Do we need another Fukushima in our own backyard? The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) has been closed since January due to faulty steam generators that were installed in 2010 and 2011 at a cost of $671 million to SoCal Edison ratepayers.
This closure provides Southern California residents with an unprecedented opportunity to decommission SONGS and prevent potential ecological and economic catastrophes.
SONGS is located roughly 60 miles west of us and is built near an active earthquake fault. If a meltdown were to occur we could have as little as two hours to evacuate our beautiful mountain.
We urge our friends and neighbors on the Hill to join us in Dana Point next Tuesday, Oct. 9 when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold the first-ever hearing on SONGS that is open for public comment.
If there is a sizable turnout, the NRC will be more likely to heed the legitimate concerns of Southern California residents.
If SONGS is permanently decommissioned, it could start a movement toward closing down other nuclear plants around the country. Significant investment could then be channeled toward safer, cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy production.
Contrary to the claims made by the nuclear industry, nuclear power is neither clean nor cost effective. Without exorbitant subsidization, nuclear power would not exist. There are still no viable methods of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Continuing to generate it only adds to the heap of daunting problems that we are kicking down the road for future generations to resolve. And as these nuclear plants age, they become more prone to breakdown with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Finally, there is the very real concern of possible corruption within the regulatory process. Michael R. Peevey, the president of California’s Public Utilities Commission is a former president of SCE, the plant’s operator. He approved the installation of the flawed steam generators, and he has been stalling an investigation into what went wrong at the facility.
Until the plant is decommissioned ratepayers continue to pay $54 million a month for a plant that currently produces zero energy. Shouldn’t this financial nuclear waste be borne by SCE’s shareholders rather than by local ratepayers and taxpayers?
Let’s put forth our best effort to ensure that a horrible environmental and economic tragedy never occurs.
For more information on our plans for Oct. 9, visit www.thisisthis.com, or call Barnaby Finch at (951) 659-6003.
Lorel Cornman & Will Johnson
Karin & Richard Greenwood
Daniel & Melanie Manchester
I work at Edison, and man, the power plant guys are a bunch of dumb sphincters stuck in a pre-computer era. The Union benefits have guaranteed people their jobs for life, so they have no incentive to do anything better.
The management are also a bunch of dinosaurs that run the place like a Chinese factory. loads of unskilled people, buddy-buddy system, ass kissers get promoted, while smart guys get frustrated and leave the company. they get stuck with the lazy guys that are golf buddies, army buddies, or aerospace buddies of their boss.
it's by pure luck that a nuclear disaster has not happened.
on one instance, they discovered that the batteries wires on a pump were crossed, For the past 10 yrs. This is the pump that would get the water out if there was a tsunami or quake.
there is an entire new area that none of the managers have blue prints for it.
You are correct and not disputing what you state.
The tax payers will get screwed either way. a) to keep it running or b) to decommission it.
I have no problem with a properly managed power plant.
The so-called wind energy is really bad for wild life, those things chop up so many endangered and migrating birds. it makes sense, birds fly with the wind, the the wind turbine operate on wind and are placed where there is wind. Coyotes has stopped hunting, they simply wait under the wind turbine, waiting for a chopped up feathery dinner to fall from the sky. Manna from heaven?
Also Wind is a joke. Edison only does it for the gov tax deduction. its a net loss on its own.
most electricity is used in the day, but the wind picks up at night. Wind energy does not get stored in a battery at night so you can use it in the day.
Take away the wind "green" subsidy, that wind energy industry goes flat.
Solar is not that good either, it costs more than it saves – generally. It's a nice add-on to reduce your AC bill, but can't depend on the clouds. and the equipment is obsolete in 10 years. break-even point cost/benefit analysis is 16 years. so you lose about 6 years of value.
I see parking lots, roofs and libraries using solar, that's fine, but if your home is not facing the ideal angle of the sun, it's a not cost effective.
Gas is so dirt cheap that it's kicking the butt of all the big old school electricity giants.
downside to natural gas is fracking, which is causing earthquakes in places that never had them on the each coast. and contaminating the well waters and water reservoir tables.
but on the upside, there is plenty of gas, its cheap, creates US jobs, its not dependent on venezuela or saudi oil. that technology has gotten efficiently better extracting energy out of shale rock. But if you live near by those places, I'd say RENT don't buy land or a home.
It's humorous to see Jeff Smith irritated that someone is speaking an opinion from which "they have no professional experience." Sound familiar Jeff? If you get to have an opinion on paramedics, something you have no professional experience with, so do the anti-nukes.