls were sufficient protection for towns and villages, and those that designated safe elevations for villages and told people it was OK to build their homes, not to worry, and turned out to be wrong.... to not be held to account, even though many lives were lost due to that mistake. And somehow, only the nuclear site presented a case of negligence and collusion. Despite the fact that the actual plant itself saved the lives of some people that were able to make it to the main plant structures in time. Yeah, its OK for thousands to die and lose their loved ones, but very small portion of land requiring remediation for a few decades is your outrage.

      Your selective outrage is quite telling.

  7. Money by Dangerous_Minds · · Score: 1

    So, how much money would be needed for healing and mana potions for this little operation?

    --
    Daily read for tech news: Freezenet.ca
    1. Re:Money by Zynder · · Score: 1

      An insane amount! Have you seen Auction House prices? Diablo Canyon 1 & 2 are great but they really should shutdown Diablo Canyon 3. What a hunk of garbage!

  8. they just need to change the lights on the map! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Diablo canyon 1 why can't you be more like Diablo canyon 2"

  9. Can it scram in 10 seconds? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    There's that newfangled p-wave detector, only costs $80m to build and $12m / year to operate - if the reactor can be rendered safe within 10 seconds after notice of an oncoming quake, I think they've got a customer....

    1. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Safe before, during, and after. No warning needed. That's the only way.

    2. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by brambus · · Score: 2
      Unless their reactor is some really bizarre or shoddy design then yes, reactors can scram in less than 10 seconds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      In PWRs, the control rods are held above a reactor's core by electric motors against both their own weight and a powerful spring. Any cutting of the electric current releases the rods. Another design uses electromagnets to hold the rods suspended, with any cut to electric current resulting in an immediate and automatic control rod insertion. A SCRAM mechanism is designed to release the control rods from those motors and allows their weight and the spring to drive them into the reactor core, in four seconds or less, thus rapidly halting the nuclear reaction by absorbing liberated neutrons. In BWRs, the control rods are inserted up from underneath the reactor vessel. In this case a hydraulic control unit with a pressurized storage tank provides the force to rapidly insert the control rods upon any interruption of the electric current, again within four seconds.

      Once the rods are inserted, the reactor is deeply subcritical and so due to the exponential nature of nuclear physics the reaction dies away in fractions of a second. Perhaps of interest to you might be to know that Chernobyl's RBMK reactor was neither a PWR nor a BWR. It was a graphite-moderated water-cooled reactor with very serious design flaws that made its operation inherently dangerous (it was basically a scaled-up plutonium-production reactor, for which safety was never a primary concern).

    3. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      SCRAM in 10 seconds is fine. But a SCRAMmed plant does not instantly become safe nor is it considered completely shut down. You still need heat removal for quite some time afterword ( which varies between designs) . That is where the seismic requirements come in. The heat removal systems must withstand the event and remain operational. Every single safety system and backup safety system is required to endure the event.

    4. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question isn't whether it can scram but how long it needs an active coolant loop (powered by external during your earthquake that takes out power) to go "cold"

      Ditto x 2*4900000 if you have spent fuel rods in active circ pools ~50 meters off the ground in said earthquake zone filled to capacity, like Fukushima and other places.

      Capcha: airbag

    5. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by brambus · · Score: 1

      I was responding to parent's question of "Can it scram in 10 seconds?". You are of course completely correct that a plant that has been SCRAM'med isn't completely safe yet. I'm by no means a fan of current day water-based pressurized reactor systems, however, it seems so far they've held up really well (not a single civilian power reactor pressure vessel has failed or leaked over the past half century due to external forces - don't know about military ones, those are classified). This of course comes at the heavy price of the reactor pressure vessel being extremely expensive to build correctly. I see the future in low-pressure high-temperature systems where core cooling can be achieved by much simpler passive means.

    6. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by jfmiller · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, in 1999 (when I last toured the plant) the SCRAM time was 3.5 seconds with control rods fully placed in 0.5 seconds if the emergency circuit is tripped. This happens automatically in the event of a 6.0 or stronger quake. An emergency SCRAM requires 30 to 120 days to restart the reactor. Also like all reactors, it requires time to cool. Because DCNP is located on the ocean it does not require active cooling to safely cool the reactor core after a crash. flooding the core with sea water will probably be the end of that reactor, but it will not loose containment. The plant was originally designed to be operational after a 7.0 quake and to not loose containment in the event of a 9.5. After the discovery of the Hsgri fault the design was modified to withstand a 10.8 quake. Analysis after the 2004 6.2 quake in Paso Rubles suggests that the engineering was "very conservative" and that the plant may well be able to survive an 8.0 in operational condition.

      On the other hand, the temporary on site storage of spent fuel was not part of the original plan, In the event of a major seismic event, it is the spent fuel casks that scare me.

      --
      Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
    7. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      FWIW, in Fukishima one of the main problems was with the cooling of spent reactor rods that were stored on site. Being SCRAMmed wouldn't help there. And they were a problem even on the reactors that had shut down normally.

      Now Diablo Canyon wouldn't need to worry about corrosion due to using sea water to cool it in an emergency, but just how *would* they cool it in such an emergency?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by Zynder · · Score: 1

      You don't ask for much do you? No wonder nothing gets done anymore since everyone seems to want all or nothing perfection these days.

