HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Defective (new) nuke plan...

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 03:45 PM

Defective (new) nuke plant generators cost $610M in 2010; who should pay?

Nuclear analyst, Edison clash over San Onofre's next step
04/29/2012

A nuclear consultant for environmental group Friends of the Earth says defective new steam generators at the shut-down San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Clemente need to be replaced, not fixed.

"They need to order new ones and go back to Mitsubishi and force them to come up with new steam generators and eat the cost," Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Energy Education said during a visit Wednesday to the Surfrider Foundation in San Clemente. "The ratepayers in California shouldn't eat the cost. They've already paid for this thing once."

That would be a lot to swallow, considering the steam generators installed by Southern California Edison in 2010 cost more than $670 million. Gundersen said the generators can't be fixed, only replaced.
...

Edison shut down one of the plant's two nuclear reactors Jan. 31 after heated water leaked from a tube, releasing a small amount of radioactive gas. The other reactor already had been deactivated Jan. 9 for routine maintenance and refueling. Both reactors remain shut down to investigate the causes of premature wear to tubes in both and to inspect the tubes and make repairs.


FIX OR REPLACE?
Gundersen said plugging holes won't fix the problem, as tubes crowded close together will continue to flutter and hit one another. The tubes in the new steam generators are more densely packed than in the old generators, he said, because Edison installed 400 additional tubes in each generator to increase power generation. He called it a "stealth power increase."...


http://www.power-eng.com/news/2012/04/29/nuclear-analyst-edison-clash-over-san-onofre-s-next-step.html


The plant operator replaced the old design with a modified design that allows them to uprate the plant and make more money....

13 replies, 2838 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Defective (new) nuke plant generators cost $610M in 2010; who should pay? (Original post)
kristopher Apr 2012 OP
RobertEarl Apr 2012 #1
kristopher May 2012 #3
RobertEarl May 2012 #4
tularetom Apr 2012 #2
FBaggins May 2012 #5
kristopher May 2012 #6
FBaggins May 2012 #7
kristopher May 2012 #8
PamW May 2012 #11
PamW May 2012 #13
bananas May 2012 #9
kristopher May 2012 #12
PamW May 2012 #10

Response to kristopher (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 03:52 PM

1. This is how some people drive

 

If we just push harder on the pedal we can speed up and get there 10 seconds faster.

I can hardly believe that the NRC or anyone agreed that the greed to push harder on a decrepit and fragile nuke plant was really going to bring higher and faster profits. WTF is wrong with these people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #1)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:09 PM

3. "WTF is wrong with these people?"?

They believe in what they are doing as a good thing. They live in a world where the rules are defined by a set of values that prioritize things differently than you or I. When we discuss differences actions that have their root in different priorities about what is important, it takes a lot of effort to achieve a meeting of minds.

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a personís attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x264407

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #3)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:19 PM

4. That seems all too correct

 

Those who trust in their nukes are not folks who really want to understand their impacts. If they did they wouldn't put all their eggs in the nuke basket.

The technology has failed them tremendously and yet they cling to it as if it were their only hope.

TG most of us know better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2012, 04:05 PM

2. Who should pay?

Well, first of all the directors and managers of SCE will not be asked to pay a dime even though they made all the poor decisions that led up to this clusterfuck and should pay.

Either the taxpayers or ratepayers will wind up eating this cost. Why? because it always comes down to that. If the government fails to bail out Edison, the company will just pass the cost along to its customers in the form of rate increases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:35 PM

5. Pay what?

You actually think that because Arnie says that something needs to be replaces... that it's what really needs to happen?

He makes it up as he goes along.

They're going to plug up a couple (out of over 9,000) tubes on a unit designed to operate with several hundred plugged. They may decide to sue the manufacturer and replace it early, but they could also just derate the unit slightly some years in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #5)

Tue May 1, 2012, 05:04 PM

6. So you are saying the tube design was intended to fail in less than 2 years?

Because if it wasn't, that indicates that the decreased spacing between the tubes in order to shoehorn more tubes for a power uprate was ill-conceived.

