.
Feedback

What Happens with No Nuclear Power?

Japan once got a third of its electricity from atomic plants. Today, it closes the last of 50 reactors, at least for now. But the increased reliance on oil worries some officials.

As the continues, Japan could prove to be an interesting test case.

Before last year's tsunami and nuclear power plant meltdown, more than 30 percent of Japan's electricity came from nuclear reactors. On Saturday, the nation closed the last of its 50 nuclear plants for maintenance, according to an Associated Press article.

So far, no plant closed for maintenance since the tsunami has reopened, and that has some Japanese officials antsy. They worry about the nation's increased dependence on oil, and a resulting rise in carbon emissions and air pollution.

Similarly, this year's , which could extend into the summer, has officials scrambling for other power sources to keep Southern California air conditioners humming.

And a when it expires in 2022 raises long-term questions about Southern California's energy future.

Click here to read the full story on Japan's nuclear power situation.

And use the comments to tell us how you think California would fare without nuclear power -- and what alternative(s) could realistically replace it.

Joe Holtzman May 6, 2012 at 12:05 pm
ZERO now....and SONGS is a disaster 16 miles away from MV. shut it down !
Patti Davis May 6, 2012 at 04:07 pm
So Cal with out nuclear power? GREAT!
That means that we can get on with the Job Creating, Safe, Clean Renewables that we deserve! Renewables that will not require a evacuation plan or potassium iodine pills or shelter in place materials. Mission Viejo, you are designated as a Shelter in Place Zone, Do you know what that entails? Shelter in Place means that during a radioactive accident at San Onofre you will be required to stay indoors shut the windows and doors tape up any openings, do not let your pets outside and if they go outside do not let them back in, do not run AC and do not panic. You will not be allowed to put your family in your car and get out of harms way until everyone down south of you has been evacuated before you no matter how long that takes. Is that acceptable to you? Lets get on with Solar of all kinds, especially roof top! Lets be independent of this Catastrophic Risk!
Patti Davis May 6, 2012 at 04:15 pm
YES! Our Risk goes down... and our Property Values go up!
Torgen Johnson May 6, 2012 at 04:22 pm
San Onofre and Diablo Canyon provide approx 15% of California's energy in an extremely risky way with regard to public safety. The fact that both of California's nuclear power plants are now shutdown, goes to show that we do not need them while we rapidly transition to cleaner forms of energy. Keep them shutdown and let the market determine the replacement technologies. Nuclear power is a very inefficient monopoly that survives off of huge public subsidies and a $multi-million dollar public misinformation campaign about the risks of nuclear power. Look at the radioactively contaminated exclusion zones around Fukushima. Thousands of square kilometers were reduced to ZERO value in only hours. This could happen to property around San Onofre too in the event of a nuclear accident there.
CaptD May 6, 2012 at 05:17 pm
The short answer is that what they produce we can easily get from other sources!
SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency) is off line now and it is just another day in nuclear free California! More data here: http://is.gd/RB38sI
CaptD May 6, 2012 at 05:19 pm
Many many more comments on other Patch stories about SORE:
http://camppendleton.patch.com/articles/poll-should-san-onofre-power-station-be-shut-down-permanently#comment_3218095 and http://sanclemente.patch.com/articles/u-s-rep-restart-but-don-t-relicense-san-onofre-nuclear-plant?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001#comment_3232171
CaptD May 6, 2012 at 05:21 pm
What would happen to property values in SoCal if SORE, (San Onofre Reactor Emergency) suffered a meltdown like Fukushima for ANY reason, like an EQ (Earth Quake), terrorism, Tsunami, operator error or just "because it can"?