    9. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      FWIW, in Fukishima one of the main problems was with the cooling of spent reactor rods that were stored on site.

      No, the spent fuel in each of the pools was determined to be just fine, although there were concerns as the event unfolded because access to the spent fuel pools was pretty much non-existent.

    10. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      In fact it's the opposite problem: spent fuel pools were ok, but the folks at Fukushima didn't know it and wasted a lot of time and man power trying to correct a non-existent problem. But your point is still good. Without cooling even the spent fuel pool will boil away after awhile (days? weeks?) and the bare fuel could melt down.

    11. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      During the 11th March earthquake in Japan a couple of plants experienced problems with their SCRAM mechanisms. Although the rods can in theory fall due to gravity, it only works if the rods don't get stuck due to the violent lateral forces placed on them and the reactor shell. Fortunately enough rods did come down to control the reactors and allow them to be cooled, but it demonstrated the weakness in this design.

      The other issue with earthquakes, which Fukushima and a couple of other Japanese plants experienced, is that the cooling system can be damaged or difficult to operate in the aftermath. The system relies on transporting water through pipes and valves. If the pipes break or the valves somehow get stuck in the wrong position the system can fail. At Fukushima there were slow leaks, but the most critical failure which preventing effective cooling and lead to the hydrogen explosions and full melt-downs was an inability of the plant operators to monitor the position of key valves. That lead to water being syphoned off into storage tanks instead of cooling the reactors.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Can it scram in 10 seconds? by brambus · · Score: 1

      During the 11th March earthquake in Japan a couple of plants experienced problems with their SCRAM mechanisms.

      Yes, that's possible, however the control rod budget is quite oversubscribed, so that even if some of them fail, there should be enough of them to stop the reactor. Should the gravitational system itself fail, it's always possible for the drive mechanism to push them inside after the fact. Lastly, should this fail, modern reactors (such as the AP1000) have on gravitational injection of borated coolant water, which kills the reaction, though takes a little longer and relies on the reactor vessel being intact.
      As for the leaks of reactor pipes, it's always a possibility due to their unfortunate high-pressure vessel design. To my knowledge no reactor vessel or piping has ever catastrophically failed (double-ended pipe break), though Fukushima obviously did leak in places. However, I don't think that the inability of operators to monitor was the direct cause of the issues, as right after the earthquake monitoring equipment was still operational. Instead the problem was the fact that the site was 100% dependent on on-site diesel, which was flooded half an hour later when the tsunami arrived - I can't imagine which idiot thought placing the diesels in the basement and air intake louvers so low was a good idea. The hydrogen explosion problem could have been averted had they used proper passive autocatalytic recombiners, but they cheaped out and instead decided to just duct the hydrogen away, which is a boneheaded idea.
      In any case, I'm much less a fan of these old plant designs. They're much better than the sitting bomb RBMK designs, but they're certainly very far from perfect (early Gen II - basically designed when these were the most powerful computers available). Don't you think we might have made significant advancements since then in safety? I'm especially interested in the denatured molten salt reactor, which avoids the complexities of salt reprocessing and brings full passive safety with it.

  10. Are you a God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stantz: Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by d***less here.
    Peck: They caused an explosion!
    Mayor: Is this true?
    Venkman: Yes it's true.
    [pause]
    Venkman: This man has no dick.

  11. more than mag 7.5? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Are they really expecting a more than 7.5 magnitude quake there? unlikely in the extreme, USGS says the Shoreline fault that is near the plant might produce a 6.5 quake....so what?

    1. Re:more than mag 7.5? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      "PG&E research in 2011 determined that any of three nearby faults — the Shoreline, Los Osos and San Luis Bay — is capable of producing significantly more ground motion during an earthquake than was accounted for in the design of important plant equipment. In the case of San Luis Bay, it is as much as 75 percent more."

    2. Re:more than mag 7.5? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Not a big deal since scale is base 10 logarithmic, 75 percent more is somewhat *less* the energy release than going from magnitude 6.5 to 6.7 for example which is 100% jump.

    3. Re:more than mag 7.5? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      If it is beyond the design criteria, perhaps it is a big deal.

  12. where are the super-humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The nuclear advocates tell us that nuclear power is safe when it is handled "properly"

    Alas the human species has been proven over and over again to not possess the competence to handle these materials!

    So where are the space aliens or genetic super men who will safely handle our nuclear materials?

  13. Diablo's built on an earthquake fault by billstewart · · Score: 1

    The press is reporting that the Napa quake wrecked about a billion dollars worth of wine. Beats having a quake in Diablo canyon spilling plutonium.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  14. NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by macpacheco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Per the usual, the simple fact that Natural Gas and Coal accidents/air pollution kills people every day is ignored compared to the remote risk of something happening to a nuclear powerplant.
    If the 3 nuclear reactors in Fukushima Daichi were instead 3 coal thermal boilers, it would have killed hundreds of people in the decades it operated.
    6.5 quake is peanuts for a nuclear reactor.
    Nuclear require an extreme accident to become a hazard to human life, while coal/NG kills every day.
    Even solar and wind kill more per TWh produced than nuclear, perhaps they can cleanup their act and have less work accidents before they can claim solar/wind is safer than nuclear.

