

California Nuclear Power Plant Decides to Close - jacobmarble
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/business/san-onofre-nuclear-plant-in-california-to-close.html

======
akiselev
To give everyone some perspective, the two reactors in the San Onofre power
plant generated a total of 2250 MW. O'Shaughnessy Dam (in Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir) generates a measly 230 MW and in total, there are FOURTEEN natural
gas plants that generate more than 200 MW in the entirety of the United States
operating today.

California consumed about 272 billion kWh in 2011 [1], which is 272 million
MWh so that $4.11 increase is SIGNIFICANT. Replacing 2.25 GW of generating
capability + building infrastructure for growing needs is not simple, cheap,
or fast and if we keep going this way (removing high generating nuclear
reactors and trying to replace it with renewables) then we will soon be in a
situation like Germany. Hint: California can't afford an HVDC build out!

Also, the NRC approved the building of two new reactors after Fukushima in
Georgia [2], so I'm curious why uncertainty about the license renewal? The
Georgia reactors are also pressurized-type, although they aren't going on 60
years.

[1]
[http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx](http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx)

[2]
[http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nucle...](http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2012/02/09/nrc-
approves-vogtle-reactor-construction-_2d00_-first-new-nuclear-plant-approval-
in-34-years-_2800_with-new-plant-photos_2900_-020902.aspx) \- Thankfully only
one person voted no for reasons of Black Swan/Fukushima.

~~~
sebastianavina
what is the situation in germany?

~~~
uvdiv
They're shutting down nuclear power, building an incoherent mixture of coal,
solar, and wind, causing both skyrocketing electricity prices and increasing
CO2.

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-
commissi...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-
set-to-fight-german-energy-subsidies-a-902269.html)

[http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-
ener...](http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-energy-
policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelcome-renaissance)

------
dhughes
Earthquakes aside there are so many different types of nuclear reactor both in
the way they operate and the fuel used people seem to lump them all together
in one hysterical pile.

The Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan used plutonium from what I have read is
unique compared to other plants. Canadian CANDU plants use natural uranium and
the way they're constructed is far safer than other types of reactors. Two
extremes of fuel used and plant design yet it seems some people see no
difference. Of course in any discussion about reactors these days LFTR
(thorium) reactors are mentioned too, even safer than uranium/plutonium
reactors.

People are entitled to their opinion but it seems the vocal anti-science crowd
wins. I'm all for closing bad nuclear power plants but all nuclear plants
"just because" they use nuclear fuel?

It would be great if we all lived in sunny countries where solar panels and
giant battery packs could supply our power but that's not the situation. I
like solar but it's not suitable yet in my opinion due to the storage issues
and efficiency of the panels, maybe graphene will solve that soon.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor)

~~~
hga
As I understand it, Edward Teller made sure the current CANDUs and any other
designs with a positive void coefficient were illegal to build in the US (this
is part of what killed the Chernobyl reactor), see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient)
for more details, especially:

" _CANDU reactors have positive void coefficients that are small enough that
the control systems can easily respond to boiling coolant before the reactor
reaches dangerous temperatures (see References).

RBMK reactors, such as the reactors at Chernobyl, have a dangerously high
positive void coefficient. This was necessary for the reactor to run on
unenriched uranium and to require no heavy water. Before the Chernobyl
accident these reactors had a positive void coefficient of 4.7 beta and after
the accident that was lowered to 0.7 beta. This was done so all RBMK reactors
could resume safe operating and produce much needed power for the then USSR
and its satellites._"

The next generation CANDU addresses this, although one of the costs is
requiring 1 to 2% enrichment.

The fuel isn't what caused the problems in Japan, rather, an appalling nuclear
safety culture, so bad I don't think I can disagree with their decision to
turn them all off, to their using boiling water reactors which don't contain
everything inside the classic dome.

------
andyl
Why aren't people charging ahead with Thorium power? Seems like Thorium should
be a no-brainer - low radioactivity, safe operations.

But there must be some problem with Thorium, because it isn't getting built-
out. Does anyone know why?

~~~
akiselev
Convincing an already scared-of-nuclear population to allow the building of an
experimental (big, scary word) reactor after a disaster like Fukushima is a
maddening prospect for an entrepreneur or even an established company. It more
than 25 years between the Three Mile Island "disaster" and the start of
construction of new nuclear reactors. It's a miracle they were approved so
shortly after Fukushima, but by the time you're ready to issue construction
permits hundreds of millions if not billions have already been invested.

A full blown reactor (with immediate infrastructure) costs at least $2-3
billion in markets with cheap labor and upwards of $5-10 billion in the
developed world. The other issue is that most of the cost of mining,
processing, and storing fuel and waste is externalized, which much of the
government is no longer as willing to do after Yucca Mountain was canceled.

If it costs that much to build a reactor, how much does it cost to test a new
design?

------
spitx
The rabid far-left elements of Northern Europe and America are not content
limiting nuclear power proliferation just in the developed world.

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant

Operating capacity: 6800 MW

Maximum capacity: 9200 MW

    
    
      In March 2012, police said they had arrested nearly 
      200 anti-nuclear protesters objecting resumption  
      of work of building one of two 1 GW reactors, a day
      after the local government restarted work on the
      project.
    
      There have also been rallies and protests in favour
      of commissioning this nuclear power plant.
     
