[blackshoe]

The Cristianitos fault line, according to the wikipedia article on this plant, is "considered inactive". Also, from the same article:

Quote

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at San Onofre was 1 in 58,824, according to an NRC study published in August 2010.

The "partially in the ocean" bit refers, I guess, to the fact that San Onofre has no cooling towers. Instead, ocean water is used to cool the reactors. So the piping for this "tertiary cooling system" is "in the ocean". There are in fact three cooling loops, only one of which comes in contact with the reactor and thus contains radioactive water.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on 2011-December-18, 19:01, said:

But you are missing the reality, which is that most of the worlds population lives on the coast lines where the weather is more temerate and suitable for agriculture. Think of the interior of asia or australia. Even the US has a jolly great desert in the middle of its continental area, and the US has reasonable temperate weather for a landmass that size. Also. Much water is effectively from rain water from the interior via rivers. If you need less river water at the coast lines you can take more out higher up the rivers. Also, moving electricity is not that wasteful.

Quote

Much water is effectively from rain water from the interior via rivers. If you need less river water at the coast lines you can take more out higher up the rivers.

I don't think this is remotely feasible: Let me try the sales pitch!

So, here's the plan...

Out of the goodness of our heart, we're going to scrap all of the existing water compacts that have been around for the last hundred years or so.
We're going to let the upstream states draw a lot more water from the rivers.
To make up for the lost water, we're going to place a nuke plant in our backyard!

Oh, BTW, all the critters that have gotten used to living in said river...
Sucks to be them cause its going bye bye...

Here in the US, we haven't been able to construct a nuke plant in 35 years.
Even if the benefits are localized, its still impossible to get over the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) issues.
I can't begin to image this when the primary benefits are for a fairly remote geography.

Quote

Also, moving electricity is not that wasteful.

6.5% or so...

[phil_20686]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-19, 11:36, said:

So, here's the plan...

Out of the goodness of our heart, we're going to scrap all of the existing water compacts that have been around for the last hundred years or so.
We're going to let the upstream states draw a lot more water from the rivers.
To make up for the lost water, we're going to place a nuke plant in our backyard!

No its easy, you sell your water rights to the other state/country, to help offset the cost of building a nuclear power plant. . Or you make them agree to provide the electricity. International diplomoacy along this level works pretty well among developed nations. Should be routine among municipalities. For example, Egypt Sudan and others are part of the Nile Basin Initiative, to ration use of water from the nile river. In these negotiations, when water is a vaaluable resource, you must be able to extract a high price for needling less than you have historically used. Markets in action.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on 2011-December-19, 21:04, said:

No its easy, you sell your water rights to the other state/country, to help offset the cost of building a nuclear power plant. .

The economist in me agrees completely.
The political science student thinks you are on crack.