Southern California Ports at risk from San Onofre nuclear plant

A nuclear disaster at the San Onofre nuclear power plant could shut down both the Long Beach and Los Angeles ports.  Any cost benefit analysis of whether to restart San Onofre should include the economic impact of such a possibility.

According to the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association:

California’s ports serve as a major economic engine for the state and the nation.  In 2008, port facilities processed an estimated $500 billion of goods [$559  billion in 2011].  More than 40 percent of containerized imports enter the country through California ports, and nearly 30 percent of the country’s exports depart through them.  Their far-reaching economic contributions to the regional economy include:

    • The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach generate more than $10 billion in state and local tax revenues a year.
    • Businesses that receive imports or ship exports through the Port of Los Angeles generate about $12.1 billion and stimulate an additional $5.5 billion in local industry indirect sales.
    • Employees for businesses that receive imports or ship exports through the Port of Los Angeles spend about $4.1 billion in the region.
    • With more than $100 billion of cargo moving through the Port of Long Beach every year, foreign and domestic shippers and steamship companies spend more than $5 billion in the region.
    • More than $10 billion a year is spent on wholesale distribution services for goods imported through the Port of Long Beach.

California ports also have a significant nationwide impact:

  • More than three million jobs across the country are linked to California’s public ports.
  • The Port of Los Angeles generates $21.5 billion in federal tax revenue.
  • More than $32 billion a year is spent nationwide on wholesale distribution services for goods that come through the Port of Long Beach.
Click here to view Port of Los Angeles website.
Click here to view Port of Long Beach website.
Click here to view CA Dept. of Finance “Foreign Trade through California Ports“.

Top 25 U.S. Container Ports Map


The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.
–Albert Einstein
Leaders need to operate on the basis of facts, not wishful thinking.
–Madeliene Albright

About Donna Gilmore

This entry was posted in California Energy Commission, CPUC, Emergency Planning, Energy Options, NRC, nuclear power, Southern California Edison and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Southern California Ports at risk from San Onofre nuclear plant

  1. Julie Tully says:

    Every sea port Captain, business persona, minister, father and mother and polititain in those areas needs to be made aware and in no uncertain. John and Ken may be good one’s to shot it from the airwaves. Julie Tully, Mission Viejo

  2. CaptD says:

    Two new words to help describe what is happening at SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency) and many other places around the World:

    Nuclear Fix*

    The nuclear industries (aka nuclear fascists) policy of donating massive amounts of money to insure that all levels of Government support Nuclear Energy to protect their market share despite it’s enormous environmental RISK of yet another Fukushima, instead of supporting less expensive, NON RISKY Eco Friendly Solar energy.


    Nuclear Conflict of Interest**

    A Nuclear Conflict of Interest happens when elected Leaders give their support to the Nuclear Industry because they have received some form of Nuclear Payback without disclosing it to the public.

  3. CaptD says:

    The Quake was the REAL CAUSE of Fukushima’s tiple meltdowns, yet the MSM continues to cover over that fact using the Tsunami to protect the Nuclear Industry, because Fukushima PROVED that Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!

    The quake has caused serious damage to all of Japans reactors, that is why they remain off line despite what their Gov’t says…

    The SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency) is a perfect example of reactor design failure that is now being discussed in the MSM. (see the great technicial comments by ex Nuclear worker)

  4. CaptD says:

    What is the Cost to Decommission SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency)?

    I asked someone knowledgable (Nuclear Deep Throat) and here is what I learned:

    Based on my conversation with SONGS Manager, SCE has already charged Partially (75 %) Ratepayers for Decommisioning and Dismantling Units 2 & 3.

    According to NRC, Licensees may choose from three alternative decommissioning strategies: DECON, SAFSTOR, or ENTOMB.

    Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), soon after the nuclear facility closes, equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release of the property and termination of the NRC license.

    Under SAFSTOR, often considered “delayed DECON,” a nuclear facility is maintained and monitored in a condition that allows the radioactivity to decay; afterwards, it is dismantled and the property decontaminated.

    Under ENTOMB, radioactive contaminants are permanently encased on site in structurally sound material such as concrete and appropriately maintained and monitored until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting restricted release of the property. To date, no NRC-licensed facilities have requested this option.

    • CaptD says:

      Costs and Finance

      Prepayment, where money is deposited into a separate account to cover decommissioning costs even before the plant begins operation. This may be done in a number of ways but the funds cannot be withdrawn other than for decommissioning purposes.

      External sinking fund (Nuclear Power Levy): This is built up over the years from a percentage of the electricity rates charged to consumers. Proceeds are placed in a trust fund outside the utility’s control. This is the main US system, where sufficient funds are set aside during the reactor’s operating lifetime to cover the cost of decommissioning.

