California Will Close Its Last Nuclear Power Plant (sfchronicle.com) 368
An anonymous reader quotes the San Francisco Chronicle:
California's last nuclear power plant -- Diablo Canyon, whose contentious birth helped shape the modern environmental movement -- will close in 2025, state utility regulators decided Thursday. The unanimous vote by the California Public Utilities Commission will likely bring an end to nuclear energy's long history in the state. State law forbids building more nuclear plants in California until the federal government creates a long-term solution for dealing with their waste, a goal that remains elusive despite decades of effort.
The decision comes even as California expands its fight against global warming. Owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Diablo Canyon is the state's largest power plant, supplying 9 percent of California's electricity while producing no greenhouse gases. "With this decision, we chart a new energy future by phasing out nuclear power here in California," said commission President Michael Picker. "We've looked hard at all the arguments, and we agree the time has come."
The decision comes even as California expands its fight against global warming. Owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Diablo Canyon is the state's largest power plant, supplying 9 percent of California's electricity while producing no greenhouse gases. "With this decision, we chart a new energy future by phasing out nuclear power here in California," said commission President Michael Picker. "We've looked hard at all the arguments, and we agree the time has come."
YAY for coal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we have any rails coming in from West Virginia?
Re:YAY for coal? (Score:4, Informative)
California does not have any coal fired power plants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:YAY for coal? (Score:5, Informative)
No new coal plants are under construction or planned anywhere in America.
California energy will come from gas, wind, and solar, with a tiny contribution from geothermal.
Re:YAY for coal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, California energy will come from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon.
"The problems always easier to solve when it's given to someone else."
Re:YAY for coal? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, they get a lot power from the US's largest nuclear plant in AZ [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
As does nuclear-free Germany from France.
Re:YAY for coal? (Score:5, Insightful)
No new coal plants are under construction or planned anywhere in America.
California energy will come from gas, wind, and solar, with a tiny contribution from geothermal.
Ah, so they have seven short years to figure out how they're going to generate 9% of California's electrical demand from gas, wind, and solar, while also dealing with growth and more demand between now and 2025?
Yeah, good luck with that shit. This touchy-feely story is about as realistic as California balancing their budget. That power plant will get shut down alright; when it melts down.
Re: (Score:3)
dealing with growth and more demand between now and 2025?
Population growth in California is slowing, and electricity demand per household is falling.
Re:YAY for coal? (Score:4, Insightful)
No new coal plants are under construction or planned anywhere in America.
California energy will come from gas, wind, and solar, with a tiny contribution from geothermal.
Heresy! Slahshdotters shall not let this go unpunished!
For all of the bloviating about coal from it's fans and the Present Occupant, the supplies are running low, and much of what is left isn't very good. And getting to it can be pretty daunting, Spending money and effort to revive an industry that is just about played out makes no sense.
Meanwhile here in PA, we're enjoying our wind power and natgas. I suspect the day will come when the natgas stations will serve as backup.
Re:YAY for coal? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
WTF would any state feel, "pressure" from CA about how they generate a product CA needs?
Re:YAY for coal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And CA doesn't get the power it needs.
I don't think you get the dynamics here of supply and demand here. CA needs the power, the other states have the power.
Re:YAY for coal? (Score:5, Insightful)
And CA doesn't get the power it needs.
I don't think you get the dynamics here of supply and demand here. CA needs the power, the other states have the power.
A similar situation exists for cars. California sets standards for itself, and tells the manufacturers that it will not allow them to sell them in Cali if they don't meet those standards. So whenever possible, the automakers produce vehicles to the Cali standards because they don't want to have to make two versions.
So if California gives purchase preference to NatGas produced electricity, it serves as an incentive to switch to NatGas.
Nothing is stopping an outfit from sticking to their guns and remaining on coal. But the goal isn't coal, the goal is selling electrical power. About the only way to work that system in favor of coal is to radically reduce the selling price.
In other words, lowering the supply price to increase the demand for it.
Re: YAY for coal? (Score:3)
Sorry, I missed the "not" in your message. You are right. I was confused
Re: (Score:3)
Your courtesy appreciated.