Per the NRC: Fact Sheet on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html In short, if there is more than $12 Billion in damages, residents are left holding a empty radioactive bag! This is only a tiny fraction of what it will cost in Fukushima, which is estimated to be about a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster! What is the value of all the homes and Commercial property downwind of SORE? Probably at least several TRILLION dollars... Here is a great graphic that will help everyone visualize what is downwind of any of the US reactors! NRDC Nuclear Fallout Map: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/fallout/ Just click on a reactor and zoom in... Where will the US Government get the REST of the money if it happened at SORE (or a reactor where you live) next week, probably from Social Security and or Medicare? In reality, ALL those affected are doomed! Tens of thousands are still living in nuclear refugee camps in Japan and it has been over a year since their triple meltdowns which are BTW still sending radioactive pollution Globally!
CaptD May 6, 2012 at 05:23 pm
Well Said... and their safety record (worst in the entire USA) proves it!
Remember Fukushima PROVED Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!
CaptD May 6, 2012 at 05:26 pm
Solar can power the Planet and more...
Read any or all of these for a roadmap: The High Frontier by Gerard K. O'Neill, Colonies In Space by A. Heppenheim­er. The Third Industrial Revolution by G. Harry Stine The Space Enterprise by Philip Robert Harris Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis
CaptD May 6, 2012 at 05:27 pm
Until then, allow the Sun to show the way, N☢T Nuclear!
CaptD May 6, 2012 at 05:29 pm
I agree, lets learn from the Japanese
... And also avoid the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster! Bye Bye SORE
CaptD May 6, 2012 at 05:31 pm
To: Peter Schelden
Please provide your readers links to the other Patch stories about this topic, hat way we will not have to repost relevant comments... Thanks
tinytom May 6, 2012 at 06:00 pm
2006 US electricity production by category:
70% fossil fuels (coal & nat. gas) 20% nuclear 7% hydorpower 3% other renewables (including wind & solar) Electrical Production by Renewables in 2010: Hydro 6.1% Wind 2.3% Wood 0.9% Biomass .45% GeoThermas .36% Solar .02% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States
tinytom May 6, 2012 at 06:22 pm
So I earlier figured the amt of solar panel fields required to produce the electricity of 1 nuclear plant, (figured the footprint as 400 yards square - guess, which is 36 acres), and came to 260,000 footprints.
100 nuclear plants is the US produce 20% of electrical output. So 100x260,000=26 million footprints x 36 acres/footprint = 936 million acres of solar panels to generated 20% of US eclectrical requirement. California is 101 million acres, so 9 solar panel fields the size of California to do it - not good for the flora and greening the planet.
Yeparoo May 6, 2012 at 07:32 pm
tinytom, Don't insult us with facts.
Solar make perfect sense. Borrow money from China to pay people to buy solar panels, that are made in China. It all pencils out. By the way, 78.8% of France's electricity is from Nuclear power (THE FRENCH !!!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
Patti Davis May 6, 2012 at 07:53 pm
Now that you mention France... Have you Checked Todays News?
Nicolas Sarkozy, The hard core pro nuclear incumbent French President, has just been defeated by Francois Hollande! Francois Hollande has promised to close half of the french nuclear plants and deliver RENEWABLE ENERGY! California elected officials should pay attention.
Patti Davis May 6, 2012 at 08:13 pm
@tinytom Get with the future
We do not need the RISK of nuclear power anymore. Here is the Land needed to generate ALL OF OUR ENERGY With Solar Alone! That means all electrical consumption, all machinery, and all forms of transportation. Here is a hint.... Much of this can be done on existing roof tops here in So Cal! http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg
Yeparoo May 6, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Nuclear PPs are environmentally friendly. They do not emit greenhouse gases.
In the last 35 years, only 2 Presidents have allowed Nuke permits. If you guessed Rea-gun and W, you are WRONG. Try Carter & Obama. Together again and it feels so good.
jennymofo May 7, 2012 at 01:52 am
Edison seems to want to restart at 50%-80% production with the hope that they won't blow any more tubes. With the worst safety record in the nation I don't think we should trust them with this experiment! My 3 year old daughter has already been exposed to their radiation leak in January and their routine releases. for 5% of California's electricty when operating at full capacity, it's not worth the risk!
T.Spayede May 7, 2012 at 03:11 am
Yeparoo hit the political nail on the coffin, er, head - It's political shiftiness there that is putting everyone's health at risk.
For a few less Christmas lites and celebrity tv show time, we could probably do without, instead of near-future generations ending up inadverdantly as little generators themselves.
