Skip to main content

Reactions to San Onofre Closing: It “ought to jolt the governor”

The reaction to the closure of San Onofre in the California Press has been mixed, to say the least. The anti-nuclear feeling out there has faded a bit, as demonstrated by the failure to get enough signatures for ballot measure to close San Onofre and Diablo Canyon, but there’s still a fair amount of it.

Still, this leads to a Jekyll-Hyde response to the closure. sacbeeHere, as exhibit A, is the Sacramento Bee. Take it away, Jekyll:

But San Onofre and California's one remaining nuke, Diablo Canyon, delivered more than 15% of the state's electricity. San Onofre, located in northwest San Diego County, supplied power to 1.4 million homes. The plant cannot be replaced solely with sun and wind, at least not with current technology.

Still to be answered: Will the bills of Edison customers go up because of the utility's need to purchase more expensive power from elsewhere?

Your turn, Hyde:

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and anti-nuclear energy activists hailed the closure. Clearly, nuclear power long ago failed to live up to its promises.

Yes, clearly. At this point, Jekyll strangles Hyde:

But word that a huge source of California's electricity will be dark forever ought to jolt the governor [Jerry Brown], the official who will be held most responsible if California faces rolling blackouts this summer and beyond, as happened during [former Gov.] Gray Davis' truncated tenure.

And the two merge gracelessly:

California is leading the nation and in many respects the world into a future that embraces renewable energy. But the power grid -- and the economy -- will require reliable baseline power for the foreseeable future. With the San Onofre plant forever shuttered, there must be alternatives.

Reliable baseline power? Isn’t that the promise of nuclear power?

---

LATimesOver at the Los Angeles Times, Marc Lifsher makes sure the implications of the closure are clear:

Without that nuclear plant, which accounted for about 9% of the electricity generated in California, power supplies will be tight in parts of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties for at least the next three summers, officials said. That means periods of reduced use of air conditioners, lights and swimming pool pumps for customers of Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

"Losing 2,250 megawatts from the system is a big deal, and if we ask for conservation, we need them to respond," said Steve Berberich, chief executive of the California Independent System Operator, which manages most of the state's long-distance electric transmission system from a control room in Folsom, east of Sacramento.

It’s a big deal.

---

The L.A. Times editorial blames Southern California Edison for the whole situation – which cannot really be true when dealing with a situation like this  - but notes:

To its credit, Edison was trying to replace its old steam generators with ones that were better and safer when it contracted with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

Which isn’t nothing. Then, it’s back to the blame game.

---

sandiegotribThe San Diego Union-Tribune is really unhappy:

As for a long-term fix, there is none in sight. California needs more power plants, but they’re not being built. California law prohibits the construction of new nuclear plants until the industry finds a way to permanently dispose of radioactive waste. The state also has a “loading order” law that says fossil-fuel burning plants, regardless of how efficient, should only be considered once efforts have been made to reduce demand and find power from renewable sources such as wind and solar.

Even before the decision was made to close San Onofre, state regulators said the idled plant presented “operational challenges” and warned that a severe heat wave could lead to rolling blackouts. ISO officials also expressed concern over the potential threat from wildfires to transmission lines carrying imported power into the region.

Feels like our very own slice of Germany, doesn’t it?

The theme linking all these stories and editorials together is the fear of shortages that could occur because California makes it so difficult for most energy sources to thrive. It already imports about 40 percent of its electricity and if the spigot slows for any reason or for any length of time, California’s resources will thin out. Californians have seen this happen-they really don’t want to see it again. And yet, San Onofre and SoCal Edison got boxed in.

To repeat the statement made by NEI spokesman Steve Kerekes two posts down:

He said that “this situation underscores the need for an efficient and effective regulatory process that results in timely decisions on the operation of these critical energy resources.” He said that independent firms had endorsed plans to restart San Onofre’s Unit 2 and that “it’s simply intolerable to delay decisions that impact millions of customers and the company’s obligation to provide electricity to those customers.”

That’s about the size of it – and California is now waking up to the implications.

---

Speaking of news, “All Things Considered,” will include a piece today on San Onofre closure impacts in California and relevance to the nuclear energy industry more broadly. NEI will be represented.

Comments

jimwg said…
Wonder how Brown's going to react if/when that Immigration Law sweeps through and virtually overnight adds a couple of million more baseload "customers"....

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Adam Gott said…
Clearly, nuclear power long ago failed to live up to its promises. - This one still gets my goat! How exactly has it failed to live up to it's promises?
Anonymous said…
Sad day when I heard about SONGS, was there for start-up about a hundren years ago. Figure out how to make SCE sell it at auction to any qualified bidder, then let them run it correctly, without unauthorized design changes. G Wood
Anonymous said…
SCE ran the plant correctly for 40 years. When it came time to replace the steam generators they did the right thing and had them replaced. They trusted Mitshubishi to do the design and fabrication correctly and it appears that is where the problems arose. I'm not sure it is correct to make SCE the (sole) whipping boy in this. When confronted with the problem SCE came up with a solution but the NRC told them, wait a minute, we're going to take years to decide this and there's no assurance it will go your way in the end, so SCE threw in the towel. The uncertainty and the delay played a large role in this disaster.
trag said…
Is there any reason to believe that Allison Macfarlane helped this situation along by creating or increasing the delay in the licensing approval?

She hasn't flown the same colors but based on credentials, she does seem to be cut from the same cloth as Jaczko.
Ernest said…
Agreed, NRC prevarication and delay is the culprit here. Think about the incentives. NRC bureaucrats have nothing to gain from a timely response but they have a lot to lose if SCE's plan didn't work like the company promised. Then they get all the blame for bad oversight. Much safer for the bureaucrats to delay until every imaginable objection is answered to the satisfaction of the anti-nukes. Which will never happen.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…