      Surety fund, letter of credit, or insurance purchased by the utility to guarantee that decommissioning costs will be covered even if the utility defaults.

      In the US, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. Utilities must then report regularly to the NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds. Ratepayers have been paying into a decommissioning fund since the 1980s. The fund is only examined publicly every three years. The most recent report in 2011 estimated it would take about $3.7 billion to decommission all three units at San Onofre.

      Edison and SDG & E combined had collected about $3.5 billion, though some of that may be needed to complete the decommissioning of Unit 1. There are also questions around how market forces have affected the value of the fund. Fund managers are petitioning currently to change the way they invest the money.

  5. CaptD says:

    Question: If the CPUC is really just looking out for SCE & SDG&E and the Gov. Brown is looking out for the CPUC; then who is looking out for all the California Ratepayers that are being charged $54 Million EVERY MONTH?

    Ask your local and State Leaders and find out if they are also part of the problem or if they want to become part of the CA solution to our radioactive pollution!

    It is beyond time for Gov. Brown to make sure that the CPUC demands that SCE & SDG&E issue refunds for the 54 MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH rate payers have and continue to pay for SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency)…

    SCE & SDG&E shareholders should N☢T profit on the backs of Rate payers!

  6. CaptD says:

    Regarding the tubes at SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency):

    No they are not the same types of tube, in fact SCE tried to “soup up” their 2 reactors to make more money, the new parts are not the same as the old units and those changes should have been disclosed to the NRC who were told instead that it was a”like for like” exchange! Then SCE bragged in a trade magazine that they got away with pulling one over on the NRC; but they are not laughing now, as rate payers are demanding not only a refund of the $65 million a month they are paying for N☢ Energy but the $600+ Million that the rebuild has cost to date.

    Expect to see many lawsuits since the amounts of money are HUGE…

  7. CaptD says:

    Germany is shuttering their Reactors so should CA:
    Great News: Future of fossil fuels: Back-up for renewables
    The two largest electricity utilities in Germany – E.ON and RWE – have declared they will build no more fossil fuel generation plants because they are not needed, challenging a widespread belief that the phasing out of nuclear in Europe’s most industrialised economy will require more coal-fired generation to be built.

    • CaptD says:

      Nuclear Reactors were left out of President Obama speech completely but does that mean that President Obama is thinking of going nuclear reactor free like Germany is now doing?

      His man thinks N☢T and he has full access to the DNC because he help put it on…

      Will President Obama AGAIN cave in to the Nuclear Industry like he did last term?

      The USA and especially CA cannot afford a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima!

      • CaptD says:

        Why is Washington DC pushing Nuclear considering the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster RISK?

        Exelon, “Obama’s Utility” Has Amazing Influence in the White House- Energy the “Chicago Way”

        How many of our elected Leaders OWE favors to the Nuclear Industry?
        I hope the Washington Post has the courage to ask them all and tell US what they find!

        I believe this is a “Nuclear Gate” story that includes most Leaders in both Parties…

  8. CaptD says:

    A must read article: The Nuclear Mafia Derails Democracy in Japan

    Is it happening in the USA and other Countries because of Nuclear Payback*?

    We know that Japanese waters are ever more radioactively polluted since Fukushima is still spewing radioactive pollution into the air and Pacific Ocean…


    Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.

  9. CaptD says:

    Sea contamination of 3946 days later VIDEO

    Look what is coming to the West Coast thanks to Fukushima’s radioactive pollution!

    See the great translation of this article written in German in the comments

    Why are we N☢T hearing anything about this in our own MSM…

  10. CaptD says:

    More problems for CA Waters:

    Oceanographer: Tsunami debris 800 miles from US — “Just so enormous that we just… it’s going to take everybody” — School buses, houses tearing up fishermen’s nets — Arrives next month? (VIDEO)
    Anchor: […] The worst is yet to come. Experts say northwest waters could be jammed with tsunami debris as soon as next month. 500,000 tons of it.

    Curtis Ebbesmeyer, Retired Oceanographer. “It’s going to be a terrible thing if it does start coming ashore… Just so enormous that we just… it’s going to take everybody.”

    Anchor: He says the debris is now 800 miles off our shores.

    He’s hearing from fishermen who’s had school buses and houses tear up nets.

    […] State relying on volunteers to pick up what they can.

  11. CaptD says:

    Here is another reason not to restart SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency):

    A new big solar panel farm in the works in California
    California utility PG&E continues to sign contracts to buy solar power from solar panel projects in California deserts. On Friday SunPower announced that it will build a 100 MW solar panel farm in Kings County, Calif., which will be enough power for 36,000 homes.

Leave a Reply to CaptD Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s