If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   California chooses the nuclear option for nuclear power   ( latimes.com) divider line
    More: Ironic, Diablo Canyon, nuclear power, Sustainable energy, nuclear power plant, remaining nuclear plant, Energy development, San Onofre Nuclear, Green Nuclear Power  
•       •       •

5740 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2018 at 4:20 PM (26 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-01-12 02:26:50 PM  
Global warming.
 
2018-01-12 02:28:43 PM  
Juno was a good movie.
 
2018-01-12 04:22:47 PM  
California is probably not the best place for a nuclear plan (well really anywhere around the ring of fire) so not a hard call.
 
2018-01-12 04:24:48 PM  

BalugaJoe: Juno was a good movie.


So was Ishtar.
 
2018-01-12 04:24:50 PM  

robodog: California is probably not the best place for a nuclear plan (well really anywhere around the ring of fire) so not a hard call.


This.   We had one in Eureka that started being dismantled in the 1970s.   Sat pretty much on top of the tectonic triple junction.
 
2018-01-12 04:25:05 PM  
F*cking morons.
 
2018-01-12 04:28:28 PM  
oceanlight.comView Full Size


"Duzzat make you horny, baby?  Duzzit?"

/timely reference, me
 
2018-01-12 04:28:44 PM  
Awesome.

This is what progress looks like. This is how you do it with public participation.
 
2018-01-12 04:29:00 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


/why, yes, I am immature...why do you ask?
 
2018-01-12 04:29:19 PM  
Stupid.
An area where the French have us beat.
 
2018-01-12 04:29:44 PM  
I'm pretty sure it's spelled nukular, subs.
 
2018-01-12 04:31:31 PM  

peterthx: Stupid.
An area where the French have us beat.


You mean the critical "pay the Russians bottom dollar to dump your spent fuel into the sea so you can claim your plant is profitable" area?

Know how I know you don't understand commercial insurance?
 
2018-01-12 04:32:16 PM  
Naked Gun 1 everywhere I look
Youtube S5OQMoSCrqw
 
2018-01-12 04:34:47 PM  

peterthx: Stupid.
An area where the French have us beat.


You know how I know you don't understand the geology of California?
 
2018-01-12 04:36:09 PM  
Somebody learned the lessons of Fukushima!

I am pleased. Seriously. I am. California's nuclear reactors, some of them, were practically built on the beach. Look at that photo. How high would a tsunami have to be to frkkushima California?

If you must built nuclear reactors, put them someplace where they won't do any harm if they melt down.

Foggy Bottom? Moose Factory? Calgary? Arkansas?
 
2018-01-12 04:40:12 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: peterthx: Stupid.
An area where the French have us beat.

You know how I know you don't understand the geology of California?


Mais non! Ferance has the biggest and best uthquakes in ze WORLD! Not that stupid Amair-ee-kun jass.
 
2018-01-12 04:49:27 PM  
I'e kinda changed my outlook on nuclear mostly because the government is farking stupid. There are better, safer nuclear plant options, as the French have demonstrated, but for some idiotic reason we don't even think about building those. The tech we do build is outdated and dangerous.

So I'm fine letting it die for another generation or two, until researchers can give us a much safer option.
 
2018-01-12 04:50:33 PM  
TFA said 1500 employed at Diablo Canyon... does that seem like a lot of people to run a power generating plant?
 
2018-01-12 04:51:02 PM  

brantgoose: Somebody learned the lessons of Fukushima!

I am pleased. Seriously. I am. California's nuclear reactors, some of them, were practically built on the beach. Look at that photo. How high would a tsunami have to be to frkkushima California?

If you must built nuclear reactors, put them someplace where they won't do any harm if they melt down.

Foggy Bottom? Moose Factory? Calgary? Arkansas?


The White House?
 
2018-01-12 04:57:01 PM  

cew-smoke: brantgoose: Somebody learned the lessons of Fukushima!

I am pleased. Seriously. I am. California's nuclear reactors, some of them, were practically built on the beach. Look at that photo. How high would a tsunami have to be to frkkushima California?

If you must built nuclear reactors, put them someplace where they won't do any harm if they melt down.

Foggy Bottom? Moose Factory? Calgary? Arkansas?

The White House?


Those Clintons are a moving target.
 
2018-01-12 04:57:25 PM  
Spent rods.

18,000 gigwatts, call doc brown
 
2018-01-12 05:02:38 PM  

brantgoose: I am pleased. Seriously. I am. California's nuclear reactors, some of them, were practically built on the beach. Look at that photo. How high would a tsunami have to be to frkkushima California?


30-ft to top the sea wall and reach the bottom of the backup generators.
50-ft, to reach the backup battery for the cooling supply.

Southern California doesn't get many large tsunamis; they locals faults aren't right for it. The Cascadia Slip didn't produce a wave that large in 1700.
 