Since there is no reason to think that the tubes that failed are uniquely prone to the effects of rubbing shoulders with their fellows, I'm not inclined to believe the people who have already demonstrated their willingness to put their profits above public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #6)

Tue May 1, 2012, 05:17 PM

7. Nope.

Because if it wasn't, that indicates that the decreased spacing between the tubes in order to shoehorn more tubes for a power uprate was ill-conceived

Really? That's the only possibility?

Since there is no reason to think that the tubes that failed are uniquely prone to the effects of rubbing shoulders with their fellows,

You mean... apart from identifying them as the only ones with any tube-to-tube wear?

I'm not inclined to believe the people who have already demonstrated their willingness to put their profits above public safety.

You actually think that's a public safety issue? You're buying Arnie's bs that if there was a leak in one of the tubes it would release radiation into the environment?

Even you should know better. All that would happen would be a small amount of radiation leaking from primary to secondary and then the reactor would have to shut down. It doesn't add any danger of overheating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #7)

Tue May 1, 2012, 06:44 PM

8. "You mean... apart from identifying them as the only ones with any tube-to-tube wear?"

Identified "as the only ones with any tube-to-tube wear" by the people who are on the hook for:
1) replacement cost that will probably be about $1 billion'
2) a shut-down lasting 2-3 years and the purchase of the replacement power required to satisfy their contractual obligations;
3) the potential permanent shutdown of their cash-cow as both public opinion and the economics of renewable power sources make the continuation of operations at that plant untenable.

Sure, Baggins, they obviously have every reason in the world to be forthcoming about potential future problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #8)

Wed May 2, 2012, 10:52 AM

11. How about the following..


Let's give it a year or so to see how this all gets sorted out.

Then which ever of the two FBaggins or kristopher is wrong; that party makes a public statement that they were wrong, that they fabricate information when they are clueless, and that they can't be relied upon for any meaningful information.

I know who I'd bet on to win.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #11)

Wed May 9, 2012, 11:16 AM

13. Looks like FBaggins is the WINNER!!!

It looks like FBaggins is the WINNER:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/1300-tubes-damaged-ailing-cal-reactors-16304993

A company statement said that as of Monday, 510 tubes had been plugged, or retired from use, in the Unit 2 reactor, and 807 tubes in its sister, Unit 3. Each of the generators has nearly 10,000 tubes, and the number retired is well within the limit allowed to continue operation.

I seriously doubt the LOSER will acknowledge this victory.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #7)

Tue May 1, 2012, 08:26 PM

9. The NRC says it's a safety issue, the generator building isn't sealed air-tight

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/San-Onofre-Small-Radiation-Leak-138502519.html

Because the building into which the gas leaked is not airtight, it is possible that a small amount of radioactivity escaped into the environment

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=8597912

NRC orders San Onofre nuclear units to remain shut down
Tuesday, March 27, 2012

SAN CLEMENTE, Calif. (KABC) -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ordered the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to remain shut down Tuesday, according to the NRC.

The agency released a statement Tuesday.

" 'This Confirmatory Action Letter formalizes commitments that Southern California Edison has made to ensure that the cause of the tube wear in both steam generators is understood and appropriately addressed in order to ensure safe operation,' NRC Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins said. 'Until we are satisfied that has been done, the plant will not be permitted to restart.' "

The order was given in the wake of ongoing safety concerns in two of the nuclear plant's reactors. Units 2 and 3 have been shut down for two months, the longest-ever at the station.

<snip>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Reply #9)

Fri May 4, 2012, 10:54 PM

12. Thank you.

My comment was based on what the action says about this particular corporate culture's attitude towards maintaining their facility in top shape. If they are inclined to push expenses down the road whenever they can then there is no reason to think that inclination would not overall have a serious long-tern cumulative effect on safety. It is part of what we saw at work in TEPCO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #7)

Wed May 2, 2012, 10:49 AM

10. Forgive those that know not of what they speak...

Really? That's the only possibility?
=============

Some here have trouble with simple math and probability, and you think that they know one whit about structural mechanics?

They wouldn't know a stress tensor from a stressed tenor.

I've taken the advice of the old adage which says not to cast pearls before swine.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread