ML13121A296
| ML13121A296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/2013 |
| From: | Cornell V - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 78FR22576 00006, NRC-2013-0070 | |
| Download: ML13121A296 (9) | |
Text
I I
Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC SUBMISSION T As of: April 24, 2013 Received: April 22, 2013 Status: PendingPost Tracking No. ljx-84xe-t8vc Comments Due: May 16, 2013 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2013-0070 Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving Proposed Consideration Determination Comment On: NRC-2013-0070-0001 Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving Proposed Consideration Determination; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 Document: NRC-2013-0070-DRAFT-0003 Comment on FR Doc # 2013-08888 No Significant Hazards No Significant Hazards Submitter Information Name: Vern Cornell Address:
4774 Renovo Way San Diego, CA, 92124 Submitter's Representative: Scott Peters Organization: none Government Agency Type: Federal Government Agency: NRC Ii TV]
"17)
-I-I H
F-rn U)~
General Comment See attached file(s)
April 9th article on San Onofre <In the local paper..UTribune Here is another article that Edison is again proposing running one of two reactors at 70%. We've been hearing this for almost a year...but NO action results.
We should be running one while replacing the tubes in the other, in sections of high-velocity, with larger-diameter tubes. And then bring it on at 99% while fixing the other one in a similar manner. What a waste of valuable assets. article end Why does it take so long to get this very important, low-cost plant back onstream? Your process is too much of a burden.
PLEASE ANSWER ME..!
Sincerely, Vern Cornell..San Diego SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM - 013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add=
r,
/
https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=09000064812a236c&for...
04/24/2013
Page 2 of 2 Attachments CA's 21...
https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=09000064812a236c&for...
04/24/2013
CA's energy future..21 Concerns 12/05/2012 04/29/2013 VACornell1@Gmail.com start California's ISO, Independent System Operator, dispatches electricity for 85% of production. Its web:
www.caiso.com is quite accurate. Renewables add up to between 7% and 16%
daily, of total electricity usage, avg 10%...it is accurate.
The wide range 7-16% is due mainly to wind's variability, but wind's average contribution is 3 or 4%.
Wind is the only path forward if we want to get to 33%.
But it is costly, very costly, so is it worth it, when we need little more electricity?
Wind Wild
%-of Total, daily 145 days since start MWh variety
>0 5%
<see 1/8/20..LOW.. I>
1 15%
<<wind is wild 2
15% one cannot depend on it 3
15% avg=3, or 4
15% avg=4 5
15%
6 15%
7 4%
1144MWh or 0.18% of 621,833MWh..total or 2.3% of 48,942MWh..renewables
<10.5%
1%
100% of time
<<12/26/2012(8.2%) and 1/10/2013(10.1%)
and 2/9/2013(10.5%)
MWh One day in the life of........
www.caiso.com 12/26/2012 Solar Wind Small Hydro Biogas Biomass Geothermal RenewablesTotal Total MWh 3892 25020 9025 4414 8265 20526 71142 5.5%
35.2%
12.7%
13%
12%
29%
100%
0.6%
3.9%
1.4%
0.7%
1.3%
3.2%
11.2%
634209 N-C C
C N-C N-C small variability large variability, between near-zero and 10.5% seeAAAabove constant constant constant constant varies between 7-19.3%
somewhat larger than a typical day
<<26425MW avg (average might be 600,000)
MWh 47,755 01/10/2013 MWh 63456 10.1%
2644MW..wind MWh 60,601 10.5%
2525...wind 8.2%
1990MW..wind 2644 95113 16.0%
593697 100%
111019 17.6%
111,057 630082 100% -575,306 19.30% <same total 100%
^from above^
MW avg Hydro 2000 8%
Imports 7800 30%
Thermal 11460 43%
Nuclear 2200 8%
Renewables 2964 11%
26424 100%
N-C = non-carbon electricity
..grows after dark
<need explanation CA's caiso has the information.
..grows with need
<need explanation How much is hydro?
Why does CA import so much?
..grows with need
<need explanation How much is natgas, how much coal?
..constant through 24/7... San Onofre is off-stream (two of four reactors)
..see table above
<very well explained by CA's caiso
<all in-State produced TWh/yr coal 44 gas 133 year 2008 15.5%
46.5%
14.9%
MWh/day 120,863 362,588 116,184 four reactors
'Renewables' Vs 'Non-carbon Energy' Renewables today are: Geothermal, Biomass, Biogas, Small hydro, Solar, and Wind...six energy sources that put no C02 into the atmosphere. This is about 10- 11%
of California daily usage, or 2500MW in 25,000MW.
