skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

You React To San Onofre’s Closure

You tell KPBS what you think about the plant’s retirement

Above: The tightly packed steam generator tubes that are at the root of San Onofre's problems

The troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant in Southern California is closing, after an epic 16-month battle over whether the twin reactors could be safely returned to service, officials announced Friday. What do you think about San Onofre's shutdown?

Special Feature What do you think about the decision to close San Onofre?

The troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant in Southern California is closing, after an epic 16-month battle over whether the twin reactors could be safely returned to service, officials announced Friday. What do you think about San Onofre's shutdown?

Steve Wolff of San Diego, CA:

This is a good decision from a safety perspective and there are plenty of other alternative technologies that can be expanded to fill our electricity needs. For example, there are so many roofs in California that can house solar panels or possibly wind instead of doing nothing.

Rick Beck of San Diego, CA:

This closure will cost the ratepayers many millions and raise rates precipitously in the future as the mandated clean energy sources will have to be imported at huge cost.

Masada Disenhouse of La Mesa, CA:

I hope this event will encourage our elected officials to see that change is possible, the investor owned utilities are not invulnerable, and that they will push for transitioning as quickly as possible to clean, renewable, safe solar power.

Kent Reedy of San Diego, CA:

Developing alternative sources of electricity should become even more important locally as a result of no longer having the nuclear power plant as a backup. I think there was a great likelihood the nuclear plant would have eventually done a lot of damage to the environment if it been kept open, so in the long run the region will be much better off having it permanently shut down.

Nanci Oechsle of Vista, CA:

While it's true that people will lose their jobs with this closure, I believe it's time to embrace true clean energy. There are jobs in solar and wind if we just support it like we have with nuclear energy, gas and oil. I personally have solar on my home and I love it. There is no logical reason why all new construction and remodels shouldn't include a solar array system.

Comments

Avatar for user 'Vista_Resident'

Vista_Resident | June 7, 2013 at 1:43 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

I think the public has been misinformed by environmental groups who do not know the facts about nuclear energy. SONGS has been safely in operation for over 40 years. Sure I agree there are some maintenance issues, but SCE has been aggressively addressing them. Might I remind you that there has been no damage whatsoever to the environment or the people who work and live around the plant. There has just been a fear of the unknown bolstered by special interest groups. Now 1,100 men and women will be losing their jobs, some of whom have been at the plant for decades. This is a sad, sad day.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'megelb27'

megelb27 | June 7, 2013 at 5:35 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Nuclear power plants have a shelf life of about 30-40 years. They must then be shut down, allowed to cool for another 25 years before they can be safely torn down and the land reclaimed. This is not an environmental issue - its how they were designed. They were never expected to last forever, but many people don't seem to know this.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'RegularChristian'

RegularChristian | June 7, 2013 at 8 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

It looks to me like the owners of the power plant wanted to squeeze the last penny of profit out of their equipment before closing shop. I hope they clean up and don't leave the taxpayers with any of the closing costs.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DonWood'

DonWood | June 12, 2013 at 3:08 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

In planning to replace SONGS power, the CPUC and the utilities must follow the law. State law requires them to conduct resource planning using the State Energy Strategy's Loading Order. That means that before they consider constructing any new fossil fuel powerplants, they must first make sure that the utilities are helping their customers use electricity more efficiently to the greatest extent possible. They also must ensure that new solar and other renewable energy technologies are being implemented in each IOUs service area to the greatest extent possible. For example, SDG&E should create a new conservation program to help customers replace existing low efficiency air conditioning systems with new ultra-efficient HVAC systems by offering incentives that pay at least half the cost of the replacement units. It should also create new programs to help customers install rooftop solar on their homes and businesses to reduce the area's summer peak electric demand. Only after those steps have been fully implemented can the CPUC even consider new fossil fuel powerplants.

( | suggest removal )