skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Region Will Have Adequate Power Without San Onofre

Above: The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is seen from the beach along San Onofre State Beach on March 15, 2012 south of San Clemente, California.

With the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station still shuttered, Southern California could face some challenges this summer in meeting the region’s power supply needs.

But power managers say there will be enough electricity to keep the lights on and stave off blackouts, even though two major sources of power will not be available.

Electricity grid managers are not counting on power from San Onofre’s nuclear generator, or from a large, old power plant in Huntington Beach.

Neil Millar, who works for the California Independent System Operator, said that the power supply picture could tighten significantly, and that if there is a prolonged hot spell, they will have to lean on energy efficiency and demand-response programs.

There are also some transmission bottlenecks that could affect power reliability. Due to this, grid managers are also considering targeted conservation efforts that could help to relieve pressure on the San Diego-area grid.

Comments

Avatar for user 'CaptD'

CaptD | March 21, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. ― 1 year, 9 months ago

Please share with all the Commissioners and their financial auditors:

If I could have attended the CPUC meeting today in San Diego, this is what I would said:

French Nuclear Disaster Scenario Was So Bad The Government Kept It Secrethttp://www.businessinsider.com/potential-cost-of-a-nuclear-accident-so-high-its-a-secret-2013-3 via @bi_contributors
snip
Catastrophic nuclear accidents, like Chernobyl in 1986 or Fukushima No. 1 in 2011, are, we’re incessantly told, very rare, and their probability of occurring infinitesimal.

But when they do occur, they get costly. So costly that the French government, when it came up with cost estimates for an accident in France, kept them secret.

But now the report was leaked to the French magazine, Le Journal de Dimanche. Turns out, the upper end of the cost spectrum of an accident at the nuclear power plant at Dampierre, in the Department of Loiret in north-central France, amounted to over three times the country’s GDP.

Hence, the need to keep it secret. The study was done in 2007 by the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), a government agency under joint authority of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Environment, Industry, Research, and Health.With over 1,700 employees, it’s France’s “public service expert in nuclear and radiation risks.” This isn’t some overambitious, publicity-hungry think tank.

It evaluated a range of disaster scenarios that might occur at the Dampierre plant. In the best-case scenario, costs came to €760 billion—more than a third of France’s GDP. At the other end of the spectrum: €5.8 trillion! Over three times France’s GDP. A devastating amount. So large that France could not possibly deal with it.
Yet, France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear power. The entire nuclear sector is controlled by the state, which also owns 85% of EDF, the mega-utility that operates France’s 58 active nuclear reactors spread over 20 plants. So, three weeks ago, the Institute released a more politically correct report for public consumption. It pegged the cost of an accident at €430 billion.

“There was no political smoothening, no pressure,” claimed IRSN Director General Jacques Repussard, but he admitted, “it’s difficult to publish these kinds of numbers.” He said the original report with a price tag of €5.8 trillion was designed to counter the reports that EDF had fabricated, which “very seriously underestimated the costs of the incidents.”

Cont

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaptD'

CaptD | March 21, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. ― 1 year, 9 months ago


Both reports were authored by IRSN economist Patrick Momal, who struggled to explain away the differences. The new number, €430 billion, was based on a “median case” of radioactive releases, as was the case in Fukushima, he told the JDD, while the calculations of 2007 were based more on what happened at Chernobyl. But then he added that even the low end of the original report, the €760 billion, when updated with the impact on tourism and exports, would jump to €1 trillion.

REMEMBER:

California and/or the USA cannot afford a multiple Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima for any reason...

and

If I had a bit more time, I would suggest that the CPUC immediately increase the financial limits on who can now qualify for energy upgrades by 50% and then use SoCal as a test to see how much new Solar can be installed in the next 18 months using money that is already sitting in a CPUC holding account! The program administration costs should be capped at 12% unless a huge amount of new Solar (of all flavors) is added, as an inducement to get more done ASAP! BTW: Then if the number of new solar installations are really big then the need for the Peaker Plants will be ZERO... This is a perfect opportunity for the CPUC to challenge ratepayers and at the same time also enable them to make California become far more energy efficient.

Done properly, California should become an Energy Exporter by 2040 or sooner with ever more Solar (of all flavors) adding to our renewable mix for ratepayers that do not have Solar (of all flavors) to pick from. By insuring that every WATT generated earns the same amount of energy credit, regardless of whether it was generated by a home owner or a big Utility, everyone will receive the shortest possible payback from their new retrofit. As ever more Californians have surplus energy, more will seriously consider electric vehicles which will not only reduce smog but also reduce our independence on ever more expensive foreign oil or risky nuclear!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaptD'

CaptD | March 21, 2013 at 5:53 p.m. ― 1 year, 9 months ago

When can we expect to get our rebates from the 1.5 Billion Dollars all ratepayers have already paid for the San Onofre Debacle?

Show US the Money... Edison...

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaptD'

CaptD | March 23, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. ― 1 year, 9 months ago

Not only will the Region have enough Energy/Power, but I predict that by the CPUC making it easier for many more to install Solar (of all flavors), California will have a larger SURPLUS of Power than we do now and that is without San Onofre generating ZERO Energy/Power.

Face it the time to Decommission San Onofre is here and if we do so now then it will create a huge number of great decommissioning jobs while at the same time increase property values because there will not be any risk of future Nuclear accidents!

( | suggest removal )