Re:YAY for coal? (Score:5, Informative)
Utah has one Large power plant I'm familiar with that produces exclusively for the CA markets, the Intermountain Power Plant (IPP). The high voltage transmission lines from the plant run to CA and nowhere else. They were flat out told to convert it or else and the conversion is on schedule to be completed by 2025. The plant currently has two coal fired units, the plan over time is to eventually bring on two additional units, the third one was supposed to be running by now but that was halted when LA, (the planned destination for the power from the unit) voted to go coal free in 2012.
So yes CA the buyer is able to pressure the producers because more and more of their utilities are refusing to buy power produced by coal. When the plants are built and focused on supplying the CA markets, the Transmissions lines lead to the CA markets and other power plants already meet the needs of the state where they reside, then yes CA is able to dictate to the suppliers.
Utah gets no power from the IPP.
Meanwhile Utah's coal industry has been forced to go looking overseas for buyers of our very clean anthracite coal.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess all I can say is that Utah should tell CA to go fuck itself and make its own God Damned power.
Morons (Score:4, Insightful)
California is run by morons.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that why it is the 6th largest economy in the world? I'll hang with the morons thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita measures are more meaningful as California has the highest population in the country.
Per capita, the GDP [wikipedia.org] of California is 10th or 11th in the nation (depending on if you count DC as a "state").
Re: (Score:2)
You don't actually know WHY California is so successful, do you?
If you did, you'd know why it is run by morons, and why the results are what they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol it USED to be the 4th largest economy.
Nope. It used to be #7, but moved up one to pass Italy.
The 4th largest economy is Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
https://data.worldbank.org/ind... [worldbank.org]
GDP 2016 in USD
1) USA, 18,624 billion
2) China, 11,199 billion
3) Japan, 4,940 billion
4) Germany, 3,478 billion
5) United Kingdom, 2,648 billion
6) France, 2,465 billion
7) India, 2,264 billion
8) Italy, 1,859 billion
9) Brazil, 1,796 billion
10) Canada, 1,530
11) Korean republic, 1,411 billion
12) Russia, 1,283 billion
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se... [stlouisfed.org]
California, 2,600 billions
So if California was a country it would had been #6 in 2016.
You provide the proof (Score:3)
California used to be 4th until the Democrats took over. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
You made the claim. It's up to you to back it up with facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead, prove me wrong
No. Back up your own partisan bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you talking about pre-1990 before German Reunification?
No, he is just talking out his ass. California has never been #4. Even before unification, the West German economy was far bigger than California's, and in addition to America, Japan, UK, France, and Italy, back in 1990 there was this one other economy ahead of California as well: the Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:3)
When the indigent put a drain on the government, taxes are paid for by the middle class, not the wealthy.
But that is almost entirely the fault of Republicans, whose only constant policy goal is to reduce the tax on the rich and increase the costs (tax, social and otherwise) on everybody else. I can't fathom why you blame Democrats, who are at least trying to fix this problem (albeit not very competently).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A 3rd of this country's welfare recipients are in California.
What?! The rest of the country too poor to afford a decent welfare system?
Re: Morons (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say "a decent welfare system" is a fairly large warning sign things are going wrong rather than right. With a good economy, only a very small percentage of the population should ever need welfare. The goal of welfare should be to get off of welfare and be self sustaining. A healthy economy, coupled with the right laws and regulations, should promote jobs that pay sufficient to achieve and sustain financial stability. It seems California is in a downward spiral rather than leading the nation in socia
Re: (Score:3)
There are people who cannot work. Welfare traditionally has been about those people; the elderly, disabled, orphans, widows (back when women didn't typically work).
Ie, the changs in Medicaid to encourage more people to get back to work to continue to receive those benefits really won't have a big change in California, as most Medicaid recipients who can work are already working. The stereotype that the typical welfare recipient stays at home and watches Jerry Springer all day is a myth.
And the snag with "
Re: (Score:3)
Unemployment is a statistic to beware of. The US and many other countries do not include people who are not actively looking for work in their unemployment numbers. It also does not include people who are underemployed (engineers who are bagging groceries for example). Right now the economy in the US sucks, and you can see this with the increased number of homeless people and workers who have stagnant wages or who do not feel that their jobs are secure. And yet the official figures show that the US econom
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, fiscally this place is a mess. I'd move somewhere else if I wasn't makin' so damn much money.
False "facts" (Score:4, Informative)
A 3rd of this country's welfare recipients are in California.
That's a nice little unsupported bogus made up statistic you have there. California does spend the most on welfare overall but since they are the state with the largest population (and a high cost of living) that's hardly shocking. Per capita they are high but not wildly out of the norm - with around 4% of the population [gobankingrates.com] receiving some sort of assistance. California is among the least federally dependent states [wallethub.com] in the US.
It has been losing population for the last 20 years
You must be talking about a different California [firsttuesday.us] than the one on the west coast of the US. Population growth there has been steadily growing with no sign of that changing any time soon.
Red states demand the most federal aid (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the welfare recipients are white people in red counties within CA, actually. It's weird how much you hate them.
Most of the states that depend most heavily on federal aid [wallethub.com] are strongly red states. Most of those that depend the least on the government are blue states. Make of that what you will but I think there is some irony in there somewhere.
Re:Red states demand the most federal aid (Score:5, Insightful)
The red state vs. blue state comparison is flawed because there are no purely red or blue states. What there is instead are urban and rural parts of the country. Urban areas are deeply blue and rural is deeply red.
To see the truth of this, just look at an election map by precinct for your state. Compare it to a map of urban vs. rural.
To truly compare, you need to cut across geographical boundaries. The Pew Research Center did that by correlating political party to food stamp usage. Democrats are TWICE as likely as Republicans to have taken food stamps.
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... [pewresearch.org]
This makes good common sense, too. Democrats in the urban core are obviously much more supportive of a large, active government, and Republicans in rural areas want smaller government.
Re: Red states demand the most federal aid (Score:2)
Demographics (Score:3)
The red state vs. blue state comparison is flawed because there are no purely red or blue states.
Nobody argued to the contrary. But as long as presidential elections maintain an electoral college with a winner take all system there will remain such a thing as red states and blue states whether you like it or not and regardless of what the underlying demographics might be.
Democrats are TWICE as likely as Republicans to have taken food stamps.
Did you actually read the article you linked to? From your article: "But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than li
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most Red Sates have at least one large Blue City.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:California is failing (Score:5, Informative)
The Breitbart article has two links to the same census bureau report. The report is titled "Children of Foreign-Born Parents Generation More Likely to Be College-Educated Than Their Parents, Census Bureau Reports", and does not contain the info the Breitbart article says that it's citing. In fact, California isn't even mentioned in the report. Your other sources are not any more credible.
Re: (Score:2)
CA is dead last (50th out of 50) [independent.org] in economic freedom.
"Not only does California rank 49th out of all 50 U.S. states"
Re: (Score:2)
If California and New York (which is 50th out of 50) in your linked article are the worst in terms of economic freedom, and the states with the highest economic freedom also rely the most of federal aid, doesn't that imply that your "economic freedom (as measured by conservative group X) leads to prosperity" claim is bullshit?
In other words, you're making a circular argument, but in such a bad way as to actually demonstrate the opposite.
Re:California is failing (Score:5, Informative)
If the Brietbart article links to the Census Bureau report, why didn't you link to the report directly? Let's click on it and see... Oh, it doesn't support the claim that 930k people left CA between the dates given in the Brietbart article!
Wikipedia is a better source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There are multiple sources in that data, and you can see that the population did not fall.
Brietbart seems to have realized that it's easy for people to call bullshit on unsourced claims, so they started to throw in some sources that look authoritative but which don't actually support what they are saying. I guess their assumption is that most people won't bother to read the sources, they will just assume that they add credibility to the story.
CA is dead last (50th out of 50) in economic freedom.
Or put another way it has the best environmental and consumer protections.
Re: (Score:3)
Links to Breitbart, Blogspot, and some Libertarian "institute". Why in the fuck is this modded "Insightful"? The fucking Breitbart link doesn't even support the claim the article is making.
This is just a massive amount of projection. California's policies under Jerry Brown have balanced the budget and moved onto a budget surplus. This has been in addition to paying down the state's debt incurred under previous administrations.
Oh no a state with high taxes is doing extremely well! Better pull out the bullshi
Not really (Score:4, Interesting)
And don't forget that we can't recycle the fuel because we're terrified some of it will get lost and turned into nukes. Not that it's ever stopped anyone from getting them (re: North Korea).