2018-01-12 05:03:36 PM  

Boudyro: So I'm fine letting it die for another generation or two, until researchers can give us a much safer option.


You're fine with another needless 30-50 years of coal+oil for base load because you succumbed to irrational NIMBYism?
 
2018-01-12 05:04:51 PM  

This text is now purple: Boudyro: So I'm fine letting it die for another generation or two, until researchers can give us a much safer option.

You're fine with another needless 30-50 years of coal+oil for base load because you succumbed to irrational NIMBYism?


Nope. Coal's being phased out, too.

So many of you are farking stuck in the goddamn 1800s, it's hilarious.
 
2018-01-12 05:06:30 PM  
Given that CA is prone to earthquakes and that Nuclear Reactors are water hogs, this is probably the right move for California.  Until molten salt reactors come along.
 
2018-01-12 05:08:30 PM  

DarkVader: F*cking morons.


I don't think he's actually posted ITT.
 
2018-01-12 05:14:34 PM  

This text is now purple: Southern California doesn't get many large tsunamis; they locals faults aren't right for it. The Cascadia Slip didn't produce a wave that large in 1700.


Santa Barbara got hit by a monster one back in like, 1843 or some shiat.  when we were there a few years back there was a monumnet/plaque, whatever, that marked where the water hit.  it was a good, pffft, 1/2 mile inland.  sobering to say the least.  and there were "tsunami zone" streetsigns everywhere.  sleep well!
 
2018-01-12 05:23:07 PM  

rickythepenguin: This text is now purple: Southern California doesn't get many large tsunamis; they locals faults aren't right for it. The Cascadia Slip didn't produce a wave that large in 1700.

Santa Barbara got hit by a monster one back in like, 1843 or some shiat.  when we were there a few years back there was a monumnet/plaque, whatever, that marked where the water hit.  it was a good, pffft, 1/2 mile inland.  sobering to say the least.  and there were "tsunami zone" streetsigns everywhere.  sleep well!


Check San Onofre's topography compared to Santa Barbara's. San Onofre sits on top of a bluff.
Diablo Canyon does, too.

Fukushima, for some goddamn reason, put their reactors on the beach instead of on the bluff. They funneled the tsunami directly into their reactor buildings.
 
2018-01-12 05:25:21 PM  

This text is now purple: Boudyro: So I'm fine letting it die for another generation or two, until researchers can give us a much safer option.

You're fine with another needless 30-50 years of coal+oil for base load because you succumbed to irrational NIMBYism?


We'll have solar + wind with battery backup in WAY less than 30 years
 
2018-01-12 05:27:32 PM  

Dewey Fidalgo: robodog: California is probably not the best place for a nuclear plan (well really anywhere around the ring of fire) so not a hard call.

This.   We had one in Eureka that started being dismantled in the 1970s.   Sat pretty much on top of the tectonic triple junction.


Diablo Canyon is pretty much on top of a fault that has had a least one 7.1 earthquake in the past.  So no matter how ones feels about nuclear power the geography is against it.
 
2018-01-12 05:27:48 PM  

This text is now purple: Boudyro: So I'm fine letting it die for another generation or two, until researchers can give us a much safer option.

You're fine with another needless 30-50 years of coal+oil for base load because you succumbed to irrational NIMBYism?


We'll have wind + solar + tidal with battery backup in WAY less than 30 years. And the only places in the US where oil is at all a player for power generation is Hawaii and a few villages in Alaska.
 
2018-01-12 05:32:42 PM  
All other states just stop selling CA your power. CA does not have the ability to generate enough power for its populace. Let them go back to candles and water wheels. (Although, that would be cruel to animals and fish - so maybe they can just capture some fireflies ... but no, that would be evil to the fireflies).

Don't let they get away with making YOU deal with the risks and pollution to give THEM power. Let Meryl Streep peddle a bike to power her liposuction machine.
 
2018-01-12 05:33:16 PM  

zgrizz: All other states just stop selling CA your power. CA does not have the ability to generate enough power for its populace. Let them go back to candles and water wheels. (Although, that would be cruel to animals and fish - so maybe they can just capture some fireflies ... but no, that would be evil to the fireflies).

Don't let they get away with making YOU deal with the risks and pollution to give THEM power. Let Meryl Streep peddle a bike to power her liposuction machine.


You should stand on a street corner and yell that to passing cars.
 
2018-01-12 05:38:43 PM  

zgrizz: All other states just stop selling CA your power. CA does not have the ability to generate enough power for its populace. Let them go back to candles and water wheels. (Although, that would be cruel to animals and fish - so maybe they can just capture some fireflies ... but no, that would be evil to the fireflies).

