Talk:Diablo Canyon Power Plant/Archive 1

Archive 1

earthquake question

Has this building actually withstood any significant earthquakes? (22 Dec 2003 @ List of earthquakes for example) Ojw 12:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The web owner at this link gives a second hand report about it. He says "The epicenter of this magnitude 6.5 quake was about 35 miles north of the plant... there was very strong shaking at the plant site, but that the plant handled it well. It was not even necessary to reduce power or take the plant off-line... both units continued to run at full-power without a problem." He then goes on to say that the plant is designed to handle a quake twenty times stronger than that one. HGB 07:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

article move

I see this article has been moved from Diablo Canyon Power Plant to Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. While DCPP *is* a nuclear plant, the actual name of the plant is "Diablo Canyon Power Plant". See for this for example. HGB 01:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Try to find a permanent link and quote it so when the link goes out we still have the juice. Thanks. Geofferybard (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.diablocanyonpge.com/ NuclearEnergy (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about units

Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand an earthquake of .75 gs from four faults, including the nearby San Andreas and Hosgri faults.

What is gs? I've not heard of such a scale. I did find an article in Time, saying it was engineered for a Richter 6.75. I'll change it to that unless there's more info on gs. --skew-t 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, geeze, yes, go for it, change it to familiar units and Wiki-link the units. Good catch. KP Botany 03:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect that the original sentence should have read: Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand earthquake-induced acceleration of .75 g (7.355 ms^-2) from four faults, .... Acceleration at the site is more important than the richter magnitude of an earthquake which may be far away. Αργυριου (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine if it were the case, but then wikilink it to an in-depth explanation and include enough notation in the text that it can be understood. KP Botany 03:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The richter scale is no longer a valid unit of measure see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale the correct unit is just magnitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleNedd (talk • contribs) 00:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

simpsons/duke nukem references

this plant was referred to in the episode of the simpsons where lisa works with homer at the plant. He has a light up board of all the nuclear power plants in the us. the light for diablo canyon 1 goes out and he says something along the lines of "Diablo canyon 1, why can't you be more like diablo canyon number 2" haha i thought it was funny.

Also in the game Duke Nukem Forever, a lot of the gameplay takes place in diablo canyon after its been invaded by aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.36.133 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Making Uranium Angry Hot

The kelp intrusion numbers are wrong. Also, consider updating the page with info about the new SGs. Double also, consider updating the page with dry cask info. What happened to Charlie crew? Mrshaba (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondary cooling water from the Pacific?

That would probably be tertiary cooling water since PWRs don't take secondary water form the outside. --193.77.58.158 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unit 1 Operation License Expiration Date Inaccurate?

The article states: "Unit One is a 1,122 MWe pressurized water reactor supplied by Westinghouse. It went online on 2 November 1984 and is licensed to operate through 22 September 2024."

The U.S. Nuclear Regulation Commission states: "The operating license for Unit 1 was issued in November 1984 and it expires in September 2021." [1]

So is the Wiki page wrong or is the NRC page wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eheitzman (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 December 2008

Good question. It seems very odd that they'd license the reactor for only 37 years, instead of the normal 40. I've sent a comment to the NRC, so I'll probably hear back in a day or few.

—WWoods (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Coolant pump incident

I remember seeing in the news a few years back about an explosion involving the unit 2 coolant pump. If I remember correctly, the pump exploded, started a fire, was quickly extinguished, and the reactor was shut down. However, It didn't release any radiation. Anyone have have information on this? PaulCSX (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing

There are some disturbing things in the history of this nuclear power plant as can be seen on the timelines of an external website. I'm surprised only 1 item was mentioned in this article (mirror positioning error). Angry bee (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Earthquakes again

Neither the Time or Life articles (both from the 70's, and one excerpted on another site which may not be WP:RS) confirm the assertion in the lede that the plant is built to withstand a 7.25 magnitude quake. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited the text to match the source cited. Msalt (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Reversed Plans

There are two versions of the "reversed plans" story on this web page. The NYT and LAT stories support the more nuanced one; i'm going to delete the contradictory second account, which is supported only by a partisan web page showing no documentation. It's clearly not a reliable source.Msalt (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance

More detail on Dark Circle (film) would be helpful. Best to view the film yourself and BTW it is very cool. GeoBard^Rap 06:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Bad idea. This page is about geology. The other one is about a factory. Both should grow larger and more specialized. The template was predictable but it is really not helpful.GeoBard^Rap 00:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

PG & E asked the NRC not to renew their own license?

    From the article:

In April 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan, PG&E asked the NRC not to issue license renewals until PG&E can complete new seismic studies, which are expected to take at least three years.[19][20]

    These are the references:

19.

^ Upton, John (March 17, 2011). "Seismic Uncertainty at Diablo Canyon". The Bay Citizen. Retrieved 2011-04-19.

20.

^ Casselman, Ben; Stephen Power (April 12, 2011). "Diablo Plant Delays License Bid for Quake Study". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2011-04-19.

    -----

So the company that owns the plant requested that the NRC NOT issue liscense renewals to itself until the studies were completed? I take it perhaps the NRC can issue license renewals on their own purview whether the company that owns the plant requests one or not?

Perhaps a review of the references?

Perhaps the NRC can issue license renewals without requests for them probably due to the particular need for constant activity and maintenence required to maintain nuclear power plants.

Nonetheless, it just seems interesting, yes?

In conclusion, the poster of that quote, maybe a message or something to the poster for review, what goes on here anyways? Ha, ha, wikipedia, good luck with that.

Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.17.233 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

what generation plant is this?

Article doesn't say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.209.8 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

POV Check

A large and weighty amount of the content of this article is waiting towards anti-nuclear power movement in regards to the subject and towards anti-nuclear power movement in regards to the subject after 2011. This, IMHO, heavily weights the article to be very pro-anti-nuclear power movement, and very anti-nuclear power.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree this is a horribly biased and fear mongering article, I guess the writer was sponsored by the late solyndra… SHAMAN 04:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me it's mostly about the earthquake risk. I'm generally pro-nuclear, and building a plant on top of a fault seems like an "interesting" decision to me, one worthy of discussion. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad to me, either -- much better than last time I looked. Obviously the page does need ongoing monitoring for NPOV.

I don't see a substantial discussion of tsunami risk. The plant sits on the first marine terrace, within easy reach of any sizable tsunami wave from the south (which, fortunately, isn't too bad a direction). I'll try to remember to look for a substantial discussion of this risk, preferably written in English <G> (as opposed to bureaucratese or political cant). --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I also feel that the article is slanted to the antinuclear, perhaps by its overwhelming focus on earthquakes. Additionally the overall quality of the article is not good. The labor section, for instance, talks about "outages" and it's completely unclear what these refer to at the moment. There are poorly worded or ambiguous sections such the passage in the history section talking about the single set of plans and the lack of plan "reversal" for the second plant. What is a plan reversal? plan revision? Then another example from the post fukishima section, "Both parties to the dispute claim these developments as victories: Pacific Gas and Electric [42] as well as San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace" What does "to the dispute" mean? And what is the relevance or context for the San Luis Obispo mother for peace? Oh, now I see, they are the SLOMFP acronym that was used earlier without definition. Why are they referred to by the acronym earlier in this section and then later with their name written out. At first they seemed to be a third group. Overall this article needs heavy revision for clarity. I do not have the expertise for this plant as I came here to find out about it.