TLDR; Get Americans to stop privatizing dangerous things and allow the waste to be recycled and we'll put nuclear back in rotation.
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Natural Gas is still a lot safer
Natural gas plants leak methane like a motherfucker. And methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. After a few decades it decomposes into water and... CO2, but in the meantime it helps wrecking havoc of climate.
I much prefer nuclear power to natural gas. It's safer for the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
> Save the planet
I will participate in discussions on renewable energy as soon as the phrases like that will stop being modded up.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Is it not true that it isn't much safer for the environment? Even if you take the spent fuel and just throw it out in the garden the result is a very localised form of pollution that does not spread anywhere compared to CO2 emissions from power plants that are showing global effect on the planet.
Even when you consider accidents it is remarkably safe. Not only has nuclear power killed the lowest number of people of any of the generation methods (count how many people die constructing solar power for a f
I'll be dead (Score:2)
That's the trouble with nuke plants. The disasters are acute. Meaning all the damage is up front. The annoying thing is that if we were rational beings nuclear would be the perfect energy source.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only are aircraft accidents acute, people who travel by plane will get more radiation exposure than people who live near nuclear power plants.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear fuel recycling for traditional reactors is only useful for two things, getting plutonium and wasting money. Significantly reducing waste, not so much.
It's a once through process, the remaining waste from burning MOX is just too much of a mess ... even wasting money has a limit.
Re: (Score:3)
Natural Gas is still a lot safer and solar is cheaper.
Do you have citations for that? I did a quick Google search and nuclear power is the safest, by far. I also saw that solar is the cheapest source of energy with the caveat that it applies in only 60 nations, and the USA is not one of them. I'm sure it's nice in Egypt to have access to cheap solar energy but I don't live in Egypt. What are cheap energy sources in the USA? Looks like wind, natural gas, and nuclear. Prices vary across the USA but for most places one of those three will have the lowest co
Re: (Score:2)
I think it depends on where you are in the USA as to whether solar makes economic sense. It works better to break those things down on a state-by-state level, given how geographically diverse the USA is. A number of states have vast tracts of desert country in which sizeable populations live. It would be hard to imagine why solar wouldn't be very practical in a typically sunny environment, as it corresponds with peak usage during the day to run all those air conditioners.
Re: (Score:2)
before you say just add batteries, lets say just double the cost. as in not cheap.
There are three ways of doing things and you can only ever choose two. Cheaply. Quickly. Properly.
Re: (Score:2)
The mad rush to privatize things that shouldn't be privatized coupled with our bad habit of looking the other way on regulation means nuclear power is risky.
Risky as an investment, which is what killed/is killing it.
If it were a bit simpler to implement and the fuel going in did not require some much processing, then Nuclear might be an ongoing option. As it is, solar is cheaper, and the inclusion of a few major hydro storage sites means a significant risk for investing in traditional, big centralised infrastructural approaches to providing power. There's a good chance that these will be a losing proposition. You might make operational money for the first
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. Methinks TL just walked by me (Score:2)
Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"There will never be enough land to use solar at productive levels"
This has been debunked time and time again. You could meet the entirety of the world's energy needs at current typical PV efficiencies with about 50,000 square miles of PV. Pretty much cover the northern half of Arizona with panels and call it done. Do a few more stations like that around the globe in strategic places and have unlimited power 24/7.
Re: (Score:2)
the political leadership is garbage, mainly because of gerrymandering
Any sufficiently large area with a sufficiently high proportion of smart people is immune to the effects of gerrymandering. Also applies to echo chambers like california.
Guess they were not serious about climate change (Score:4, Insightful)
No way are they going to be able to replace all of the energy lost from that plant from renewables. It's going to come from some other state, spewing coal and sulfur... or possibly they simply will increase the brownouts, but it's OK because all of the large cash cows have learned to have their own generation facilities for anything important.
Nuclear energy is the cheapest form above all the others, it's a shame to see the world fold this away even as they scream the Earth needs saving. You were saving it friend, and now you are letting it go.
Re:Guess they were not serious about climate chang (Score:5, Interesting)
You sure about that? Germany's economy is larger than CA but using renewables they have more energy than they can use.
Are YOU sure about that? GR 35% from renewables. (Score:3, Interesting)
Germany's economy is larger than CA but using renewables they have more energy than they can use.
Nope.
During brief times of year, that MAY be true, as with the headline you are thinking of where German power pricing was negative on Christmas day in December [businessinsider.com].
However most of the time Germans are importing power because they shut down all nuclear plants - they are currently producing about 35% of their power from renewables [cleanenergywire.org]
But all that importing and expensive renewable power facilities means that Germans pay s [ovoenergy.com]
Re:Are YOU sure about that? GR 35% from renewables (Score:5, Informative)
The numbeds for power prices are wrong.
I doubt anyone pays more than 25cents, on a remote north sea island, perhaps.
I pay 18 cents, and could drop that perhaps to 18 or 14 if I was not to lazy to switch provider.
The average is hardly above 22 cents.
kW/h prices are hardly relevant anyway, relevant is the total amount you pay per month or the percentage of your income.
And in that regard Germany is quite low. I pay 100Euro a month for electricity AND natural gas.
Re: (Score:3)
Germany is not importing power.
Tell it to your own energy charts which showed quite a bit of import happening over the weekend. That's the thing about having intermittent energy sources. Germany is a net energy exporter but relies heavily on imports to keep the lights on when there's no wind. You imported 25TWh Jan-Oct last year.
Get a damn clue, moron
Learn to internet.
Re:Are YOU sure about that? GR 35% from renewables (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at 2017 (expand the timeline to the year) - it sure does look like they export most of the time - with a few blips of import. Looking over other graphs I saw them import from France but on the *same* day they were exporting 10 times that amount to other countries - so end result.... a power grid working as designed to move power from one spot to another - that sometimes results in imports that wouldn't be needed if the country was in isolation?
Re: (Score:2)
It helps to understand the economics of what is going on here. Germany provides transit for electricity from France which is why they import and export at the same time. It's very true Germany is a net exporter, but none the less they were forced to import some 25TWh of electricity last year to keep the lights on during bad weather.
A lot of this has to do with a big power split between baseload and renewables with a large shortfall of peaking capacity in between. They are heavily reliant on interconnects fo
2 Faults... (Score:2, Informative)
Diablo Canyon Power Plant is in San Luis Obispo County, on the beach, and near two different faults. Given recent seismic events in California they may just be deciding it is past time the plants are removed as a major ecological hazard in the event of seismic activities or a Fukushima Daiichi grade Tsunami.
Given that the plants are almost 50 years old and pressurized water reactors, it seems like there are a half dozen individual reasons worthy of shutting it down, and legislators have thankfully chosen to
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You sure about that? Germany's economy is larger than CA but using renewables they have more energy than they can use.
Great example. Germany's renewable energy generation capabilities stands at 33%. Last Saturday it produced precisely 0% of Germany's consumption with import running full steam from France for some of that wonderful nuclear goodness. They have had more energy than they could use precisely 2 days last year, and then only because their energy mix is so heavily geared towards base load and intermittent load with few peaking plants in between.
And they get all that for the privilege of paying some of the highest
Re: (Score:2)
>they have more energy than they can use.
Is it expensive to add automatic load control to electric stations that reduce production?
For example, covers for electric batteries, blocking the wind turbines from rotating, blocking water turbines from rotating, stopping throwing coal into the furnace.
Serious question.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal usage in Germany is dropping year by year, idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to take a leaf out of our book, those falls are phenomenal for the UK. But the elephant in the room is now natural gas, it is a greenhouse gas and we need to plan to move away from it. I feel that it's a half-way house that politicians are not dealing with a way of moving out of.
Re: (Score:2)
Dispose indeed ... I find it curious how few people understand that renewables for Germany are a form of mercantilism.
1 Suppress internal consumption with high electricity cost
2 Subsidize internal industry with low electricity cost
3 WTO doesn't dare say a thing, because global warming
4 Profit
It only works because they raced to that particular scheme the fastest of course, otherwise everyone would just have high electricity costs and nothing else would change.
Re: (Score:2)
PS. I meant "high consumer electricity cost" and "low industrial electricity cost".
Re: (Score:2)
Why, don't you just come to Germany and read a newspaper about it?
And honestly, what has the WTO to say about german energy prices?
Why are you not happy! The more Audi or Porsche has to pay for energy the more expensive is the car in your country! Is that not good for you to compete with us?