    1. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by brambus · · Score: 1

      Danger, to a large part, is about perception. Coal and NG kills only a few people at a time, which is highly preferable for politicians, whereas nuclear tends to come in very few and far between big events, so everybody is scared shitless, despite in absolute numbers the threat being negligible (think, by analogy, driving and flying, which has less fear surrounding it and which is safer in actual fact).
      As for a comparison between nuclear, wind and solar, it gets kinda murky. For one, wind & solar don't (typically) kill innocent bystanders but people working in the industry of their own volition (usually by falling from roofs or elevated platforms). For another thing, they can't cause large-scale pollution of their operating sites, though you could point to massive industrial pollution being caused by things like rare earth mining (like these "sweet" ponds of nitric acid), which are a significant part of their high-power generators and much of modern solar panel electronics. Again though, here the public only sees the shiny clean plants and ignore what's happening abroad - who cares about brown people anyway, right? Sarcasm aside, to a degree it's part hypocrisy and part irrationality and it takes huge amounts of work to educate the wider public on what the reality of the situation is, but I'm hopeful. In general, reasonable people are willing to listen and they intuitively understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch, neither in physics nor in environmental concerns. There's always a cost-benefit that needs to be done.

    2. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just perception though. Citizens are highly intolerant of large accidents causing mass casualties. Those cause community level disruptions and are difficult to mitigate.

      Fatalities and illness that are spread out through time and space are easier for society to tolerate (ignoring the individual human cost for the moment). Also, these are more easily addressed by incremental upgrades to the generating facilities, like more and better scrubbers.

      I would challenge the notion that NG is on any kind of par with coal though. NG is one of the cleanest fossil fuels around. Spills of NG dissipate quickly, leaving the main danger as ignition. If you have uncontrolled ignition of a large amount of NG, yeah that's bad.

    3. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      True, true, true. But nuclear has another very important advantage. Uranium is far more plentiful than natural gas even considering the 0,65% once through uranium burnup efficiency and a little over 1% with reprocessing. Still, a coal powerplant the size of a full size nuclear reactor takes in a hundred rail cars a day worth of coal, while assuming a mine with just 1% uranium content, a hundred rail cars worth of raw 1% concentration uranium is enough to power a reactor for a whole year.
      Nuclear power is 2 million times more energy dense than gasoline, coal or natural gas. That's why it can be safe, the denser it is, the easier it is to invest on the highest level of training and safety procedures.

      Plus using Natural Gas in Europe today = being Mr. Putin's bitch, not a wise idea considering Ukraine !

    4. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      You've been bamboozled. Nuclear power is quite deadly. http://www.chernobylreport.org...

    5. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by mdsolar · · Score: 2

      There's only about 85 years of uranium left at the current rate of use, which isn't high. Natural gas in the US has more than that and in Russia even more and it produces more power than nuclear.

    6. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      the area around Chernobyl is uninhabitable. Before the accident, 120,000 people lived there. The Fukushima exclusion zone is currently a 30 km radius where all residents Were evacuated and is also a no-fly zone. The US Embassy subsequently advised Americans to keep a 80 km distance. Radiation induced cancers take decades to play out, and the claim that "no one died from Fukushima other than a few plant workers" is complete hogwash, as it's too soon to tell the longer term effects.

    7. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      > Natural gas in the US has more than that

      The question is at what price - just like for tight oil.

    8. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      Wrong. There's a thousand years of uranium left. It's just more expensive uranium than today. Plus using an IFR reactor allows us to burn 100x better the uranium already mined (depleted uranium + spent nuclear fuel). Seawater has huge uranium reserves, it just costs like 5x more today to extract, but the cost to tap seawater uranium is continuously coming down.

    9. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      You are drawing a conclusion based on overblown safety procedures.
      It's the same logic that stated Chernobyl would kill a million people.
      The LNT model isn't backed up by data.
      The problem is nuclear regulators have zero incentive to revisit their LNT assumptions.
      The radiation levels in the Chernobyl exclusion zone are similar to those measured in high elevation cities and sky resorts, yet people live there for centuries and they seem to live longer and have slightly lower cancer rates than those living at sea level.

    10. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Since nuclear is becoming uneconomic using existing plants more expensive uranium should not be included in reserve estimates. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R...

    11. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Gas and oil extraction seem a little different. Oil is still taken from a reservoir layer though with new geometry while gas is now being taken from the source rock itself. That seems to explain why gas is holding at a low price in the US.

    12. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      As per the usual, the simple fact that Natural Gas and Coal accidents/air pollution kills people every day is ignored compared to the remote risk of something happening to a nuclear powerplant.

      Not, it is not being ignored. I don't know about the US but in the EU there are very strict regulations governing gas and coal plants, and we are working towards getting rid of them or at least doing full capture of the output.

      Incredibly are governments are capable of doing both things at once. I know, hard to imagine.

      The numbers for harm done by modern western coal plants and especially the number of deaths attributed to solar and wind have been widely debunked anyway. That lame blog post that claimed solar killed so many people just took the number of construction worker deaths per year and decided half of them were probably people falling off roofs while installing solar panels. This old lie really needs to die.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by GroeFaZ · · Score: 1

      Nuclear require an extreme accident to become a hazard to human life, while coal/NG kills every day.

