Hacker News Reader

Comment by kristopolous | Hacker News Reader

OK, I presumed that wikipedia article would be better. Anyway, there's dissenting opinions within the NRC that disagree with PG&E and allegations that the safety reports were done poorly.

Under renewed scrutiny, PG&E is due to release ground-shaking safety reports in 2017 for the renewal of its lease in 2024 after some newish (last 7 year) USGS surveys suggested there may be more threats and that the fault lines may have not been properly characterized.

Also there was a whistleblower case against PG&E in the early 2000s claiming that safety concerns were routinely minimized (think deep water horizon) and expressing great concern for the accuracy of the claims of safety. (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id...)

Anyway, there's serious safety concerns regarding this particular plant and that it could be the US Fukushima given its location and the fault line proximity.

View on HN

These are baseless associations. Perhaps Diablo Canyon and PG&E aren't flawless and honest, but you aren't establishing risk. Do you have some reason to believe there is a meltdown risk?

I don't really think a reactor being retired at 40 is the worst thing (though I'm sure it could be run longer), but have you spent as much time worrying about the oil refineries within miles of fault lines all throughout the state (think the numerous oil refinery explosions that occur regularly worldwide)? What about oil train explosions (think the other oil train explosions)?

People express serious concern for some of the most outlandish, obscure risks on any project if it somehow involves the word 'nuclear.' Every project. A lot more lives could be saved if the same effort was used to create real safety standards on oil, coal, and gas.

You've asked a lot of things here. Let me try to address them:

1. Do you have some reason to believe there is a meltdown risk?

No. I've read and heard from qualified people who do. I can't speak for them beyond saying they exist. I was trying to summarize their positions, but I probably missed some things.

2. Have you spent as much time worrying about the oil refineries within miles of fault lines all throughout the state?

Diablo canyon popped up on my radar due to a podcast (TUC radio) which had a 2-part series: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/77429 and http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/77528. I found the case for the shutdown of this specific site quite persuasive - you may be more skeptical...

3. What about oil train explosions?

No. Again, this is a specific case. The focus is on the safety of this one thing.

You can look at my comment history, I don't believe I'm an alarmist. The concerns of the suitability of the plant seemed valid outside of any anti-nuclear concern.

> but have you spent as much time worrying about the oil refineries within miles of fault lines all throughout the state

I share GPs concerns about Diablo Canyon and, yes, I've spent lots of time concerned about oil refineries in the state (both seismic and other issues) having spent several years living near several of them, and having a family member who worked in several of them. And about oil train safety, for some of the same reasons.

Actually, I've observed that there is a considerable overlap in California between people who are concerned with nuclear safety and those concerned with oil industry safety, and considerable overlap between the people unconcerned each of those, even though those unconcerned with nuclear safety will wave around things like oil (or coal or gas) industry safety when nuclear safety is raised (but generally not in any other context.)

And, in the particular case of PG&E, part of the reason for concern about them is they don't exactly have a spotless record of nonfeasance and malfeasance regarding gas infrastructure safety, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com