San Onofre nuke owner seeks $64 millon for seismic study

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/edison-idUSN1220346520110412

(Reuters) - California utility Southern California Edison is seeking $64 million for seismic studies related to its San Onofre nuclear power plant.

The news comes a day after another of the state's utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric (PCG.N), said it asked U.S. nuclear regulators to delay processing an application to extend the life of its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant on the quake-prone California coast.

Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are the only two nuclear power plants in California.

In a statement on Tuesday, SCE said it would file a funding authorization request with the California Public Utilities Commission on April 15.

<more>

Turn them over to the public to be administered by a public utility like the Dept. of Water and Power and get the hell out of town before you too are liable for a melt-down. Then we can work on solar, wind and wave power and turn the nuke plants off forever. I think all utilities should be publicly owned anyway.

am I right with thinking that?

n/t

Are they saying they didn't bother with those studies before they built? Mr. Diablo is in the quake zone already, so WTF? I can't believe they were allowed to build without these studies being done prior...

:sarcasm: just in case its needed.

Are they saying they didn't bother with those studies before they built? Mr. Diablo is in the quake zone already, so WTF? I can't believe they were allowed to build without these studies being done prior...
================================

You are in ERROR in concluding that seismic studies were not done. Seismic studies
are REQUIRED by law before the nuclear plant obtains its license.

These are additional studies. It's the typical anti-nuke modus operandi.
There is an old saying that insanity is expecting a different answer the second time you
ask the exact same question. Perhaps the anti-nukes think that they laws of physics have
changed in the last 25 years since the original seismic studies were done.

There has been the discovery of a new, rather minor fault, that is closer to the plant
than the Hosgri fault. However, the Design Basis seismic event is still a slip on the
San Andreas.

However, that makes no difference to the anti-nukes. They figure the more roadblocks
that they can throw in front of PG&E the better, whether they end up holding or not.
The whole idea is to be an obstructionist and drive up the cost.

The problem is that they are driving up the cost, not for PG&E, but the California
rate payers.

The anti-nukes screwed over the electric customers of northern California two and a
half decades ago, and they are at it again.

PamW

Really, is that what you are pretending has been or can be done?

You say you work at a national lab.

Do you know the ethical obligations that accompany your job as an agent of the government?

Really, is that what you are pretending has been or can be done?

You say you work at a national lab.

Do you know the ethical obligations that accompany your job as an agent of the government?
============================================

Evidently you don't know what a seismic analysis is. The seismic analysis for a
nuclear power plant has absolutely nothing to do with forecasting the timing
of an earthquake.

No - geologists estimate the maximum severity of a potential quake based on the length
of the fault, its type, and other parameters.

Engineers then add a very healthy safety margin and estimate the ground acceleration. The
engineers then calculate the response of the components of the plant to the accelerations,
and determine if the plant can survive without damage. If need be, "snubbers", which are
very large viscous dampers or shock absorbers are added where motion is excessive and
needs to be controlled. That analysis is furnished to the NRC as part of the licensing
process.

Evidently you do not know that employees of national labs are not public
employees. The national labs are run by private contractors. They are known as
GOCO facilities - Government Owned, Contractor Operated. The contractors are either
universities, or private companies, or private companies that are mixtures of
private companies and universities.

Each lab has exactly one person that speaks for the Lab - the Director.

I'm posting on my own time, and on my own computer - so my employer is not involved.

PamW

Do you?

And they added "a very healthy safety margin" right?

All broke.


How many dozens of Criticality 1 items are in a plant? This doesn't mean engineers are bad guys. It merely brings up the fact that shit happens. Every engineer knows that. And when shit happens at a nuclear facility, it is mind-numbingly disruptive.

Set aside arguments about increased morbidity and mortality. Millions of lives are affected. Huge swaths of land excluded and in need of remediation. Can you even begin to estimate the financial toll?


Meanwhile...

Jeanne Hardebeck, a research geophycicist at the U.S. Geological Survey, discovered the 25 km-long Shoreline Fault in 2008. Diablo Canyon, which went online in 1985, was designed to address the threat of the Hosgri fault, nearly 5 km offshore. According to the plant's operator the new fault lies just 600 meters from the reactors.

