Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (205700)	3/15/2011 2:55:05 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 362419

40 Year History of Opposition to Nuclear Power in California ...Northern California is the home of the first successful opposition to the promotion and development of commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. In the 1950's northern and central California's privately Owned utility company, PG&E was planning to be one of the giants in the new field of nuclear energy. It had helped design and build the Dresden I reactor in Illinois with a consortium of 5 major companies, including General Electric(GE). In conjunction with GE, it built the vallecitos nuclear complex south of San Francisco and then went it alone with their Humboldt reactor near Arcata. But their luck took a turn for the worse when they tried to build the world's largest nuclear facility 1000 feet from the fault that caused the 1906 earthquake. Yes, PG&E even said they could build a reactor in downtown San Francisco! In fact they were planning the construction of 63 reactors in California during the early 1960's, one every 25 miles along the coast They even planned to build a floating reactor!! The Bodega Bay Duck Pond When PG&E started pushing plans to build the reactors at Bodega Pay in 1958 a literal groundswell of opposition erupted during the next 6 years to stop them dead cold. The site they had chosen near the San Andreas Fault Zone was just a few miles from the epicenter of the Great San Francisco Quake where ground shifts of over 20 feet had occurred in 1906. PG&E's unethical plans to build the reactor is not new for this company, as they have a history of unfair tactics that goes back to the company's birth. Upon deciding that the Bodega Headlands would be an excellent site for the largest nuclear facility in the world, PG&E simply beat the state out in its plans to make the area a state park. The battle started in 1958 when the Santa Rosa Press Democrat published the first story on PG&E's plans. The company's ignored their own geologist, who had warned that the area was likely to be effected by strong shaking during a quake. Concerned citizens started getting involved as PG&E refused to acknowledge publicly that they were actually going to build nuclear reactors at the proposed site. The 1957 windscale accident in England, where a small reactor had burned out of control for more than a day, helped focus concerns about safety on this new idea of nuclear power. In 1961, after nearly 3 years of pushing their plan behind the scenes, PG&E announced plans to build the Atomic Park at the Bodega site. The ensuing battle and PG&E's nasty style started to backfire though as public concerns grew. Major opposition came from within the ranks of the Sierra Club, but the board refused to allow its active members the right to oppose the reactors on the issue of earthquakes. When it came out that PG&E had doctored fault maps of the site, all hell broke loose. One of PG&E's major claims at the time was that they could build reactors that would survive a great Earthguake. At one point they said that the reactors could survive a quake 50 per cent bigger than the O6' quake by floating the reactors on 3 feet of compressable material but when the public and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) got a close-up view of the devastation from the air of the quake in Alaska during the spring of 1964, support for the reactor complex dried up. Opponents had "infiltrated" the federal government and were pushing for closure. With the disclosure of the AEC's WASH 740 report, which documented potential dangers to the bay area residents in case of an accident, opposition finally reached all government levels. California governor Pat Brown asked that PG&E abandon the reactors. Two days later PG&E caved in and called the project off. The battle ended in 1964 with a $7 million duck pond as a living monunent to the future. (It is still there today) energy-net.org