At present, our two nuclear plants produce about 2200MW of electricity, or 8% of usage...and put no C02 into the atmosphere. Since the only real purpose of Renewables is to knock-back carbon dixoide from the atmosphere, let's include nuclear as a seventh source.
as It does the same thing. But let's go one step further and include larme hydro as an eighth source. It comes in at 2000MW or 8% of usage. Total non-carbon is 27%.
nuclear 42
.hydro 25 renewables 38 285 imports-NW imp-SW imp-total 8.6%
67,059 13.5%
105,268 100%
779,760 24 8.4% mostly hydro 53 18.6% half coal 77 27.0%
4386
<MW 32490
<MW some from out of State
<???where local 208 73.0%
285 100.0%
But don't we KNOW that added CO2 increases photosynthesis?
Sz SvN't this wh6e thing a big hoax? And what the heck's wrong with a little temp. increase?
Nothing.
<UT Ed Board
We're on our way to less carbon...with eight sources If we look at it this way, we go after the best of the eight.
Best concerns=various costs, environmental damage, availability, reliability, backup needs, best&highest land use, facility life, all-in costs, decommissioning, need for infrastructure, need for utilities, reasonable life-time accounting, governmental tax or support, community support, tranmission needs, etc.
Below is confirming (?) evidence as to why we should be building a new Generation III reactor at San Onofre.
Or two 600MW CCNGs, one in Victorville Or two 600MW clean coal plants And shutting down Wind and Solar.
Decide...you decide.
<yes.. 1 cheapest in the long,long run (then Gen IV in the 2020s)
<UT Ed Board 20 concerns Initial cost-1 long-term capital costs-2 operating costs-3 environmental damage-4 availability-5 reliability-6 backup needs-7 land use-8 facility life-9 all-in-costs-10 decommissioning-1i infrastructure needs-12 utility needs-13 accounting needs-14 produce tax?-15 support=governments-16 community support-17 transmission needs-18 C02?=19 emissions control-20 GW is a hoax-then use -21 affect food source-22 operating factor-23 AA23 concernsAA reactor 6,100
$ 7,320,000 10 billion low tiny little constant constant none tiny 60-80 years good for life costly little little little yes taxed yes little N-C some yes no 92%
wind 6,700
$ 8,040,000 10 billion high high much wild wild much large 12-15 years renew costly large some large little subsidies yes/no large N-C?
none no no 20 CCNatGas 1,300
$1,560,000 5 billion mid low little high high none small 30 years renew at 30 low little none some yes taxed yes some some small yes no 60-85 clean coal 3,300
$ 3,960,000 8 billiion mid mid some constant high none large 30 years ethanol gasoline from corn 10billion mid mid large seasonal high little very large 30 years Donn's costs, per MW
<cost for 1200MW, millions
<my numbers are quite relative to Donn's are fuel costs included?
wild on an hourly basis zero, now, to 5Billion for CCNG @ 33% renewables including coal mines+railroads renew propellor every 12-15 years renew at 30 -enew at 30 low low large little some yes taxed/hit yes/no some large large too costly no 80 large some some no subsidies yes/no some coal needs rail transport EPA gives a hit to coal support near San Onofre for another reactor some backup carbon for wind some coal must control emissions no disaster 40% of corn to this 80 CCNG is low if used as backup, otherwise high AACompare a 1200MW reactor with 1200MW wind or 1200MW CCNG or 1200MW clean coal...^A Determine relative cost/benefit/damage of each of the 20 concerns?....
.... (and this isn't done here...)...except $Sbillion at backup needs.It would be a very interesting calculation, discussion.
at 92% operating factor vs 20% for wind vs 60-95% for CCNG Vs S0% for clean coal/ethanol
Because our AB32 isn't working California needs to commit to reality:
So how do we do this?..get rid of AB32,of course, but:
First..we should only buy the new electricity we need, no more Second..get away from the idea that C02 is bad, because it enhances plant growth, and is not a pollutant.
Third.look at the actual facts as presented by CA's watchdog:
www.caiso.com We'll never reach 33%, don't try.
Thirty t Fourth..produce our own electricity..why 30% imports?
<examine the 21 cor Why is getting to 33% renewables failing in CA?
(it's at 18% and not moving upward fast enough.)
One...we don't need more electricity Two..it's way too costly Three..it will not work Four..it's all a costly hoax
<C02 in the atmos in increasing quantities is good.
Now comes the possibility of cheap natgas from shale here in California.
The Governor approved a law allowing 'fracking' in December. So the industry might now get started.