By itself, the Shoreline fault is not considered capable of producing a major quake. "The important issue is whether the two faults can rupture together," Hardebeck tells Rolling Stone. A rupture beginning on the Shoreline Fault that continued on the Hosgri Fault could bring the maximum earth-shaking power of the larger fault directly to the nuclear facility. "We’ve certainly not ruled it out," Hardebeck says.

Diablo Canyon is engineered to withstand a 7.5 earthquake from the more distant Hosgri Fault — a design based on the USGS projections that that fault is likely to max out at a 7.3 magnitude temblor. (For comparison, the cripled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan was built to withstand a 7.9 quake, but got hit by a 9.0.) But Hardebeck cautions that the USGS estimate "is not a very precise number." While she has not calculated the margin of error, Hardebeck says "it’s certainly a few magnitude points of uncertainy — and possibly even more than that.

"A 7.7 on that fault would not be surprising to me," Hardebeck says.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/geologist-on-big-quake-risk-at-ca-nuke-plant-weve-not-ruled-it-out-20110316

TMI was a billion dollar accident - rate payers paid for it too..

Nuclear power = expensive suckage

yup

They worked out well

not

Seismic and tsunami risk assessments were conducted at Fukushima
------------------------

Japan's regulators are nothing like those of the USA.

In fact, in the late '70s at a meeting of the American Nuclear Society, I spoke
with a GE engineer who was assigned as a consultant to Tokyo Electric during the
building of Fukushima I - Unit 6.

That engineer was frustrated because he advised TEPCO not to locate the backup
diesel generators in the low elevations of the plant and to bury the fuel tanks.
Those are requirements by the NRC for US plants, and GE advises its foreign customers
to follow US regulations if their own nuclear regulations don't require it.

TEPCO ignored his advise. The Japanese regulators didn't require it.
TEPCO is paying for that lack of foresight now.

PamW

Care to discuss Davis Besse?



http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation/images.html

Reactor head hole
In March 2002, plant staff discovered that the boric acid that serves as the reactor coolant had leaked from cracked control rod drive mechanisms directly above the reactor and eaten through more than six inches<10> of the carbon steel reactor pressure vessel head over an area roughly the size of a football (see photo). This significant reactor head wastage left only 3/8 inch of stainless steel cladding holding back the high-pressure (~2500 psi) reactor coolant. A breach would have resulted in a loss-of-coolant accident, in which superheated, superpressurized reactor coolant could have jetted into the reactor's containment building and resulted in emergency safety procedures to protect from core damage or meltdown. Because of the location of the reactor head damage, such a jet of reactor coolant may have damaged adjacent control rod drive mechanisms, hampering or preventing reactor shut-down.As part of the system reviews following the accident, significant safety issues were identified with other critical plant components, including the following:
(1) the containment sump that allows the reactor coolant to be reclaimed and reinjected into the reactor;
(2) the high pressure injection pumps that would reinject such reclaimed reactor coolant;
(3) the emergency diesel generator system;
(4) the containment air coolers that would remove heat from the containment building;
(5) reactor coolant isolation valves; and
(6) the plant's electrical distribution system.

Under certain scenarios, a reactor rupture would have resulted in core meltdown and/or breach of containment and release of radioactive material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station


http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/davis-besse_retrospective_030303db.pdf



Download: The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2010 |
The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2010: Executive Summary |
Press Briefing on The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2010

http://ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/nrc-and-nuclear-power-2010.html

n/t

Tell us about the fire at Browns Ferry and how well thought out that design
=============================

Again the "greenies" don't know the difference between bad design and bad operations.

The problem at Browns Ferry wasn't a design problem.

The problem at Browns Ferry was someone using a candle as a leak detector in an
area with flammable materials. Some times you have to use flammable materials in
the construction of a facility. Your home is flammable - it's made of wooden 2x4s,
and there are flammable drapes and fabrics......

So you keep fire away from those flammable materials. Browns Ferry used some foam
as insulation. In concordance with fire codes, that flammable insulation had to be
covered with non-flammable material, and it was.

However, the Browns Ferry workers punched a hole through the material to run a new cable.
They were in the process of sealing up the seal between the cable and the surrounding wall.

The seal had to be air-tight. So to check, they used a candle to check if there was air
leakage near the flammable insulating material.