      Uranium mining is hazardous to the miners and local/regional residents because of the radioactivity they are exposed to, uses large quantities of water to reduce airborne uranium dust, and uses a lot of fossil fuel to separate the uranium from the gangue and to transport it to the consuming power plants. Therefore, nuclear also kills every day. It just doesn't usually happen in the country using the nuclear fuel, so it's effectively Somebody Else's Problem, but a problem nonetheless. Nuclear power is NOT carbon neutral by a long shot, much less environmentally neutral.

      --
      The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
    14. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does your analysis exclude all environmental costs of energy except human deaths? How many square miles of land is uninhabitable because of coal power, and at what cost? How many square miles have been evacuated due to an accident at a coal plant? You've got to include all the costs if you want to be credible.

    15. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Some experts say it's because shale gas expanded too fast so that a glut depressed the price and nobody made money any more.

    16. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      They seem to be happy at $4/MMBtu but they would like to hook into the global market at $10 which would offshore our recovering industry again. Strategic should be the watch word on natural gas.

    17. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by cboslin · · Score: 1

      You've been bamboozled. Nuclear power is quite deadly. http://www.chernobylreport.org...

      Thanks for posting that report. I skimmed it quickly and did not see heart disease, holes in the hearts, genetic defects related to the heart mentioned specifically.

      Cesium-137 is absorbed by heart muscle. As the report pointed out, the levels of Cesium-137 had not only NOT dropped but were found to be higher than expected given the 30 year half life of Cesium-137.

      While many think it only takes 10 half lifes (10 * 30 years = 300 years) for Cesium-137 to approach typical background levels. I believe 20 half lifes if more accurate. (20 * 30 years = 600 years).

      So obviously more Cesium-137 was released in Chernobyl than reported.

      Move ahead to Fukushima, where experts have stated that no company or government currently existing on the earth would posess the technology to stop the leak for a minimum of 10 years (a decade) and it boggles the mind that anyone would say that Nuclear power is safe. Wait until the Cesium-137 laden pine cones release Cesium-137 laden pollens each spring for the next 7 years (probably longer) and than lets talk. Better yet lets develop the technology to stop the leak and contain the radiation and than lets talk.... Remember if the reactor is cool, its leaked into the ground....

      Haven't most of the Nuclear plants in America reached the end of their 20/30 year lifes already? Yet they are not being mothballed as expected. More accidents waiting to happen.

      And don't say we need Nuclear power, we do not. When all the reactors were offline in Japan, they only experienced rolling brown outs for a short duration until they adjusted their usage to the lack of nuclear power. Granted the Nuclear power industry pushed way faster than even the Japanese wanted to get them back online...less we all learn the truth that Nuclear power is a canard, not needed to generate electricity, only needed to generate weapons. Especially dipleted uranium and worse weapons.

      Follow the money to find the truth.

      Speaking of money, its also true that Nuclear Power is extremely expensive. It can only be seen as cheap when costs are hidden. Lets say you cover the build out costs and the moth ball costs, which rarely are accurately revealed when talking about cheap nuclear power. Lets look just a re-casking of nuclear waste...in fact lets not look at radioactive isotopes that have a half life of 240,000 or more years. Lets look only at Cesium-137 that supposedly has a 30 year half life.

      Casking starts to crack within 50 years. They say it has a 100 year cask life, but that too is a wee bit of a stretched lie. Within 50 years they start to crack. How much does it cost to re-cask? How many millions? (And we are not talking about a disaster like Chernobyl where the entire building will need to be re-casked in the very near future at a cost in the multiple Billions ($20B plus)...we are talking about re-casking Cesium-137 for only either 300 or 600 years. Let take the smaller number...300 years.

      Cesium-137, 30 year half life, must be maintained casked for 300 years, re-casked every 50 years or 6 times at what cost? And we are not talking about only one re-casking for all the Cesium-137, but a re-cask for each rod that contains Cesium-137....

      How much does it cost to re-cask one rod? If you cask more together, the radiation will cause the cask to crack sooner, as it will be concentrated. How many rods at how many millions per casking?

      No Nuclear power is not cheap. Its insane to ignore the facts and expect a different result...

      I just don't get the people who deny reality. Obviously they have an agenda and it does not help yours or my health at all. Even worse, they are so evil, that they are willing to radiate our children's children for the next 300 years! Pathetic fail.

      There are worse radioactive isoto

    18. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by cboslin · · Score: 1

      ...The radiation levels in the Chernobyl exclusion zone are similar to those measured in high elevation cities and sky resorts, yet people live there for centuries and they seem to live longer and have slightly lower cancer rates than those living at sea level.

      Thanks for pointing out that those at higher elevations (lower elevations get radiation in precipatation not just wind) get more radiation that the rest of us. In fact radiation that finds its way up into the jetstream in Japan (for instance...pine trees on a mountain with an updraft every spring as the pollens are released) can reach the West Coast of North America in less than 48 hours. And Cesium-137 will continue to be released into the environment around Fukushima for the next 7 years minimum as no one has the technology to stop the leak, much less clean up all the ground water in the region.