Should we go for CCNG power plants...they're cheaper?
And natgas is available here in CA regardless whether we get
<<CCN(
going with CA's shale deposits.
... a high Important is to find NGLs and oil in addition to gas
<UT Ed Board Wall Street Journal...1/3/2013 USA electricity increased up to 8%/year in the decades after WW2 It increased 2-4% in the 1980-2000s, but now to 2040 will increase 0.6-0.7%/year
<UT Ed Board Why imports, why not ourselves?
hree need SO much backup; today's small amount doesn't...costly!
icerns and then buy CCNG, using CA shale natgas, short term, nuclear for the long, long term AUT Ed Board Buck should build in Victorville and along highway 14.
3= Combined Cycle Natural Gas ily efficient plant to produce electricity Wall Street Journal..1/5/2013 - Matt Ridley How Fossil Fules Have Greened the Planet The story is enticing; satalites show that the amount of green vegitation has been increasing for three decades. And the inescapable conclusions are fossil fuels have caused this greening: 1st by displacing firewood, 2nd by warming the climate, and 3rd by raising carbon dixoide levels, which raise plant growth rates.
AB3Z is a disaster for two reasons:
One..CARB's report: $143billion in new taxes by 2020 because of law.
Two..energy costs up 10-40%
due to the law The disaster..CA doesn't need any new electricity, especially very-costly wind+solar.
So: stop the tax and high costs,
...and don't build.
We need no more electricity in California. It increased by 8% per year in the 1950-1970s.
By 2-4% in the 1980-1990s, and now by only 0.6-0.7% out to 2040.
Let's slow down on enforcing the timing of AB32. Slow way down!
It's way too expensive.
And use CA shale-gas...it's cheap.
Stop any subsidies.
<UT Ed Board
<BUCK
<see WUWT 1/15/13
< numbers from Brian Jones' 10/2/2013 letter He is totally against AB32. So is the editorial board of the U-T.
And that is probably the best letter you hve ever written. Keep trying.
email me at VACornelll@gmail.com do not phone 858-576-8541 as I'm very hard of hearing
...but leave a message...
www.Congress.org
< use this a lot...)
Go to www.congress.org to find who the Fed4 are...names Go to www.congress.org to find who the CA4 are...names
<UT Ed Board
Senator Feinstein's letter to me of 1/8/2013 You said you will "keep my thoughts in mind" and "appriciate my support for expanding the use of Rrenewable energy."
But this isn't what I said I believe renewable energies are way too costly, and can never be but a small part of our needs here in California. You didn't even bother to listen. Support you in Senate?
Michael Lieberman at AssembleyMember Brian Maienschein Thursday, January 10, was the windest ever...
I tried to light my barbeque, couldn't.
California's wind farms produced 63,500 KWhours of electricity to the grid, some 10.1% of total used by the State. Compare this to 115OKWh two days earlier, or only 0.2%. This information from www.caiso.com CA's watchdog on 85%
of electricity produced in the State. Both
<go cais of these extremes might be records.
Diane Feinstein's letter, answer to her beliefs:
One..she's for "clean energy". This is not only Wind/Solar, her belief, but other clean energys.
(Say nuclear, CCNG plants from natgas, maybe even clean coal if you believe C02 helps the atmos and plant growth, and thus, us.) But she doesn't.
Two..CA should get to 33% renewables. This is totally impossible using Wind/Solar, because of backup needs.
It's very, very costly, and CA needs little more.
Three..Dianne trusts CARB which agency says we're at 18% renewables now. Yet CA's watchdog...
www.caiso.com
...says it's 10%....w/o imports California's people know these things, and will support Gov. Brown's approval to develop CA's large shale
<Montana?
area, 100,000 square miles, for oil and gas.
CA should move in Brown's direction.
Ignorance and Party We import nearly all Wind so and see these two days >>
www.caiso.com Re: "Ignoring History and AB32" editorial..U-T Why is California behind on electricity?
We import 30% of needs.
And prices at home are way too high.
This: because we spend on costly Renewables.
When we have Shale gas beyond ND's Bakken.
We have shale gas beyond belief.
We must develop this resource.
We should move on this as Gov.Brown says.
And eventually shutdown Wind and Solar.
<UT Ed Board
<BUCK
...beyond Bakken and TX Ford combined NatGas plants, as needed, then nuclear
< I even believe this if shutdown costs are right.
... eventually, 2030s?
...there is a bit of environmental damage from wind and solar...
...it's not needed and costs way too much...