It's as if you were checking for leaks around your windows with a candle and caught the
drapes on fire. If that happened, whose fault is it?

Is it the fault of the architect who designed your house? NO!

Is it the fault of the interior decorator for using flammable drapes? NO

Then whose fault is it? It's YOUR fault for being stupid and careless.

The fault at Browns Ferry lies with the workers and their stupid candle.

The problem with the "greenies" is that they have an inability to assign blame properly.

In the above, they would blame the architect or the interior decorator. They blame the
design of Browns Ferry when the fault is not bad design; but bad operators

One can transparently see their motive for calling it bad design, because a bad design
implicates other plants of the same design. Bad design implicates other plants, whereas
bad operations implicates only the one.

The public just has to be able to discern the self-serving poor logic of the "greenies".

Put the blame where it belongs, not where "greenies" want it to go.

PamW

Was it Greenpeace? Or the nuclear industries PR arm, the NRC?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've noted, so far, errors in three statements you've made. One of them I corrected for you using the very article you selectively quoted.

And you've avoided my question. Instead of insulting me for not not knowing the difference between licensing of steam vs nuclear plants you've avoided telling me WHO licenses the steam plant and operators.

WHO licenses the steam plant and operators, Pam?

WHO licenses the steam plant and operators,
===========================================

Steam and boiler operators are licensed by the STATE

For example:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_get_a_Ohio_boiler_license

Here's a person that wants to get a license to operate a boiler
in the state of Ohio from the state of Ohio.

PamW

Rather, it says;

...boilers in federal prisons or nuclear power plants do not require an Ohio license because they fall under federal jurisdiction.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_get_a_Ohio_boiler_license#ixzz1Jim4arQn

So I'll ask again, rephrasing the question so as to assist you in getting to the point. Who licenses the steam plants in a nuclear facility?

in this case - fire

which they could not control

because of another design flaw

which casued the operators to lose control of the reactor for a significant period of time.

brownie logic is fataly flawed

yup

http://www.ccnr.org/browns_ferry.html

There were multiple design problems- those cables were vulnerable to a single failure
==========================

The insulation on cables is flammable, but those cables are in a place where there
shouldn't be any fire.

Just as in your home. You home isn't fire resistant, yet you live there. Why?

Because there isn't supposed to be any fire in your house that can ignite the materials.
If there is, then it is your fault for allowing it.

There is not supposed to be any fires in the area of those cables.

The plant workers broke those rules, and you want to illogically blame the design
on something that is clearly an operational failure.

Once again the anti-nukes can't point to the true source of fault even when you
spoon-feed them the answer.

PamW

And you're an engineer? Common sense would tell you what the Factory Mutual Engineering Association said. Let's quote them. The bolds and underlines are mine.

What will the fire mean for other nuclear plants? That depends on whether the NRC carries out the recommendation made by the Factory Mutual Engineering Association of Norwood, Massachusetts, the fire underwriters the NRC engaged as consultants:


"Conclusions and Recommendations:

"The original plant design did not adequately evaluate the fire hazards of grouped electrical cables in trays, grouped cable trays and materials of construction (wall sealants) in accordance with recognized industrial 'highly protected risk' criteria....

"It is obvious that vital electrical circuitry controlling critical safe shutdown functions and control of more than one production unit were located in an area where normal and redundant controls were susceptible to a single localized accident .... A re-evaluation should be made of the arrangement of important electrical circuitry and control systems, to establish that safe shutdown controls in the normal and redundant systems are routed in separated and adequately protected areas."


http://www.ccnr.org/browns_ferry.html#le

And you're an engineer?
=========================

NOPE - never claimed to be an engineer.

I'm a scientist - a physicist in particular.

PamW

Care to address the inaccuracies of your reporting that I have indicated
=======================

No inaccuracies that I can see. There are spurious "claims" of inaccuracies
which I don't recognize due to their own inaccuracies.

I really don't have time for your word games.

I have to go play with the real children.

PamW

I posted that the Factory Mutual Engineering Association determined that the, "...original plant design did not adequately evaluate the fire hazards of grouped electrical cables in trays, grouped cable trays and materials of construction (wall sealants) in accordance with recognized industrial 'highly protected risk' criteria....

AND you seemed to be insinuating I am a child. I'm OK with that. In fact, a child with an internet connection could make fast work out of debunking your claims.





Feel free to come back later and address your errors and omissions.

:rofl:

Because we have one poster here that proclaimed "I am a scientist!!111" - who later admitted he was not.

yup

nuclear power sucks

and that is your fault

yup

n/t

the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Amory Lovins quotes research done by R. Fountain at Cal State, Sacramento.

In Sacramento five tract developers offer, as standard equipment, house roofs that make solar electricity. (After a referendum shut down the troubled nuclear plant --Rancho Seco-- that had provided nearly half Sacramento’s power, investments in efficiency and new, diverse, and often de-centralized and renewable supplies replaced it reliably at lower cost. Moreover, university analysts found that five years’ investments in electric efficiency had boosted county economic output by $185 million and added 2,946 employee-years of net jobs.13

13 R. Fountain, “Economic Impact of SMUD Energy Efficiency Programs,” Real Estate & Land Use Institute, California State University, Sacramento, March 29, 2000 report to Sacramento Municipal Utility District, www.smud.org/info/reports/econ_impact/report2000.html. After the California power crisis --"crisis" created by friends of bush from Texas--, hydroelectric drought and stratospheric wholesale prices forced SMUD to raise its electricity prices on May 10, 2001, but they were still about one-third lower than neighboring PG&E’s.

--diane's comments bracketed with these--

Getting rid of Rancho Sucko (Seco) cost a lot, but was ultimately cost saving to people in
=================

None of the efficiencies quoted were contingent on the plant shutting down.

Evidently it didn't occur to you that the residents of Sacramento could have had
all those advantages of increasing efficiency, as well as having cheap power from
a nuclear reactor if they just let someone run it that knew how - like Duke Energy.

Here's a little history of the sordid Rancho Seco tale:

http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/RSECOT.HTM

Look at all those shutdowns for things like "loose parts in generator", and trouble
with "feedwater flow", and "turbine vibrations". It wasn't the reactor SMUD had
trouble running - it was the Rankine steam cycle plant. That's the part of a nuclear
plant that is the same in a fossil plant. If Rancho Seco had been a coal plant, SMUD
couldn't run it either - they were that bad.

However, the Rankine steam cycle is at the heart of most of the powerplants in the nation,
and there are people that know how to run it.

So it didn't occur to the "greenie logic" that the benefits of the nuclear plant and
the benefits of increased efficiency are not mutually exclusive.

Sacramento could have had both halves of the loaf instead of one.

PamW

Well then, how is the very existence of a firm named SMUD help to confirm the industry's integrity?
================================

SMUD isn't a firm or company name. SMUD is an acronym for Sacramento Municipal Utilities District.

"Greenies" are typically in favor of municipal utility districts in lieu of companies running
the power system. SMUD is the poster child of why municipal utility districts are a bad
idea.

"Greenies" usually want the solar farms and wind farms run by municipal utility districts instead
of private companies. The performance of SMUD, which can only be called dismal shows why
municipal power is a bad model.

SMUD decided to build a nuclear power plant for Sacramento back in the '60s. As with all nuclear
power plants, it received its share of protests and opposition from the anti-nukes. A private
company has to be able to weather the delays and lawsuits of the anti-nukes and convince the
grown-ups in the NRC that they can responsibly build and operate a nuclear power plant.

However, in the case of SMUD, the anti-nukes can run for seats on the board and sabotage the
nuclear power operation from the inside. As was apparent from my previous post, SMUD's operators
weren't up to the job of managing a nuclear plant. They couldn't even run the steam plant.

Rancho Seco has 3 "twins" sitting side by side as Units 1, 2, and 3 of the Oconee Nuclear power
plant in South Carolina operated by Duke Energy. It was proposed that SMUD hire Duke to run
Rancho Seco. Duke was so successful at running Rancho Seco's twins, the Oconee units; that Oconee
led the nuclear fleet for many years in terms of capacity factor.

Therefore, the anti-nukes on SMUD's board couldn't have that. They couldn't turn the plant over
to an outfit that knew how to run it. They wanted the plant to fail, and since they had
members of the SMUD board who were anti-nukes, they could make that failure a self-fulfilling
prophecy.

The anti-nukes won. The losers were the citizens of Sacramento who were ill-served.

PamW

Brownies

yup

Obviously not the board. What was the name of the firm that mishandled plant operations? What were their qualifications? Were they not licensed to be in the business of nuclear power plant operation? Who licensed them? What was the criteria?

And, yes, I saw your other post claiming that the "greenies" on the board prevented the proper operation of the plant. But you offered no independent confirmation.

Please provide us with substantiated information regarding the alleged sabotage of the proper operations and maintenance of nuclear plants by greeniacs on the SMUD Board.


--on edit--

Not only have you not substantiated your claim regarding an alleged torpedoing of Ranco Seco by a "greenie" on the board, now I'm providing information that seems to contradict your narrative.

Here's a link to, Reinventing electric utilities: competition, citizen action, and clean power

By Ed Smeloff, Peter Asmus

http://books.google.com/books?id=B9wjYKKd8nYC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=%22Rancho+Seco%22+plant+manager&source=bl&ots=0wzM6uLVew&sig=sAoG5nm1zcCFJEn01VpY44jhEas&hl=en&ei=U--pTf_GN8mY0QHG9bX5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22Rancho%20Seco%22%20plant%20manager&f=false

The top of page 41 says that ALL the SMUD board, including the plants "staunchest" supporter, told Duke to take a hike. The bottom of page 40 explains why.

Care to revise your attack?

Obviously not the board. What was the name of the firm that mishandled plant operations?
================================

There was no firm. SMUD hired its operators directly and managed the plant themselves.

There was no "firm" that mishandled the plant. SMUD didn't sub-contract the operation of
the plant - they managed the plant themselves with dismal results.

The Rancho Seco failure can't be blamed on a "firm" or a "company" since none were involved.

The SMUD board were the managers and their own employees were the operators.

PamW

And where is the information to bolster your claim that greenies nuked the plant?

Were these operators licensed, or hired off the street?
===========================================================

The reactor operators were licensed. They have to be. That's not problem.

The workers that maintained the steam plant don't have the same licensing requirements
as reactor operators. Besides, does it really take a license to know that you don't
leave loose parts lying around inside the generator after you service it?

http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/RSECOT.HTM

The chief anti-nuke opposed to Rancho Seco was Ed Smeloff, who was a SMUD board member:

http://www.nukefree.org/news/20YearsAfterSacramentoVotedtoShutRanchoSeco,SMUDHasDiversifiedEnergySources

Ed Smeloff and Peter Asmus wrote a book about their exploits closing Rancho Seco called:

"Reinventing electric utilities: competition, citizen action, and clean power"

They are evidently quite proud of what they accomplished and chronicled it for all to see.

PamW

And I referenced the Smeloff/Asmus book elsewhere on the thread where they note the SMUD board unanimously rejected Duke. That flies in the face of your assertion that the greens did it. And it's the third time 30 seconds of googling revealed the error of your argument. So far, it's the third correction you've not responded to.

Will you?

And I referenced the Smeloff/Asmus book elsewhere on the thread where they note the SMUD board unanimously rejected Duke.
=========================================

Your poor reading comprehension is at play again. Evidently you think that my argument
is that the greenies are solely to blame.

The interjection of the "sole" criterion is due to your poor reading comprehension.

The "greenies" were complicit in the failure of Rancho Seco is my point.

The fact that they had help from other members of the board that were not blatantly anti-nuke
is a non-sequitur.

Why did they reject Duke? Here was a company that had 3 units, each of which was a twin to
Rancho Seco, and Duke Energy was operating them successfully, and leading the nuclear fleet
in terms of capacity factor with those units.

SMUD was falling on its face in operating Rancho Seco.

What was wrong with the Duke deal? Was Duke charging too much of a fee?

If the difference is between a non-working plant and one that works; let Duke have
a generous fee. No time to get stingy when you are in a hole.

Proven experience shows that Duke could have operated Rancho Seco properly because
Duke was successfully operating her 3 twins.

SMUD voted to not avail themselves of the once company that could have saved them.
That was a disservice to the citizenry of Sacramento and the "greenie" members of
the SMUD board were complicit if not the sole driving force.

They later crow about it in print - and you still have doubts??

PamW

Note to Mods: I personally have no issue with letting PamW's posts to me violating rules stand for the record.