      Ground water sucked up and found in the Cesium-137 laden pollens in plants and pine cones (already measured and reported on by scientists).

      Doctors were reporting an increase of babies born with holes in their hearts in the Ohio valley through to Pennsylvania after the Fukushima disaster. They were told to stop reporting the additional defects which in their expert opinion were significant and could not be explaned by other environmental factors. You will not see any stats as they were surpressed as were the radnet radiation filter readings across the US for weeks after the event. When changing the filters more frequently did not lower the radiation levels, they simply turned them off...stopped reporting anything.

      Many of us were monitoring the jet stream data showing the radiation, and were shocked when the data was changed before our very eyes from that evening to the next morning. Much more conspiracy fact than anything else. We saw this with our own eyes. It did not help that people were given permission to see the raw data before it was changed and had copies of it, so there was no doubt that data was modified after the fact.

      People can handle the truth...its the industry that is polluting and killing that can not handle the truth. My guess is you are among those that deny reality, without researching for yourself. I guess you would suggest that US nuclear plants do not experience leaks into the rivers they reside near, almost every week. The official reports state otherwise, granted the radioactive isotopes released are often short term in duration. The fact that they were released speaks enough to the 'safety' of the plants. Fortunately for those of us that bother to look, we see the reports, we know better.

      All one has to do is open their eyes, search, question the official reports and follow experts who have no reason to lie any longer as they are no longer beholden to that industry for their livelihood.

      Most of us are drawing our conclusions from the very official reports the industry is required by law to produce. It (Nuclar Power) is not pretty, safe nor cheap. Reports like the one mentioned above that measure radiation levels and show that those levels have not fallen (around Chernobyl) as expected. And the reports on Fukushima when reviewed by (Nuclear power) experts who understand the presence of one radioactive isotope indicates uncontrolled fusion is still happening (true for weeks after the Fukushima disaster) when the industry is stating fission has stopped. And the reports that indicate a cold reactor in less time than the known radioactive isotopes could have possibly broken down and approached inert in 10 to 20 half lifes. We understood the experts to mean that if its not in the reactor, its been released into the environment. It has to go somewhere. Cesium-137 can not approach inert for at least 300 years. Think about it. Are they still spraying water, I have not bothered to check in over a year. If they are, that too is pretty awful as they can not contain the amount of water needed

    19. Re:NG/Coal kills. Nuclear might in an extreme case by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      No buddy. High altitude = higher cosmic rays and solar radiation incidence (less atmosphere to filter). That's called background radiation levels.
      You get many times more radiation on an airliner at 35000 feet than you'd get at Fukushima, from cosmic rays alone.
      It's funny how you just invented a boatload of data I never ever seen before.
      You confound radiation and radionuclides on purpose, another very wrong tactic.
      Many radionuclides are way to heavy to fly more than a few meters high even under heavy winds.
      There is NO scenario under which Cs-137, Sr-90 or other medium weight radionuclides from Fukushima can make it across the Pacific under suspension in the atmosphere.
      Go study radiation FACTS. Not the anti nuclear lies manufactured by Greenpeace and their co-horts.
      Are you paid to spread this non sense ?

  15. Time to update the board. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Diablo Canyon 2 why can't you be more like Diablo Canyon 1

  16. Re: In other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And each person is poorer needing to work more or have a reduced quality of life to pay for this bs. I love the outdoors and the environment but this type of Policy is just stupid . It makes little environmental sense and is just ideology .

  17. Batteries not inclu... err.... needed by mdsolar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Turns out storage is not much needed at 80% renewable energy supply. http://www.engineering.com/Ele...

    1. Re:Batteries not inclu... err.... needed by dabadab · · Score: 1

      Turns out storage is not much needed at 80% renewable energy supply

      Turns out, this article is bollocks.
      It was extensively discussed here on Slashdot.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    2. Re:Batteries not inclu... err.... needed by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you are suffering from wishful thinking.

  18. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Germany needs to import nuke power......power exports up by >60% in 2013
    http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-power-exports-up-by-62-percent/150/537/68613/

    If you know how to use Google Translate you can get more recent figures:
    http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=quartalsbericht_q2_2014_04082014.pdf
    Look on page 4 for a comparison to last years production.
    Exports were up 25% compared to 2013.

    You know how to use Google Translate by now? Good. Now look at the "mass rush to build new coal and NG power plants":
    Power companies want to shut down 47 power plants (coal and natural gas)
    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/energie-konzerne-wollen-47-kraftwerke-abschalten-12898217.html

    Oh look, this has been going on for quite some time. An article from 2013 (proposals to shut down 15 plants):
    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/unrentable-stromproduktion-kraftwerke-abschalten-gar-nicht-so-einfach-12284075.html

    Yes, power companies have been adding some new coal plants in Germany in recent years. Because those were already mostly finished and the power companies where still hoping to stop the transition to renewable energy sources.

    Yes, Germany does import nuke power from France. Guess which power grid will be used for transport when the Poles or Austrians buy nuke power from the French? Look at a map if you don't know european geography. You can also see that on page 23 of the AGEB report I linked above.

