The intermittent nature of nuclear power

[kristopher]

When nuclear goes down, the consequences for energy security are dramatic, expensive and long lasting; and we aren't even going into Fukushima/Chernobyl territory.

The long, hot summer without San Onofre's nuclear power
By Karin Klein
June 11, 2012, 4:20 p.m.

San Onofre's two nuclear-power units have been down for months and will stay that way for months more. Late last week, Southern California Edison officials acknowledged that after early hopes that the reactors would be running safely in time for the summer energy load, it isn't going to happen. They'll have a plan by midsummer for reopening Unit 2, but then the plan will have to go through the lengthy regulatory process. And no one seems even remotely confident of when Unit 3 might return, and if it does, at what level of power? (Unit 1 was closed years ago.)

The problem stems from the huge bundles of tubes that are an integral part of the new steam generators for which ratepayers recently shelled out $671 million. In February, it was discovered that many of the tubes -- especially in Unit 3 -- were wearing thin despite their newness, a result of vibration that caused the closely bundled tubes to rub against each other. These tubes don't get replaced like a hose in your car; they have to be plugged when there's a problem, and if enough of them are plugged, the reactor cannot run at full power.

Two retired natural-gas generators in Huntington Beach have been brought back to life to help see the region through the hot days of summer. That, plus a conservation program, should prevent brownouts, utility officials say -- unless there's a bad heat wave. But the gas plants are a stopgap measure; they can't stay online for more than a few months. Some environmentalists are saying that San Onofre should simply remain closed, though it produces 19% of Edison's power. Running at reduced power wouldn't eliminate the vibration, Friends of the Earth contends, and the risk isn't worth it.

Meanwhile, the license for the plant expires in 2022. Edison officials said they haven't decided whether to apply for a 20-year extension; that decision would need to be made by 2017 to go through the application process.

The company says...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-san-onofre-nuclear-20120611,0,4282835.story

[FBaggins]

1. Unless of course you turn it off on purpose.

Then we have to pretend that there aren't any negative consequences.

[kristopher]

2. You're claiming this is a voluntary shutdown?

They wanted to stop generating power and to continue not generating power because:
_________(fill in the blank)______________.

[FBaggins]

3. Of course not

And you know it.

So why the dodge? We both know that if someone in California succeeded in convincing the closure to become permanent... you would immediately label as right-wing lies any post that talked about the negative impacts of the reactors being shut down.

[kristopher]

4. You couldn't be more wrong.

It is a given that one of the major problems with continued or increasing dependency on nuclear power are the consequences when it lets you down. When the situation is a non-emergency like this the outages often last weeks, months or even years, meaning that large amounts of backup power must be procured unexpectedly and consequently at high costs. And, when the failure is catastrophic such as Fukushima, then you have large blocks of national infrastructure (such as in Germany and Japan) that have to be replaced - again unexpectedly and at high costs.


The issue has never been whether there are negative consequences Baggins, it has been and is the need to firmly plan for a transition off of nuclear just as we need to firmly plan for a transition off of fossil fuels. Germany has been planning their transition for more than a decade, so the disruptions of accelerating that change are minor compared to Japan.

If there is a major Fukushima or Chernobyl scale incident near a population center in the US, do you think even an industry friendly NRC is going to be able to keep our 100+ reactors on line? Instead of extending the licenses for these plants they need to be replaced with renewables. The more renewables are deployed the harder it is for coal and even natural gas to stay online and make money.

[FBaggins]

5. Still dodging.

You know quite well that if someone posted "the consequences for Germany's energy security will be dramatic, expensive and long lasting" after they decided to shut down eight reactors... you would brand such statements as industry spin and disruption.

[kristopher]

6. Yes, I would say that is nuclear industry FUD.

Germany had been planning the shut downs for 11 years. Since the coal/nuclear lobby there believed just before Fukushima that they had thwarted those long standing plans to shut down the nuclear fleet, there have, indeed, been consequences that didn't need to accrue. So yes, the claim that planning to ensure German energy security was in any way deficient in a manner that could be compared to Japan is absurd industry spin.

Did planning for the shutdown of San Onofre commence in 2000?

I know you are desperate to discredit what Germany is doing, but when you try to analogize Germany with San Onofre, you are trying to compare apples with oranges. The more accurate situation would to compare it to any unplanned, long-term shutdown - such as Japan.