Environment & Energy

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)

3. It was built too close to ignorant antinukes

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:37 AM

Jun 2013

but they're everywhere these days, so the options are limited.

Contrary to Greenpeace propaganda, it provided 2.25GW of reliable baseload power for 30 years at an 84% capacity factor - 54% higher than wind, 70% higher than solar.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

118 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

San Onofre shutdown will mean tight electricity supplies [View all] wtmusic Jun 2013 OP

Natural gas would be a good solution. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #1

Yeah. Because we have barely scratched the surface of conservation efforts, which kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #12

Really? hunter Jun 2013 #43

Your ignorance is showing. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #44

Yeah, and my feet are too big. hunter Jun 2013 #49

I don't know if I would associate 'reliable base load' and San Onofre... AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #2

It was built too close to ignorant antinukes wtmusic Jun 2013 #3

And how much of a hole in the grid when a few wind turbines overspeed and break? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #4

Not much of a hole. FBaggins Jun 2013 #6

I don't think I've ever heard of doldrums affecting an entire state grid. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #7

Hell, I don't think the wind EVER dies down in the Tehachapi Pass or out in the desert........ kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #10

Heh. wtmusic Jun 2013 #17

Bet it didn't stop blowing for an entire year and a half........ kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #19

So this is a freak occurence, is it? wtmusic Jun 2013 #20

All it takes is a little intense heat in California and the winds begin to blow CreekDog Jun 2013 #62

Ah, the electrical load in Southern California is unbearably high in February CreekDog Jun 2013 #63

Of course you don't hear about it - natural gas kicks in to take its place. wtmusic Jun 2013 #11

The more distributed turbines you have AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #13

That's the myth the wind industry is trying to sell, anyway. wtmusic Jun 2013 #18

the irony is that you want us to think of wind and solar as some scheming "industry" CreekDog Jun 2013 #89

Then you haven't been paying attention FBaggins Jun 2013 #14

Oh, really. Just what were those "enormous consequences"? wtmusic Jun 2013 #25

In this case AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #28

2x in 30 years? Not bad. wtmusic Jun 2013 #32

Nuclear reactors are not carbon free. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #34

They use much less carbon than wind wtmusic Jun 2013 #35

'Less' but not 'free'. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #37

"wind turbines are far less carbon intensive than the nuclear fuel cycle" WRONG wtmusic Jun 2013 #39

Whatever. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #41

By the way AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #42

And yet wind is 9.7% of the state's total capacity NickB79 Jun 2013 #57

And that wind capacity is growing fast. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #60

How many lines are coming in from Wyoming? XemaSab Jun 2013 #58

None to my knowledge. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #59

8.2% in 2011 kristopher Jun 2013 #64

8.2% + 13.8% = hella XemaSab Jun 2013 #66

No, it's 8.2%. Your assumption about the 13.8% is unwarranted. kristopher Jun 2013 #67

California has the highest geothermal production capacity in the nation. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #75

Not 100% carbon free.. PamW Jun 2013 #101

Disagree. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #109

You have a reading comprehension problem? PamW Jun 2013 #113

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #114

It was out for a year in 1980 AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #21

you said "ignorant antinukes" CreekDog Jun 2013 #88

What was bad about where it was built? FBaggins Jun 2013 #5

Really? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #8

Nonsense wtmusic Jun 2013 #16

The 1995 Hanshin quake in Kobe was a strike-slip and even though only a 7.2, produced AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #24

I noticed you didn't read the link I provided. wtmusic Jun 2013 #27

30 feet is a joke. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #29

Are you a seismologist? wtmusic Jun 2013 #33

Appeal to authority! AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #36

No, appeal to someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about. wtmusic Jun 2013 #38

It's called english. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #40

Engineers can engineer for the forces. PamW Jun 2013 #103

Is the door designed not to slam shut on you? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #108

Where are they? FBaggins Jun 2013 #104

Arnie is an IDIOT!!! PamW Jun 2013 #105

I tend to agree WRT Gunderson. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #107

Yes, really. FBaggins Jun 2013 #23

Tsunami don't just come from your front yard. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #26