    You should stop talking like a nuke shill. Makes you look stupid.

    p.s.
    concerning the "wind is unpredictable" stupidity uttered by some:
    Why the fuck does my weather forecast give me pretty acurate information on wind speed and direction 24 hours in advance if it is as unpredictable as some believe?
    Some people really need to start accepting that this is not the 19th century they seem to believe it is...

    Apparently the Germans still have good engineers and good meteorologists because their power grid has way better availability than the US grid:
    http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-grid-reaches-record-reliability-in-2011/150/537/56183/

    Page 5 in this PDF: http://www.galvinpower.org/sites/default/files/Electricity_Reliability_031611.pdf
    SAIDI index (2007)
    USA 240
    Germany 23
    lower is better (higher availability)

    Must be all that "unpredictable" wind power and the "reliable" nuke plants. Reliable as in Belgium: http://online.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-shutdowns-leave-belgium-looking-for-power-1408632643
    Nuke plants provided about 40% of electricity for Belgium. Due to the high reliability of nuclear power, this figure dropped to about 20% within roughly 4 months. Must be pretty good fun to go shopping for 10% of your countries electricity elsewhere.

    Once winter comes and the French fire up their electric heaters in their non-insulated homes, everyone in Europe will turn to the Germans to provide enough electricity. German exports saved the French grid from blackout at least twice in the last 10 years. Why? Because in winter they don't have enough generating capacity to power their own country and in summer their rivers don't have enough water to cool their nuke plants.

    And concerning the "nuclear power is cheap" myth:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10525538/Subsidies-for-UK-nuclear-plant-could-reach-17bn-and-may-be-unnecessary.html

    " The main planned subsidy scheme for Hinkley Point involves guaranteeing the operator, French energy giant EDF, a price for the power the plant will generate for 35 years.
    That price, which is twice the current market price of power, will be subsidised through billions of pounds of "top-up" payments, funded by levies on all UK energy bill-payers when the market price is lower than the guaranteed level. "

    In actual numbers, this subsidy will be 0.11 EUR / kWh.
    Paid for 35 years, with additional adjustments for inflation later on!
    Subsidies for renew

  19. Will the last person to leave California... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Please turn out the lights. Oh, wait...

  20. Germany switching from nuclear to coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Looks like this claim was already addressed here: http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...

    like Fukushima but getting bigger instead of being cleaned up. . .

    You must suffer from mental retardation. . .

    1. Re:Germany switching from nuclear to coal? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      That is an informative link, but nothing in it dispels the claim that they are digging a giant strip mine. If anything, it corroborates the statement by pointing out that they are building more coal plants. All it does is explain *why* they are building the plants, and that they have been planning to do so for a long time.

      No one will probably follow that link anyone since you added insults into your post, guaranteeing it never goes above 0.

  21. Must be close to the end of design life by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It must be close to the end of design life for a lot of reactor components anyway. A combination of high stress and neutron bombardment is a lot like a combination of high temperature and high stress in the way the effected metal behaves so some parts don't last forever, and replacement can be expensive. I'm not predicting disaster just pointing out a well known problem - when microcracking is detected it can be a few years before it's going to grow into something serious but it's time to set things in motion to replace bits.

  22. Hard to make the fuel though by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Uranium doesn't come as uranium, it comes as an oxide that's so hard to reduce that flouride is used. It's not that coal and gas is more plentiful it's that it's easier to start using the stuff.
    However in some places Uranium is mined as a side product to Copper and Gold mining since it's in the same ore.

  23. Hero Jack Godell by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Is back from the grave. http://www.disclose.tv/action/...

  24. NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    Which basically means pro-fossil. Don't let the siren song of wind and solar fool you. They both need 100% fossil fuel backup. Shutting down nuclear power plants simply hands energy generation back to coal and natural gas.

    1. Re:NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Solar and wind back each other up. http://www.engineering.com/Ele... It's nukes that go out for weeks at a time needing typically fossil replacement energy. Shut them down permanently and wind and solar and hydro will rush in to replace them. Look at Vermont, heck look at California which recently closed another nuke.

    2. Re:NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. Unreliable renewables go out every day (solar) or completely unpredictably. (solar and wind) They do not back each other up. Your link doesn't even claim that. Vermont and California are not making up for their nuclear shutdowns with renewables. They're using natural gas and coal.

    3. Re:NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Who should I believe, a respected laboratory, NREL, or some guy on the internet who can't be bothered to do math? Regarding Vermont, HydroQuebec is ready to cover Vermont Yankee. California should be obvious and it doesn't use coal. http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/17...

    4. Re:NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Ad hominem and appeal to authority? Please. Educate yourself on EROI.

    5. Re:NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      You really don't do math do you?

    6. Re:NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      This has got to be some of the most inept trolling I've ever seen.

    7. Re:NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Go back to the link. NREL even did the math for you.

    8. Re:NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Math is meaningless when based on faulty assumptions. One comment on that article is spot on: The 18% of electricity generated from hydro power is being impacted greatly by the drought in California. What's replacing it? Natural gas. So your monumental naiveté is playing right into the hands of fossil fuel interests.

      You're touting math, but all you have is fairy dust assumptions. Try living in the real world.

    9. Re:NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      You seem to be mistaken on that as well. http://www.mercurynews.com/bus...