<see line 149 Compare a 1200MW nuclear with 1200MW wind farm...
nuclear wind Initial cost 7.3billion 8.Obillion
<Donn's numbers Reliability What is its avaiability over a day or year?
Op factor-%
92 20 Wind varies from zero to 105% over hours...average, 20 for a year Supplies how many?
600,000 600,000?
...then compare at operating factor
<UT Ed Board
...rarely done, needed Nuclear supplies electricity all the time except during planned refueling, and emergencies
< wow...that's nuclear Wind is erratic, between zero and name-plate, in energy to the grid...so it'sthere but
< wow...damn poor twenty percent of the time. Should it pay for its unreliability? Pay for the backup?
< yes, add that to the S10billion
<UT Ed Board How to allocate...caiso responsibility?...
Yes, let's say Wind is near-zero for a week. It whould The actual invoices that get paid are small for wind...20% of nameplate pay for back-up to its year-long op factor, say 20%.
But CA subsidizes wind construction....reasonable?
Certainly NOT..!
120MWfarm x 0.2 x 1OC/KWh x 1000KWh/MW or,
Why should subscribes pay higher bills?..when lessor costs are available?
Environmental damage?
One nuclear plant at 1200MW...in a small area.
vs 1200/2MW each= 600 tall towers on XXX acres...wind They cost the same, yet the propellors last 12-15years..the reactor 60-80.
How chose?...costs/ environment?...Use 21 Concerns, above. Put a price-toa on each.
120x0.2x$0.10x1000=$2400/day for that week.
Above 20% this wind-farm would get a free ride.
Is this fair? Paying nothing does not seem fair.
$2400 x 365/2 =$438,000 per year, or $4,380,000 for 1200MW top 20 10 0.02 210240 CA million barrels per year of oil refined 1985 1990 foreign 40 6%
40 Alaska 240 35%
335 California 400 59%
335 680 100%
710 1,863,013 bd 5.6%
47.2%
47.2%
100%
2011 320 60 260 640 NatGas-CaIif.
2011 50%
Canada 12%
in-State 38%
SW 100%
Rockies 20 20 20 40 20 20 bottom 20 10 A time
% Of op fac 22%
12% <low..!
42%
8760 hour0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br />s/year 239%
0.04 0.08 0.04 0.02
.0.2 420480 840960 420480 210240 2102400 2102400 MWh/yr 5760 MWh/day 240 MW How to get drilling going in California?
CA gets 38% of its oil for transportation from in-state Operators.
It gets only 12% of natgas from in-state Operators. Why so low?
We have not, yet, taken advantage of our shale resources.
They are very large, bigger than ND's Bakken and TX's Eagle Ford, combined. Our in-state oil/gas operators are fully capable of moving forward on this. Let's promote them.
Let's get drilling going...I The system, pipelines, is there to use both oil and natgas,...so let's go.
100%
1200 www.energyalmanac.ca.gov
.This sourse says we have 69,709 MW of capacity. Yet in 2009 we used 23,401 MW average for the year. Total capacity is in 1008 plants for that large total.
^A^S this true?
Capacity
<UT Ed Board...
did you recognize this?
<BUCK Ladies and Gentlemen:
...of the Assembly...
Maienschein talking...
Today I want to talk about an opportunity we have here in California that can produce real prosperity, real money, for our State.
I will talk about the oil and gas potential in our Monterey Shale deposits, which are very, very big on any scale. Listen..!
It's fortunate that we have an excellent in-State internet site to understand this www.energyalmanac.ca.gov you use this site to study our situation and our potential. From it you can see that...
CA gets 38% of its oil for transportation from in-state Operators... Good
<fed4Febl4
<CA4Feb15 recommend We have not, yet, taken advantage of our shale resources.
They are very large, bigger than ND's Bakken and TX's Eagle Ford, -
combined. Our in-state oil/gas operators are fully capable of moving forward on this. Let's promote them. Let's get drilling going... !
<BUCK The system, our pipelines, is there to accept both oil and natgas,.... so let's go.
Doing this will create many jobs, permanent jobs, and reduce our unemployed. It will bring prosperity to California.
And what is really interesting is that by drilling this stuff, you get both oil and gas.
We need to make it easier for these Operators by:
1... approve fracking procedures, those that are 'safe.'... straight forward, we know what they are.
We should listen to the people opposing fracking, but insist on the facts... of danger 2... contact the Operators, what do you need?
3... contact Gov. Perry's oil/gas friends in Texas... come join us.
We should move along on this... do I have a vote?...on what I want us to do which is:
a...
b...
M ichael...fill this in...
