Marilyn Man, San Juan Capistrano

Why should the taxpayer be on the hook and have to pay for the decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station?

The responsibility should be the designer, the developer and the builder.

The design was flawed and who knows what happened in the building of the station.

The city and the state are too quick to push the cost to the taxpayer.

Put the blame and the cost where it belongs.

About The Author Staff

comments (8)

  • I disagree. SDGE should and could still be generating electricity at this plant, but regulators and environmentalist have put unrealistic conditions to reopening this plant. Since this is a cost of doing business, the costs will be shared by the consumers who buy from this company. I am one of these customers. You can not and should not expect any company in any business to just eat the expense. If my business rent goes up I have to pass this along to my customers.

  • Their was and is nothing wrong with the design of the plant. It was built several decades ago, and could and should still be operating. They could and should have been able to update the site and continue to produce electricity. If you want to put the blame where it belongs, it belongs to the people who are against this form of energy. They and the enviornmentalists are to blame, but I would love to make just that small group pay for this and much more damage they are causing America.

    • Right on the money Bill. The Sierra Club sued to prevent Calico Solar from being built; they supported those who opposed the modernization of the Redondo Beach Gas Fired plant desiring instead, that the owners scrap the plant altogether. Communities in the state of New York were torn apart in disputes over the building of Wind Turbines. There is almost always some vocal group agitating against what ever form of power generation is being proposed–they are invariably, part of the problem and not the solution. Electricity just doesn’t show up at your socket by magic.
      Thanks Bill

  • Bill is cracking nuts inside his dark stinky place. SONGS was designed and engineered to last 30 years which ended over of 10 years ago. NO ONE should have the right to endanger everything within a 50 mile radius while generating profit for themselves and their shareholders under any circumstances yet these pricks not only did that but now lay the burden and costs of not only decommissioning the plant but the security, storage and clean up of THEIR nuclear waste over the next 10,000 years at the feet of the American tax-payers. These vermin should not only be arrested, their assets seized and spend the rest of their pathetic lives in prison. Nuclear power never has been, nor will it ever be “cheap” or “clean” and anyone who tells you otherwise is either stupid, or a bald-faced-liar.

    • Schroeder, it is YOU, who is the bald-faced liar and demonstrably so. As I’ve previously mentioned, Unit 2 initial criticality was on 7/26/82, and Unit 3 on 8/29/83; electrical generation was some months AFTER these dates. I make a rather bold assumption that you can negotiate the basic math and verify that adding the 40 years you claim has passed since start up, is still a date in the future, i.e., you’re lying. As to SONGs only being “designed and engineered” for 30 years you are AGAIN–lying! I told you this in previous letters but you remain militantly obtuse. Redondo Beach Power Plant has operated some 60 years, Huntington Beach about 55 years, Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant 45 years, and Salem and Pilgrim Nuclear Plants have each operated 42 years; I could go on, but other than yourself, the readers get the point. Because a plant is initially licensed for only 30 years does not mean, ipso facto, it was only designed to last 30 years. You get a driver’s license that is good for only 4 years; like nuclear plants, you are required to renew this license. With license renewal, SONGs could have run for 100 years, it is only a matter of replacing what wears out, just like you do with your car (at some point it becomes cost prohibitive).
      Nuclear Power IS very clean and despite the pedal-to-the-metal assault by anti-nuke crack-pots, still relatively cheap.
      Now, before you respond to this–think! Do some basic research in something more reliable than a pamphlet passed out at some pot party, and stop making childish threats. We all want the city, the state, and the country to do better and you’re not helping by making wild-eyed, vacuous statements unsupported by the facts. Have some integrity!

  • I’ve got great news for you Marilyn, we’ve already paid for the decommissioning. There is 3.9 Billion in the decommissioning fund. It is these funds that will be used for the decommissioning.

  • Lets keep in mind that SDGE and is allowed for all intents and purposes to act as a monopoly. What other choice does a consumer have for purchasing electricity, other than going off the grid?
    Mistakes were made in both design and operation of the plant and the owners decided it was no longer economically feasible to operate the plant. I don’t see why the costs of decommissioning the plant should fall upon the rate payers or tax payers. Especially considering the advantageous position they have been granted in the electric utility market.

    • Decommissioning, whether it is nuclear, gas fired, or coal fired, etc., is part of the cost of doing business. In 2017, the new clean water regs go into effect requiring the 17 or so power plants on the coast that use once-through cooling (pumping ocean water through the condensers back out to the ocean) to either undergo expensive changes or shutdown. Regardless of the choice the plant operators make, those costs will be passed on to US, the ratepayers. Replacement power costs will also be passed on to US, the ratepayers. You can thank the environmentalists and left-wing California Govt. for this unwise policy. Electricity just doesn’t magically show up at your house; there is always some environmental trade off for this service.
      As stated above or in any official communique, the decommissioning funds are already there and barring interference from the tin-foil-hat, anti-nuke crowd who only wish to drive the costs up, should be sufficient.
      There was NO mistake in the operation of the plant. That is completely false! Mistakes were made in the design of the Replacement Steam Generators, mistakes that were recoverable if not for the interference from madame Boxer who is the go-to gal for the anti-nuke liar’s club.

comments (8)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>