    10. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Hydro replaced by solar? Jesus. Here are some facts. Please rely on them instead of fairy tales.

    11. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      You've missed the residential solar in that list.

    12. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      You've missed actually providing a number. With a handle like mdsolar shouldn't you know?

    13. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      A million solar roofs baby!

    14. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      What about gigawatt hours?

      Plainly you're just a cheerleader with no hard facts to back up your faith in renewables. Os it your job to proselytize? Given your handle one has to wonder.

    15. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      You must hate the governator. About 2.2 GW installed so about 4 TWH annual production. Looks like that more than covers lost hydro. http://californiasolarstatisti... Hasta la vista, baby.

    16. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Except at night.

    17. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      That's installed capacity. How much was actually generated?

    18. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      That is what hydro is for.

    19. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Like I say, you don't do math even when it Has been done for you. Don't ask quantitative questions if you don;'t want quantitative answers.

    20. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      What math are you trolling about? You can't be bothered to provide specifics? Is that because you don't have any?

    21. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      The point is that hydro is being reduced because of drought. I think you're losing track of which conversation you're having.

      What about nuclear?

    22. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Ah, you are innumerate. The T in TWH stands for tera, 1000 times (that means multiplication) the G in GWH which is how many write gigawatt hours, which is what you asked about.

    23. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring capacity factor.

    24. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Correct, and because of solar, it does not need to produce in daylight. Great save by solar.

    25. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Keep drawing that paycheck.

    26. Re: NRC in the hands of anti-nuclear interests by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Not at all.

  25. R.I.P. by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Karen Silkwood. Perhaps the long nightmare is coming to an end.

  26. Old news by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    The Humboldt Bay reactor closed for the same reason.

  27. Earthquake Safety isn't the main problem by russbutton · · Score: 5, Informative
    33 years ago I was the cost analyst for the Diablo Canyon project. I've been inside the thing and earthquake safety was huge in the construction of the plant. It is VASTLY over-engineered for earthquake safety. The original spec was to survive an 8.0 earthquake on the San Andreas fault, which is 30 miles away. The Hosgri fault, which is just off-shore, was unknown at the time the plant was first sited and was only discovered later. The plant was re-engineered to withstand an 8.0 earthquake on the Hosgri fault, which hasn't moved in many thousands of years.

    The real problem with Diablo Canyon, and the rest of the nuclear industry is managing the waste. There is no place to put nuclear waste in this country, so it's just stored on-site. That's crazy. You can't do that forever.

    That being said, my expectation is that we'll continue to see tech advancements in solar and wind generation, and energy storage to the point where large central generation will be a thing of the past.

    1. Re:Earthquake Safety isn't the main problem by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Oh no, a voice of reason!

    2. Re:Earthquake Safety isn't the main problem by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      The issue does not seem to be the Hosgri fault, three miles away, but rather the "Shoreline fault, which snakes offshore about 650 yards from the reactors." Also, "PG&E research in 2011 determined that any of three nearby faults — the Shoreline, Los Osos and San Luis Bay — is capable of producing significantly more ground motion during an earthquake than was accounted for in the design of important plant equipment. In the case of San Luis Bay, it is as much as 75 percent more." With the offshore fault, do you have any feeling how the plant would do with a zero warning tsunami? Perhaps the fault only goes sideways and that it is not an issue?

    3. Re:Earthquake Safety isn't the main problem by russbutton · · Score: 1

      I stand by my statement that I believe the reactor to be safe. But the on-site storage of waste is quite another matter. Were there to be a major quake and tsunami, there's no telling what that would mean for waste stored on-site. That would be Very Bad.

    4. Re:Earthquake Safety isn't the main problem by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Looks like the tsunami risk is mostly from underwater landslides in that part of California. These can be started by an earthquake. But the risk will depend on the details of the sea floor near the plant. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/g...

    5. Re:Earthquake Safety isn't the main problem by Gliscameria · · Score: 1

      How big is the waste though? I don't claim that documentaries are accurate, but one was claiming that you could take all of the nuclear waste ever produced and stack it a few feet high over a football field - that sounds like a really silly problem to even argue about. Another claim was that all of Frances nuclear waste is stored in ONE building. I don't know if any of this is true, but we talk a lot about waste storage, but what is the volume of the actual waste? To go with that, we're finding ways to reuse what used to be waste. I don't believe that we have a "store it forever" problem, but more of a "store it until we can figure out how to use it" problem.

      --
      X
    6. Re:Earthquake Safety isn't the main problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no place to put nuclear waste in this country

      Sure there is. We call it the MTV Video Music Awards.

  28. The pipe hangers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the 1980's I had a discussion with a brother of a friend (no names). He had had a job as a draftsman drawing as-built drawings for the site. He informed me that any large construction project has the potential that some things that are built differently than specified. Reasons for this may be the builder knows an easier way to do something, or the planners missed that wall in the way.

