Correct. But you are misinterpreting terms like "cold and dark." That does not mean that the core is cold, just that natural convection is now sufficient to cool it, So that if the pumps fail (and BTW they are still running) the core will not overheat. Nor does it mean the plant is dark; if you don't believe me, just drive by it some night. Why? Because the NRC doesn't allow companies to just walk away from nuclear power plants; they have long lists of required inspections, maintenance items, regular testing etc to ensure the plant is safe, even when it's not being used for power.
Could they turn it back on tomorrow? No; there's a lengthy (months) process they'd have to go through to start generating power again that has mainly to do with the turbine plant, the standby generators and the safety systems (like the secondary heat exchangers and HPI systems) that are no longer needed. And of course you'd have to get Mitsubishi to replace their lousy primary heat exchanger. But it's a process that would take months, not years.
So when you ask "gee, there's this big problem getting enough power, what would you do?" the answer is easy - take the months to turn an existing. fueled, zero emissions plant back on, rather than take the decades (and billions) to install enough storage to allow renewables to replace the power from that plant.
If you want to do both, great; get out your checkbook. But if you are concerned about having enough power in the wake of the problems with natural gas storage, then San Onofre is the best option.
Or, if you just want solar for political reasons and you don't really give a s*** about having enough power, then that's fine too. Just be honest enough to admit that, and stop with all the BS about how San Onofre is un-maintained, it's impossible to restart, solar is cheap and easy, storage is a piece of cake etc.
Could they turn it back on tomorrow? No; there's a lengthy (months) process they'd have to go through to start generating power again that has mainly to do with the turbine plant, the standby generators and the safety systems (like the secondary heat exchangers and HPI systems) that are no longer needed. And of course you'd have to get Mitsubishi to replace their lousy primary heat exchanger. But it's a process that would take months, not years.
So when you ask "gee, there's this big problem getting enough power, what would you do?" the answer is easy - take the months to turn an existing. fueled, zero emissions plant back on, rather than take the decades (and billions) to install enough storage to allow renewables to replace the power from that plant.
If you want to do both, great; get out your checkbook. But if you are concerned about having enough power in the wake of the problems with natural gas storage, then San Onofre is the best option.
Or, if you just want solar for political reasons and you don't really give a s*** about having enough power, then that's fine too. Just be honest enough to admit that, and stop with all the BS about how San Onofre is un-maintained, it's impossible to restart, solar is cheap and easy, storage is a piece of cake etc.
Comment