One year later, suggest we pull tags

I suggest we pull the tags, since what we have is only a few editors lobbying in favor of some unspecified changes to make the article less "antinuclear." I submit the past year has given the couple objectors sufficient time to itemize the sections and specific sentences they object to. As for me, the article appears to be in reasonable shape considering the controversial subject matter. I do agree with Tillman that the tsunami risk needs expansion. Jusdafax 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Do it. I chickened out at a public forum re Diablo's tsunami risk -- but think it's not too bad. I'll look around online sometime. Still need more factual mat'l -- I added an interesting fact(oid) that DCPP is ~10% of CA's generating cap'y in an average year. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC), who lives nearby

• Actually the recent attention (WSJ) to a (possible) terr. attack on a San Jose substation makes you wonder -- a few rocket-grenades from offshore would sure make a mess of DCPP's switchyard.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see that an IP user has re-added the tag with no edit summary and no discussion here, so I am going to remove it again, and ask for discussion per above. Jusdafax 19:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322021108/http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/04/16/1565807/anti-nuclear-rally-at-avila-beach.html to http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/04/16/1565807/anti-nuclear-rally-at-avila-beach.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002131207/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wayback machine not necessary; the URLs just changed slightly. Thanks for spotting it! -- Evilninja (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Environmental Impact and Broken Link

Hello!

I am new to Wikipedia and I wanted to add a couple of evaluations to this article. I am wondering if this page should include a section on the environmental impacts of Diablo Power Plant? It seems a bit incomplete without it. I also wanted to point out that the link for reference 16, the Life Magazine article, does not work. Ra635 (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606011227/http://www.data.scec.org/chrono_index/lompoc.html to http://www.data.scec.org/chrono_index/lompoc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325223711/http://www.ibew1245.com/ContractIndex/PT-002-01.htm to http://www.ibew1245.com/ContractIndex/PT-002-01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Should include discussion of Diablo secondary generation from Reservoirs

There should be mention of the secondary power generation from Diablo Canyon. In its initial conception, it was understood that, unlike fossil fuel generators, Nukes don't ramp up and down very fast. A nuclear pile really wants to turn on and remain on. It is a lot like a ship, in that it takes a little while to get up to speed and slowly comes to a stop. It doesn't just shut off as fossil burners do. It was recognized that The Diablo Canyon facility, ramped up to meet peak demands for a typical day, would be over-producing energy as demand precipitously fell every evening. this power would be wasted (relatively large amounts too) and actually involve some expense to shunt it off to prevent power surge problems on the grid.

The design of Diablo Canyon was developed such that it used this physical property of nuclear plants as a feature rather than a bug.

PG&E, long time owner/operator of hydro-generator facilities in The Sierra, had completed the Courtwright and Wishon reservoirs in 1958 by the placement of dams in series on Helms Creek so that Courtwright drained in Wishon, allowing the same water to generate power twice.

As part of the Diablo Canyon project these reservoirs were updated and a large pipe-way was tunneled between them with reversible turbines built into it. This allows PG&E to generate power from water draining from Courtwright into Wishon, during peak demand. While at night, when the nuclear plant is generating excess power, PG&E uses surfeit of power to reverse the turbines and pump water from Wishon back to Courtwright so that the water can be used to generate power again the next day. Theoretically, this water could be cycle again and agin indefinitely, generating power everyday.

Now, with Diablo Canyon slated to close, what is to become of this natural "battery?" Will it be left fallow, to degrade over time while PG&E raises its rates for consumers to ostensibly pay for the extra generating capacity it 'must' keep available for peak demand emergencies? Or does PG&E already plan to use this carbon free generation facility to store the renewable energy produced by our rooftops and wind turbines? Allowing it to be sold back to the ratepayers at 10-20 times the prices they paid us for it when the power was produced?

I have no citations for the information provided above but, was a student at Cal Poly SLO during the time when Diablo Canyon was debated, protested and constructed. As an engineering student, I had several good friends that worked at the power plant project. So, having first hand knowledge of the details of the project. In regards to the reservoir project, I had first gone camping in the area of the reservoirs when I was an adolescent, before college. I so enjoyed the area that I returned there on camping trips several times during my college days and afterward. Giving me first hand knowledge of the work performed there as well.

I am confident that the info can be found on PG&E public servers but, I have stolen time to write this narrative and can ill afford any more to this missive now.

Jgriffin41359 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)