San Onofre nuclear power plant closing

Which is greener?

While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem.

State records obtained by The Associated Press show that 17 companies with 44 manufacturing facilities in California produced 46.5 million pounds of hazardous waste from 2007 through the first half of 2011.

Roughly 97 percent of it was taken to in-state waste facilities, but more than 1.4 million pounds was transported out of state, as far away as Rhode Island.

I've read that one of the problems with the huge arrays of solar panels out in the desert is that dirt and dust from blowing sand cover the surface of the panels and they lose efficiency. This, in a place where water to clean them is in very short supply.

Will these mirrors pose similar problem, causing a loss of efficiency? Also, since these mirrors are not lying flat or at a very low angle, will their surfaces become damaged by blowing sand?

I love this concept, but I hope they provided solutions to problems like this before sinking in billions.

Site grading has been quite modest as the heliostats only need to have a post sunk in the ground and of course wiring to and from each. The grading issue was quite important as there are a variety of important habitats. The desert tortoise, for one.

There are something like 300,000 mirrors for the three towers.

And it's gonna get hot. You watch.

johntp ain't far off in his criticism, although he neglects to mention that the waste stream generated from San Onofre back in 1964 "would never be permitted in the US" today, either.

There is a dichotomy here; pay them to pollute the world or put the money into our economy

There are something like 300,000 mirrors for the three towers.

There is no energy option that is green OR sustainable given our current scale of industry.

I just don't know enough about it. And of course neither does he.

We'd have to be hit by a giant earthquake and tsunami for that to happen.

The point is that solar energy doesn't have the inherent risk if something fails that nuclear energy does.

Obviously they did not care about the cradle to grave formula when they built it. How much is it going to cost to watch it for the next 50 to 100 years ? What a stupid thing to build?

Instead of a single flat rate for energy use, time-of-use rates are higher when electric demand is higher. This means when you use energy is just as important as how much you use.

Winter has two rate periods: off-peak and partial-peak. Summer has three: off-peak, partial-peak and peak. During peak periods, defined as weekdays from noon to 6 p.m., May through October, your business’ electric rates will be the highest. In return, time-of-use rates at all other times will be lower than the peak rate.

All business customers will transition to time-of-use rates as required by the California Public Utilities Commission.

To learn more about peak periods and how time-of-use works, see the Time-of-Use Frequently Asked Questions section.

"Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences.

It is authored by three noted scientists:

Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;

Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and

Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.

Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency– still on its website that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.

The Belarus National Academy of Sciences estimates 270,000 people in the region around the accident site will develop cancer as a result of Chernobyl radiation and that 93,000 of those cases are likely to be fatal.
Another report by the Center for Independent Environmental Assessment of the Russian Academy of Sciences found a dramatic increase in mortality since 1990—60,000 deaths in Russia and an estimated 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus—probably due to Chernobyl radiation.

Obviously they did not care about the cradle to grave formula when they built it. How much is it going to cost to watch it for the next 50 to 100 years ? What a stupid thing to build?

San Onofre maybe closed down but it remains a very long term cleanup ( many decades) at a very high expense;

Vis a vis Ivanopah,

What happens when the sun goes down and all the lights come on?

Alarmist? Radiation is the number one threat to the planet whether it be from the military or industry or even outerspace.

Has anyone heard the story of the diver ? or surfer ? who got sucked into the ocean water intake of the power plant ...

... I always wondered if that was urban legend or true.

The cost per KW is $5561, which they say is between what coal and what nuclear plants cost. This per Synapse Energy Economics. Ivanpah won the CSP (concentraing solar power) Project of the Year by solar Power Generation USA.

the non existent waste disposal options.

Mr. Yoshida took a leave from Tokyo Electric in late 2011 after receiving a diagnosis of esophageal cancer. Experts have said his illness was not a result of radiation exposure from the accident, given how quickly it came on.