It could get hit by an asteroid too. wtmusic Jun 2013 #30

The Fukushima Dai-ichi sea wall was considered adequate by some, until it wasn't. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #31

The damage done by the tsunami itself was far worse than the nuclear accident. hunter Jun 2013 #46

How many of the tsunami/quake dead are dead because AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #48

I've worked in labs with radioactive stuff. hunter Jun 2013 #52

Well, they didn't, apparently. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #56

Hardly any (if any at all) FBaggins Jun 2013 #54

I'm not sure that I see your point. FBaggins Jun 2013 #45

The sea wall isn't 30 feet. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #47

I didn't say that it was. FBaggins Jun 2013 #50

But you did say AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #51

I did say that... and I was right. FBaggins Jun 2013 #53

You can't say "and I was right" if what you said is technically wrong. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #55

Except that it wasn't "technically wrong" FBaggins Jun 2013 #69

There have been, and there is risk of tsunami much taller than 14' hitting the west coast. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #71

And that was in the analysis FBaggins Jun 2013 #73

I looked it up for you FBaggins Jun 2013 #70

so you're saying the coast of California is not at a tsunami risk? CreekDog Jun 2013 #65

Yes... that's what I'm saying. FBaggins Jun 2013 #68

turns out you're wrong, Tsunamis are a risk CreekDog Sep 2013 #117

Did you even read what you posted? FBaggins Sep 2013 #118

Interject some science.. PamW Jun 2013 #72

incorrect, there are subduction zones off California CreekDog Jun 2013 #74

Not really. FBaggins Jun 2013 #76

PamW said there weren't subduction zones off the coast of California FALSE CreekDog Jun 2013 #77

No she didn't FBaggins Jun 2013 #78

She did say it. Or are you telling me what "she meant to say" CreekDog Jun 2013 #79

You're playing childish games. FBaggins Jun 2013 #80

Actually, you and PamW are all arguing peculiarly similar things, which are misleading CreekDog Jun 2013 #81

They're similar points (since they both correct the same error)... but they aren't 1 or 2 FBaggins Jun 2013 #82

The simple fact is PamW said specifically that there aren't subduction zones off California --false CreekDog Jun 2013 #83

Actually, I pointed out far upthread that the Cocos/Pacific plate fault can produce these tsunami. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #84

And that's why Mexico is at a higher risk of tsunami FBaggins Jun 2013 #85

CreekDog can NOT READ!!! PamW Jun 2013 #98

So the biggest and closest faults being strike-slip AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #110

Simplistic Analysis PamW Jun 2013 #99

WTF? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #111

The engine has INERTIA!!! PamW Jun 2013 #115

I don't think Yosemite has any volcanic risk indie9197 Jun 2013 #86

Yeah... it's Yellowstone. FBaggins Jun 2013 #87

Our understanding of how faults and quakes work in the Pacific is evolving to this day. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #91

Certainly... but that returns us to the Yellowstone example and the first point FBaggins Jun 2013 #92

There is a range of devastating tsunami below the threshold of AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #93

Again... sure FBaggins Jun 2013 #94

On the 31st of last month there was a 5.3 at 6.474�S 122.120�W AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #95

You understand logarithms, right? FBaggins Jun 2013 #96

A 5.3 at 10km under your ass would get your attention. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #97

Not necessarily PamW Jun 2013 #100

That you missed it doesn't mean it's imperceptible to humans. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #106

Oh, my - somebody just outed himself: kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #9

What are you saying about wtmusic and NNadir? CreekDog Jun 2013 #116

No great loss. We made it through last summer just fine without it. kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #15

You think buying out-of-state coal fired power is "just fine", do you? wtmusic Jun 2013 #22

you're blaming Greenpeace supporters for the shutdown of San Onofre? did they f--- up the plant? CreekDog Jun 2013 #61

Correct!! PamW Jun 2013 #102

Hey wtmusic, San Onofre is not "reliable baseload" when it's been off for 1.5 years CreekDog Jun 2013 #90

If nuclear is reliable why are we having this conversation? kristopher Jun 2013 #112