Don't let they get away with making YOU deal with the risks and pollution to give THEM power. Let Meryl Streep peddle a bike to power her liposuction machine.


That's cool, then CA can stop sending those states fresh food and internet service, sounds fair to me =)
 
2018-01-12 05:42:25 PM  
FTFA: "We really have to make sure that as we're phasing out and getting rid of our nuclear power that we're not replacing it with dirty and dangerous fossil fuels like natural gas and that we're moving to a 100% clean, renewable economy," said Dan Jacobson, state director of Los Angeles-based Environment California."

ohwaityoureserious.jpg
 
2018-01-12 05:53:41 PM  

This text is now purple: rickythepenguin: This text is now purple: Southern California doesn't get many large tsunamis; they locals faults aren't right for it. The Cascadia Slip didn't produce a wave that large in 1700.

Santa Barbara got hit by a monster one back in like, 1843 or some shiat.  when we were there a few years back there was a monumnet/plaque, whatever, that marked where the water hit.  it was a good, pffft, 1/2 mile inland.  sobering to say the least.  and there were "tsunami zone" streetsigns everywhere.  sleep well!  

Check San Onofre's topography compared to Santa Barbara's. San Onofre sits on top of a bluff.
Diablo Canyon does, too.


Topography is not the same as geology.   Though topography is shaped by geologic forces.   How the land would react in a large earthquake (subsidence or uplift for example) could and has radically altered the topography of a place.   TBH I don't know the geology of SoCal.   So maybe it might not do that much damage.  Or it might do just that.  I'm not talking about a tsunami.
 
2018-01-12 05:54:34 PM  
vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size


But we haven't reached the year where we can build fusion reactors, so nuclear is still the best option. Just turn off disasters, and we'll be fine.
 
2018-01-12 06:00:34 PM  

robodog: This text is now purple: Boudyro: So I'm fine letting it die for another generation or two, until researchers can give us a much safer option.

You're fine with another needless 30-50 years of coal+oil for base load because you succumbed to irrational NIMBYism?

We'll have solar + wind with battery backup in WAY less than 30 years


You're going to store 10000 MW-hr chemically?

The space shuttle launched with 1300 MW-hr.

Remember the PEPCON explosion? The SRB on the Space Shuttle contains 78x the ammonium perchlorate volume as the PEPCON blast. Your battery is six SRBs. Should your battery rapidly self-disassemble, you're looking at the energy of a 460 kiloton explosion.

Hiroshima was 16 kilotons.

Dams are dangerous enough as a storage mechanism. Batteries are ludicrously dangerous in that application.
 
2018-01-12 06:06:10 PM  

kendelrio: FTFA: "We really have to make sure that as we're phasing out and getting rid of our nuclear power that we're not replacing it with dirty and dangerous fossil fuels like natural gas and that we're moving to a 100% clean, renewable economy," said Dan Jacobson, state director of Los Angeles-based Environment California."

ohwaityoureserious.jpg


Mad?
 
2018-01-12 06:11:47 PM  

brantgoose: Somebody learned the lessons of Fukushima!

I am pleased. Seriously. I am. California's nuclear reactors, some of them, were practically built on the beach. Look at that photo. How high would a tsunami have to be to frkkushima California?


I suspect there are no immediate plans to move the spent fuel rods out of the cooling pools, but should be the first item on the list.  Move then next to a solar facility in the middle of NM.

Much of the Fukishima contamination came from the cooling pools losing electricity and boiling off the water.  They've been pouring water on them since because they can't get inside to remove the rods to another facility.
 
2018-01-12 06:12:24 PM  

whidbey: kendelrio: FTFA: "We really have to make sure that as we're phasing out and getting rid of our nuclear power that we're not replacing it with dirty and dangerous fossil fuels like natural gas and that we're moving to a 100% clean, renewable economy," said Dan Jacobson, state director of Los Angeles-based Environment California."

ohwaityoureserious.jpg

Mad?


Horny. Offering?
 
2018-01-12 06:18:22 PM  

robodog: California is probably not the best place for a nuclear plan (well really anywhere around the ring of fire) so not a hard call.


If it's going to get itself buried, where better?
 
2018-01-12 06:23:23 PM  

winedrinkingman: Given that CA is prone to earthquakes and that Nuclear Reactors are water hogs, this is probably the right move for California.  Until molten salt reactors come along.


No. They are not. The only water that isn't recycled within the plant (recycled meaning it stays there for months or even years) is whatever water they suck in from the nearest natural supply for tertiary cooling purposes from rivers or in this case the ocean and gets used once before getting discharged from where it came from albeit a degree or so warmer in some cases. Calling a nuclear reactor a water hog is like calling a hydroelectric plant a water hog.
 