Re: (Score:2)
Your wholesale prices, which Audi and Porsche pay are very low. That's why it's such a brilliant scheme.
As for why the WTO might intervene, they don't generally like industry subsidies unless specifically allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Russia is not actually in Europe.
Except for the European part.
State regulators decided? (Score:5, Informative)
Diablo canyon is down the road.
I've got nothing against nuclear. I toured the plant last year or the year before. Super impressive.
Anyway, it's my understanding that Diablo Canyon isn't being shut down by regulators so much as PG&E can't make a profit from it. Solar and Gas are too cheap for [heavily regulated] nuclear to be profitable.
Here's the story from 18 months ago:
http://beta.latimes.com/busine... [latimes.com]
News?
Re: (Score:2)
No problem (Score:5, Funny)
California can just outlaw air conditioning.
Re: (Score:2)
California can just outlaw air conditioning.
California could just have their law makers tarred and feathered too. But neither will realistically happen, likely because the former will result in the latter.
Shortsighted (Score:2)
Oh, Diablo Canyon 2, why can't you be more like Di (Score:2)
Oh, Diablo Canyon 2, why can't you be more like Diablo Canyon 1!
Re:Rolling blackouts (Score:4, Informative)
California -- the only US state to experience rolling blackouts due to incompetent "central planning". More to be coming soon...
Are you referring to the market manipulation conducted by the energy traders empowered in the Bush years?
"Burn baby burn!" I still remember that recording. It sounded like a callow frat boy getting his first lap dance. But he had reason -- hundreds of millions were sucked out of the state but the combination of a fire and rigging the electricity supply.
Once the "free market" was brought under proper regulation we have had no rolling blackouts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:He's referring to now (Score:5, Informative)
2. The site you reference is from the Institute for Energy Research, an organization started by Enron’s public policy analysis director. It is an advocacy organization and a fossil fuels lobbying organization. It has an agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
Would that link be pointing to the "Institute for Energy Research [wikipedia.org]" that appears to be a PowerPoint propaganda outlet for the big fossil fuel companies, and where there's a conspicuous lack of mention of renewables...?
Just checking.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, yes, that is a conflicting problem. If only there were renewables other than nuclear, that would deflate your false dichotomy fairly quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
The Big One is going to hit in two months.
California doesn't have big ones because it has lots of little one.
Oregon is the state with the big one looming. It's been building since the last magnitude 9 in 1700.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, California is due Real Soon Now (in human, not geologic, time) for a really big one on the Hayward fault (parallel to, and just across the bay from, the more famous, and more recently active, San Andreas).
I was looking at where it runs recently. It runs right under hospital row in Fremont - literally through the parking lot that separates my doctor's office building (and a surgery center) from the BART tracks. Right up the main driveway into the Kaiser medical complex.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of makes me second guess my decision to buy a $1M+ home in the bay area.
What kind of thought train does from 'hang on there're some big faultlines here and we all know big ones are due' to 'sure here's a million bucks let me put all my stuff on top of this faultline'
Re: (Score:3)
Buildings can withstand very large earthquakes without any major problems these days. Look at Japan. The problems are mostly in places that don't have regular large earthquakes, because people get complacent.
For example, if you live in Japan you arrange your stuff so that when the house shakes it doesn't get trashed. You put your TV on isolation pads, you don't use heavy pendant lights, tall bookcases are screwed in to the wall etc. That's why they get hit with a magnitude 7 or 8 every now and again and few
Re: (Score:3)
"California doesn't have big ones because it has lots of little one."
I can tell you don't live in California, especially southern California where there are four or five major fault lines. One goes, the others tend to resonate.
Hayward fault is due for a major slip soon, ditto Elsinore despite its reputation for being a relatively 'quiet' fault line. If they both go at roughly the same time, SoCal could be utterly fucked; depending upon where on the fault lines the quakes start, that might trigger Andreas, c
Re: (Score:2)
all you nuke apologists can go to hell, you arent scientists, you are ghouls.
Your suffering shall exist no longer; it shall be washed away in Atom's Glow, burned from you in the fire of his brilliance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Reprocessing spend fuel just produces more waste, roughly a factor of ten. :)
Get a dams clue
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be "Apes!"?