Berton Moldow May 7, 2012 at 12:42 pm
San Onofre generates abut 6-1/2% of California's power. However, the California Public Utility Commission reports that without San Onofre and Diablo Canyon California would have a surplus of energy of 46%. In addition well over a gigawatt of solar and wind generation is coming on stream in the near future. Two forms of energy with zero risk to humans.
CaptD May 7, 2012 at 04:24 pm
Just say N☢...
CaptD May 7, 2012 at 04:27 pm
I agree 100%.
Bye Bye SORE! PLEASE Refund all of the 3/4 of a $ Billion Rate Payers shelled out for these Radioactive LEMONS!
CaptD May 7, 2012 at 06:23 pm
May 7, 2012 – STATEMENT FROM CHAIRMAN GREGORY JACZKO ON SAN ONOFRE RESTART http://wp.me/p21p6a-8xT
snip Despite some erroneous reports in the media, there is no NRC timetable for restart of the San Onofre nuclear reactors, which have been shut down over safety issues affecting the steam generators. We have yet to receive the utility’s written response documenting their completion of actions described in the March 27 Confirmatory Action Letter, so any discussion of a date for the restart of Unit 2 or Unit 3 is clearly premature. Once we receive their response, we will take whatever time is necessary to conduct a thorough safety review.
CaptD May 7, 2012 at 06:40 pm
N.R.C. Skimps on Financial Oversight, GAO Audit Says http://is.gd/k5sNpE
snip The most striking example was Indian Point 3 in Buchanan, N.Y., which could be forced to close by 2015 because of a licensing dispute . The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimated the cost of decommissioning the reactor at $474.2 million, just 57 percent of the "site-specific" estimate made by Entergy, the owner, which put the figure at $836.45 million. How far are they off on SORE? Who will have to pay for it SoCal residents?
CaptD May 7, 2012 at 06:42 pm
Even Presidents can make Nuclear Mistakes!
Fukushima PROVED that Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365! Where would you relocate to?
CaptD May 7, 2012 at 06:43 pm
Environment friendly just like Fukushima?
Ha Ha Ha You must be in Nuclear Denial*... * http://is.gd/XPjMd0 The illogical belief that Nature cannot destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!
T.Spayede May 8, 2012 at 04:02 am
Timetable shlimetable...We don't have an agreed nor safe place to 'store' the waste from this SanO muffintown, much less many others like it. (..."stiilllll !")
W'say we flip those muffintops and make a skatepark there...butthenagain, there's still the hot waste...Speaking of hot waist (again), maybe Angelina and brad could have H;wood forego a few film/flatscreen dvd deals(1500-2500 watt each...?) and run a 'tunnel-a-thon' for digging some really deep holes someplace (Africa?) where we could berry this nukishima pie....?! Sounds silly, but so does continuing the use of a system that is dangerously risky when you're using it and same when it's burned out....(...but it's not..'out'...). Safest time is when you haven't put one in yet. "Or"...we could just paint the whole thing over for now, until the payoffs run out... perhaps the two muffinettes in SanO could be made pink for Mothers Day...(the future kids/grankids would be clapping their heads in high applause).
CaptD May 8, 2012 at 11:07 pm
Thanks for posting!
CaptD May 8, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Nice visual!
In The Pink, N☢ radioactive $TINK...

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Clemente Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
D.M. June 18, 2013 at 08:46 am
Any chance they'll add back the daily weather in the header? or anywhere? I used to check theRead More Patch daily just for the weather which of course led me to the additional news articles but I honestly don't read it as often now since the weather is not on the 'new look'.
Penny Arévalo (Editor) June 18, 2013 at 10:24 am
It's being discussed, but it's further down the list. I know we're working on bringing back theRead More comment stream (the quotes people would leave a stories, I always loved that). We're making tweaks everyday, and I think the look is a huge improvement over little blue East Coast houses. ;-)
lost hikers Jonny and Zach
Maura Mikulec June 1, 2013 at 08:17 pm
Arg. So frustrated. I really wanted to read this article, but will not read an article of thisRead More length with *no paragraph breaks*. This is not the first time I've encountered this on The Patch. Very frustrating....actually haven't even looked at The Patch in a bit because last time, same thing. Arg.