2018-01-12 06:24:34 PM  
The nuclear power debate has the same problem as the GMO debate. It's not the science that's the problem, not even the engineering; it's the policy. It's not actually about what can be done but about what is and isn't allowed. The debate should always have been if, then how, but yadda yadda shadowy interests always manage to push these things to a debate of If We Can, Only Luddites Say Don't.

Nuclear power still holds enormous promise, but what seven decades have proven is that here in the US we're never going to regulate it properly, never going to execute it properly, never going to oversee and enforce it properly, and never going to have the kind of long-term plan or management to deal with it properly.

It's not that it's a bad idea. It's that we're apparently always going to screw it up. And it's too dangerous to screw up, so we'd better just forget it.

Elon Musk's actual best product (PowerWall) makes green power like wind and solar utterly sufficient, anyway. In fact, we're probably at the point where we could use green power to affordably mass-synthesize clean-burning liquid fuel to replace gasoline and heating oil.

But we've got the same old problems. Old corporations are slow to change because it's easier to manipulate policy than to alter course. The old business model is bad for the public, and so the public discourse will always be perverted into arguments about whether or not the technology is Evil, which entirely misses the point.
 
2018-01-12 06:30:49 PM  

This text is now purple: robodog: This text is now purple: Boudyro: So I'm fine letting it die for another generation or two, until researchers can give us a much safer option.

You're fine with another needless 30-50 years of coal+oil for base load because you succumbed to irrational NIMBYism?

We'll have solar + wind with battery backup in WAY less than 30 years

You're going to store 10000 MW-hr chemically?

The space shuttle launched with 1300 MW-hr.

Remember the PEPCON explosion? The SRB on the Space Shuttle contains 78x the ammonium perchlorate volume as the PEPCON blast. Your battery is six SRBs. Should your battery rapidly self-disassemble, you're looking at the energy of a 460 kiloton explosion.

Hiroshima was 16 kilotons.

Dams are dangerous enough as a storage mechanism. Batteries are ludicrously dangerous in that application.


Amazing how you're this repository of information, yet none of it appears to address the viability of renewable energy. Not even once.
 
2018-01-12 06:42:16 PM  
I work radioactive waste now, so I'm just like... who's takin their trash as they rip it apart. Inquiring minds now want to know. We already need a new rail system for the decommission of VY, I wonder what this will bring.

That aside, this is farking SAD. America's nuclear fleet is being gutted in a time when the fossil industry is having regulations lifted left and right. I understand and limitedly agree with the ring of fire thing (because it was the TSUNAMI that took down Fukushima, NOT the earthquake! Every other nuclear plant in Japan did just fine, thank you, and started back up after safety checks), but this is going to punch a hole in California's grid in a time when they really don't have that power to give up.

/goodbye, grid base load, nice knowing you
 
2018-01-12 06:50:05 PM  

zgrizz: All other states just stop selling CA your power. CA does not have the ability to generate enough power for its populace.


Survey says...BZZZZT.  In fact, right now, California has too much farking power.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi​-​natural-gas-plants-20170606-story.html​

California energy officials are, for the first time, rethinking plans to build expensive natural gas power plants in the face of an electricity glut and growing use of cleaner and cheaper energy alternatives.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced Tuesday that it has put a hold on a $2.2-billion plan to rebuild several old natural gas power plants while it studies clean energy alternatives to meet electricity demands. And the California Energy Commission may decide as early as Thursday to halt a natural gas project in Ventura County.

The scrutiny comes after a Los Angeles Times investigation found that the state is operating with an oversupply of electricity, driven largely by the construction of gas-fueled generating plants, leading to higher rates. The state's power plants are on track to be able to produce at least 21% more electricity than needed by 2020, according to the Times report.
 
2018-01-12 06:50:43 PM  

Geotpf: California has too much farking power.


Feinstein chuckles sovietly
 
2018-01-12 06:57:48 PM  
BOOM!
 
2018-01-12 07:05:39 PM  

This text is now purple: robodog: This text is now purple: Boudyro: So I'm fine letting it die for another generation or two, until researchers can give us a much safer option.

You're fine with another needless 30-50 years of coal+oil for base load because you succumbed to irrational NIMBYism?

We'll have solar + wind with battery backup in WAY less than 30 years

You're going to store 10000 MW-hr chemically?

The space shuttle launched with 1300 MW-hr.

Remember the PEPCON explosion? The SRB on the Space Shuttle contains 78x the ammonium perchlorate volume as the PEPCON blast. Your battery is six SRBs. Should your battery rapidly self-disassemble, you're looking at the energy of a 460 kiloton explosion.

Hiroshima was 16 kilotons.

Dams are dangerous enough as a storage mechanism. Batteries are ludicrously dangerous in that application.


You are assuming the battery backup is one huge facility, not lots of widely dispersed batteries. Individual homes could have their own battery. Elon Musk has some thoughts on this.
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report