San Onofre shutdown will mean tight electricity supplies

[FBaggins]

53. I did say that... and I was right.

And that is not true. A tsunami, generated in Alaska, hitting WA state, was 1 foot taller than the hypothetical worst-case arrival time of a tsunami versus the tide, at SONGS.

I doubt it... (there isn't a 16-foot swing between high and low tide)... but it hardly matters. WA is a long way away and overtopping a sea wall by a single foot doesn't endanger anything.

The claim that it's only 14-feet above high tide is because the wall is 14 feet above a path and the path has gotten wet at high tide in the past... but that's not the same thing as high tide being that level (by more than a couple feet).

From your last reply
This reactor is broken, with a secondary cooling loop failure.

Not really... but what does that have to do with whether the reactor is poorly located?

This reactor is in a tsunami risk area.

No it isn't. Those words actually mean something... and "seafront" is NOT the same thing as "tsunami risk are". There is no spot in the lower 48 states that is a tsunami risk are. The fact that Canary Island coudl collapse some time in the next 50,000 years and form a mega-tsunami that would devestate the East Coast does not mean that New York is now a "tsunami risk area"

This reactor is very close to a fault capable of producing ground accelerations in excess of the plant's spec (see Kobe quake)

Not according to the seismologists... but again that doesn't matter, because it isn't capable (in anyone's estimation) of a quake that would endanger the plant from a safety perspective... just an operational one.