      *On, 24 February 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
      blamed American and Scandivanian NGOs for
      fueling protests at the power plant. Three of the 
      NGOs were later found to have used foreign funds
      received for social and religious purposes to fuel 
      the protests, violating foreign exchange regulatory
      rules. The PM also blamed these NGOs for opposing 
      genetically modified foods and the use of
      biotechnology to increase food production in the 
      country.*
    

Source(s):

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_XwANnrxvo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_XwANnrxvo)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudankulam_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudankulam_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Opposition)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Movement_Against_Nuc...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Movement_Against_Nuclear_Energy)

------
spitx
Not one of the nuclear power stations currently planned or under construction
are in the Western world (unless you count Slovakia).

Not even the traditionally very nuclear-friendly France.

Is this just a coincidence or is it the handiwork of some hyper-sensitive
faction of the environmental lobby with bottomless coffers to buy political
clout across whole continents?

    
    
      This table lists stations under construction or operational stations with under-construction reactors and current net
      capacity under 1,000 MW. Planned connection column indicate connection of first reactor, not thus whole capacity.
    
      Power station	                 Cap(MW)Start   Conn	Country	Location
      Braka Nuclear Power Plant	  1,340	2012	2017	 UAE	23°59′6″N 52°17′1″E
      Belyarsk-4 (BN-800)	          1,364	2006	2014	 Russia	56°50′30″N 61°19′21″E
      Changjiang Nuclear Power Plant  1,220	2010	2014	 China	19°25′23″N 108°48′45″E
      Fangchenggang Nuclear Power 	  2,000	2010	2015	 China	21°40′36″N 108°33′38″E
      Fangjiashan Nuclear Power Plant 2,000	2008	2013	 China	30°26′29″N 120°56′30″E
      Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant	  3,000	2008	2013	 China	25°26′39″N 119°26′46″E
      Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant	  2,000	2009	2014	 China	36°42′33″N 121°22′54″E
      Hongyanhe Nuclear Power Plant	  4,000	2007	2013	 China	39°47′52″N 121°28′19″E
      Kakrapar-3	                  1,664	2010	2015	 India	21°14′19″N 73°21′00″E
      Kaliningrad Nuclear Power Plant 1,082	2012	2017	 Russia	54°56′20″N 22°09′40″E
      Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant 1,834	2002	2013	 India	8°10′06″N 77°42′45″E
      Leningrad Nuclear Power II	  2,170	2008	2013	 Russia	59°49′50″N 29°3′26″E
      Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant	  2,600	1999	2013	 Taiwan	25°02′19″N 121°55′27″E
      Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant	  1,654	1987	2015	 Slovak	48°15′50″N 18°27′25″E
      Novovoronezh Nuclear II  	  2,228	2008	2013	 Russia	59°49′50″N 29°3′26″E
      Ōma Nuclear Power Plant	  1,325	2010	2014	 Japan	41°30′35″N 140°54′37″E
      Sanmen Nuclear Power Station	  2,000	2009	2013	 China	29°06′04″N 121°38′23″E
      Shin Ulchin Nuclear Power Plant 1,340	2012	2017	 SKorea	37°05′34″N 129°23′01″E
      Shin Wolseong Nuclear Plant	  1,920	2007	2013	 SKorea	35°43′20″N 129°28′44″E
      Taishan Nuclear Power Plant	  3,400	2009	2013	 China	21°54′34″N 112°58′45″E
      Yangjiang Nuclear Power Plant	  3,000	2008	2013	 China	21°42′35″N 112°15′38″E
    

Source:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations#Power_stations_under_construction)

Edit: Formatting

~~~
akiselev
Power stations != reactors. We have 2-3 reactors under construction in the
United States. Each reactor is 1GW+

This should clear up the disparity: [http://www.world-
nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries...](http://www.world-
nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-
Power/#.UbOolPnD6z4)

Edit: Also China's per capita consumption of electricity is a fraction of the
per capita consumption of the developed world and is growing incredibly
rapidly. I wouldn't be surprised if China is outbuilding the US in everything
from renewables to natural gas to coal.

------
yoster
Good news for California. They should dismantle the radioactive material asap
as it could always be a Japan rerun...

~~~
jacobmarble
I disagree. It's bad news for California, and bad news for the environment
long-term. It's not an ideal nuke plant, but the current alternative is to
kill ourselves burning oil and coal.

Here's a former Greenpeace bigwig's account of switching to pro-nuclear:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/04...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html)

~~~
lifeguard
America has a power grid. California uses power from all over and supplies
power all over.

Trivia: the discharge water from the plant raised sea temperature enough that
surfers could feel it.

~~~
rdl
There aren't a lot of idled hydro, wind, or solar plants. Most of the idle
plants are coal, with a small number of natural gas (higher construction cost
per kw of capacity, previously more expensive fuel, but now natural gas is
cheaper than the mitigated costs of coal, so they run gas and idle coal).

So, you'd be adding coal to the operating mix. The dirtiest plants are the
ones which were idled, too.

In the 5 year timeframe, you could argue for building more natural gas, solar,
wind, etc. to replace the nuclear, but as far as I can tell, wind and solar
and being done as fast as they can, and the coal to gas transition is also
happening.

There also isn't "one grid"; it's basically 3, and it's not like it has
infinite capacity everywhere. Putting a bunch of wind in the Midwest or Texas
doesn't really help California.

~~~
hga
Also, an intuitive model of a single grid would be a bunch of ponds with small
streams between them. You can't arbitrarily "wheel" power from one "pond" to
another, you have to have in place sufficient transmission line capacity,
which is not cheap.

~~~
rdl
What is the hydraulic analogy of reactance? inertial mass of pulsing water?
(also, wtf does chrome on windows not include the word reactance in the
dictionary?)