    Anyway, he told me about pipe hangers. In the plant there were a couple thousand pipe hangers. These consisted of a steal plate, say one foot square. Each corner had a hole, and a bolt put into each corner and drilled into concrete walls to mount it. A metal hook was welded on the plate; pipes were strung across the hook and then strapped down. According to my informant, during the construction for some reason they had to remove one of the plates. At that point they discovered that the contractor who was mounting the plates was not drilling four holes into concrete. At least on some of the plates they thought they could get away with drilling three holes and welding a bolt head onto the forth corner. Oops! They almost did get away with it. All the mounting plates were checked and fixed if needed.

    Points to consider:

    1. how insane is it that someone would think to make a buck they would do this? One poster above says the plant was way over-engineering for earthquake safety. But was it actually built that way?

    2. how did they get far enough along to install a few thousand of these without any inspector, or installer, asking any questions or observing anything funny during the installation process? This means the building inspectors were hoodwinked, or worse (I'm not saying they taking bribes...). This calls into question the efficacy of the building inspection(s).

    3. if one contractor was willing to fudge something for a buck, how many others were? Or rather, the possibility of building a substandard nuclear plant is itself not enough to prevent some homo sapiens from cheating for personal gain.

  29. Howl's Moving Castle and other dreams by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be keen if Diablo Canyon and the other operating nucleaar plants could rise up on giant clawed feet and saunter over to a state that actually wants a clean source of emissions-free energy.

    It would also be cool if nuclear electricity was shaped a bit differently, perhaps a little series of dips in the sinusoid like tumblers in a lock... that way the grid could reconfigure itself to gather carbon free energy and pool it for use in states that are not driven by anti-nuclear hysterics.

    Then the minions of Enron could come out of retirement, and just as the kind gentleman did for the Yellow Bellied Sneetches, they could install an Apparatus that smooths the sinusoid making the energy appear to have come from Solar or Wind -- for a good price, so the Californians could have Stars Upon Thars.

    I recognize that this assessment of Diablo Canyon comes from the NRC, not California. But cue the hysteria as the San Onorfe haters gather their torches and march on to battle evil. Leaving in its wake peace and natural gas for all.

    California is becoming more BLUE as time goes on. Hint: Take a peek -- that is not a political map.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:Howl's Moving Castle and other dreams by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      "Not a political map"? yes it is.
      the Howard Javis inspired 'tax foundation' that ignores the 40% effective net taxes paid by the bottom 50% of citizens is PURE politics, and false at that.

    2. Re:Howl's Moving Castle and other dreams by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      "Not a political map"? yes it is.
      the Howard Javis inspired 'tax foundation' that ignores the 40% effective net taxes paid by the bottom 50% of citizens is PURE politics, and false at that.

      Thanks for the reply. "Proposition 13" Jarvis? Wow, it is fascinating to see how his influence has gelled and morphed in the generation since. I'm curious how any slice of economic sleight-of-hand applied across the board such as ignoring the 40%/50% might become a pure political issue. Is it one of those "Because ___ people tend to be ___" type of things? (I really am clueless here).

      Since it was posted original map which averages by state has been updated with a more detailed one that averages by county. No doubt a mob of Upstate New Yorkers threatened to burn the website down for letting New York City turn their whole state blue=bad, costly. And the scoundrels reversed the color scheme too so the state/county maps are visually incompatible.

      So I changed the colors back. Here is an animated GIF I made with corrected colors which flips between their State and County map. In it we see that duh, their "purchasing power" is a function of rural versus metropolis.

      Regarding your cry of "politics"... I was struck with the similarity of the their State average map to another: here is a GIF showing their State averages and electoral 2012 results. Aside from a few states their $100 purchasing power distribution has an uncanny resemblance to the Presidential race. Is some of this not strictly party politics after all... rather, a glimpse of the battle line between city-states and rural-folk who are hanging on by an electoral thread? Or is it wealthy versus not?

      I do sense that the city vs. rural divide is becoming a real battle, a country-wide struggle to secure resources and clout as the Water Wars divided California. In this Slashdot musing I lay out what I deem as a front line, the move by city-folk to abolish the electoral college. What think?

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    3. Re:Howl's Moving Castle and other dreams by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Well, if we're going to have a Representitive Republic, dirt doesn't get a vote and the 14th Amendment should be proof against unequal voting like the Electoral College.
      I would expect that the Republican Establishment will do anything, anything at all, to keep the gerrymander small state advantages (after all, without it the House would be Democratic even now)
      The Southern Strategy fails completely without the overrepresentation in the Senate by small states and the states themselves, thanks to gerrymander and 'winner take all' laws, is what has kept the minority party in play.
      So, yes, this is a highly political map which ignores the burden of regressive taxation on the bottom 50%.
      That being said, thanks for the HIGHLY informative post!

  30. Senate Hearings by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    "Following the AP report, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee announced it would hold hearings into how the NRC has handled Peck’s recommendation. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the panel, said in a statement she’s alarmed his report has lingered at the agency for a year. “The NRC’s failure to act constitutes an abdication of its responsibility to protect public health and safety,” she said." http://www.theepochtimes.com/n... Here is one way to close the barn door.

  31. So, is this ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... fission frisson or just another energy sector meltdown?

  32. Nuclear safety by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    What challenge? San Onofre demonstrated that putting major assemblies in BACKWARD is just FINE with this 'safety first' industry.
    There is, therefore, no 'nuclear safety' to discuss. Profits first, last and always and "safety" be damned