Michael Liebermann...this was just sent to your boss...enjoy Maienschein, Assemblyman
....a smaller version...
<UT Editorial Board...MOVE!
C...
d...
Note...one can talk quite a bit about the good job the Operators do on the 38%...they are ready..
...the 38% is respectable...but we can go way beyond this...
What can I do to help Maeinschein get his speech, his efforts, meaningful?
(...if he choses to get California's Shale in Monterey drilled...... )
Sempra Oil and Gas Corp?
Should Sempra buy a small CA oil company,as foundation., and A new venture in California...
then a Texas oil company that knows 'fracking'...to get going here in our Monterey Shale?
YES, Yes, yes... !
I IT atiitnrinl Mnrrh q 7n11:
"ztnta d*n*c rgrpn but Neglects tho Rncirc"
<wrnna-You guys are overdoing it a bit here.
Let's put emphasis in the right places, as your editorial "The Energy Revolution" does in the very same edition.
Look at line 208 above. This source says we have 69,709MW of capacity.
Yet average use was 23,401MW. The lights will not go out, as you suggest.
You say California has 44% more capacity. The above source says it's 298%. Aren't there extremes here? Take another look.
-vvv,,b;
<UTEditorial Board
...take another look In 2011 we used 23401MW of electricity yet we have a 69,709MW capacity.
This information from www.energyalmanac.ca.gov Why keep pressing Wind and Solar? At large costs? When CA has plenty of extra capacity? We will never have a blackout, nor a brownout.
Should investors construct more plants? Sure, if they can make money.
But, NO subsidies!
And our watchdog www.caiso.com
...our watchdog will use their electricity at the right price.
Want to bet? With or w/o subsidies? There will be failures, a lot March 16 Opinion Article.."Using Solar Power' UT Editc "Profits depend on building more generating
...why di plants...." "..and what if those rooftop...plants
...w/o al didn't use any fossil fuels?.." Wrong.
The truth is that solar electricity is so dated, daytime only, that we need fossil plants to back them up. They're unreliable.
"...neighborhood power plants..." are very expensive.
They increase the average customer's costs a lot.
"..,building gas-powered plants on vanishing...space..."
What baloney. They occupy very tiny spaces. But Solar uses very large spaces. So...wrong,again.
"...they claim their power is more reliable and will cost less..." This is true...solar is very expensive, is a fungus on monthly bills.
"..stop building 20th century power plants..." Of course, true.
We need no more 20th nor 21st...ones. California has enough,
<Fed4Mar8
<State4Mar8
<3NewspapersMar8
)rial people o you promote such articles...?...
lowing a rebuttal article..?...
Re: Using Solar Power "it is proven the most cost-effective investment, creating the most sustainable, long-term jobs is energy efficiency and neighborhooc solar.." No one would argue with efficiency; it always comes in at low cost. But all studies, all, that I h seen place Solar as the MOST exper and its day-time only avails must be backed up, another cost unrecogniz Let's go with our country's 104 Nucl
<UTLetters on March 18
<sent UTEditorial people 3/18/13 the whole damn thing was sent...
now...build no more. But do not build solar that needs backup.
And which then adds to costs.
"...the sun is beating down and Solar provides electricity in the afternoon for air conditioning..." Fine, but how about winter?
Solar isn't needed but must be allowed into the system...forced in.
This increases my monthly electricity statement...and yours.
"...solar is the most cost-effective, long-term jobs producing..."
Wrong. It is expensive. And it is unneeded. And few jobs.
April 9th article on Son Onofre Here is another article that Edison is again proposing running one of two reactors at 70%. We've been hearing this for almost a year...but NO action results.
We should be running one while replacing the tubes in the other, in sections of high-velocity, with larger-diameter tubes. And then bring it on at 99% while fixing the other one in a similar manner. What a waste of valuable assets.
Reactors at 2C per KWh Vs 15C/KWh for Solar. Mr. Powell is wrong.
Bring San Onofre back soon.
<<see aboveAA
<UT Editorial Board?
to UT Letters?
Published in UT Letters (Apr10?)
Same day a Section B front-page article says 70% ok, but need more public input first. NRC is SO slow..
NRC is SO slow..!
NRC is SO slow..!
NRC is SO slow..!
NRC is SO slow..!
NRC is SO slow..!
NRC is SO slow..!
Art:
go to www.caiso.com
...and check on yesterday's wind...click on it..Iower left
...on This wind electricity is from Montana..85%..not California 19-Apr We had wind yeasterday..reason for leaves on tennis court this morning.
Art went off to the UK...and does not want anything to do with this...for two weeks...