Pam, you just wrote;

Your poor reading comprehension is at play again. Evidently you think that my argument
is that the greenies are solely to blame.

In fact, you did argue greenies are to blame, equivocating by introducing the term "sole", and issuing another insult. Bolds and underlines are mine;

Therefore, the anti-nukes on SMUD's board couldn't have that. They couldn't turn the plant over
to an outfit that knew how to run it. They wanted the plant to fail, and since they had
members of the SMUD board who were anti-nukes, they could make that failure a self-fulfilling
prophecy.

The anti-nukes won.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=287510&mesg_id=288457

Pam, you just wrote;

Your poor reading comprehension is at play again. Evidently you think that my argument
is that the greenies are solely to blame.

In fact, you did argue greenies are to blame, equivocating by introducing the term "sole", and issuing another insult. Bolds and underlines are mine;
======================

Yes - I am arguing that the greenies are to blame - and as pointed out to you - there were
votes against Rancho Seco by the SMUD board that were unanimous - and that included the greenies.

You are the one that read in that my argument is that the greenies are "solely" to blame.

It's not just the greenies. SMUD had terrible management skills and evidently couldn't hire
a staff that was competent to run the plant.

The existence proof for the capability to properly run that particular model of Babcock & Wilcox
nuclear power plant is that her 3 twins at Oconee were successfully operated.

So Rancho Seco could have been operated successfully - it was not a "bad design".

SMUD incompetently managed the plant, and had help from greenies on the inside that wanted
the plant to fail.

We know about their exploits because they crowed about it in print. They took credit for it.

Now there's this feeble attempt at historical revisionism on DU...

PamW

and SMUD is better off today with their solar, wind and efficiency programs

sound greenie logic

yup

Rancho Sucko was a POS with an abysmal capacity factor -
================================

Did you even read the link I cited of Rancho Seco's history, and how
SMUD's operators left loose parts in the generator, and couldn't run the feedwater
system, and cooled the plant down too fast.... numerous operational errors.

It's as if your auto mechanic leaves some screws and nuts inside the cylinders of
the engine of your Ford Mustang. The screws and nuts driven by the piston tear up
the inside of the engine.

Good sound "greenie logic" is to call the Mustang a POS or Ford a lousy auto company.

"Greenie" logic doesn't have the sense to see that the fault lies with the mechanic
and not the car or auto company.

The worst indictment of "greenie" logic is that they can't even recognize their own
errors when the correct logic is "spoon-fed" to them.

PamW

wrong on all accounts

yup

Tell us how well Rancho Sucko worked out for SMUD customers
----------------------------------

In order to be efficient and cost effective, a nuclear power plant has to be run well.
That means having an operator that knows how to do preventative maintenance well.
SMUD didn't have the expertise to run that plant.

Duke Power owned an operated Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3. Each of those units are
the same as Rancho Seco. In the mid to late '80s, the Oconee units had some of the
best capacity factors in the industry. Oconee was one of the best run nuclear power
plants in the country. There were proposals to have Duke Power come in an operate
Rancho Seco under contract.

However, the SMUD board had anti-nukes on the Board that opposed Rancho Seco and wanted
it to fail. They blocked bringing in someone who knew how to operate the plant.
Finally, in the late '80s, the electorate of Sacramento which owned the plant voted to
shut it down.

Then they got stuck with all the costs of dismantling the plant. They also got hit
with a rate hike since PG&E was giving them a break on their electric rates in return
for using Rancho Seco as a backup to Diablo Canyon. SMUD defaulted on the condition
for the rate discount - so the rate payer got hit.

The equipment at Rancho Seco was just like that at Oconee and could have performed
as well if it was well managed.

The anti-nukes screwed the public again.

Thanks for reminding me of this - as another example of how the self-righteous
anti-nukes have screwed the public for their own parochial interests.

PamW

Just cause, you know, sometimes your research is a touch incomplete.


Still waiting for a response here, where you also played the "anti-nukers are the reason nukes have issues" card.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=282854&mesg_id=283790

economically, ecologically and defensively (imagine terrorists going after thousands of networked rooftop solar panels, wind towers, etc. versus attacking one large, centralized, vulnerable, toxic for thousands of years, nuclear power plant.

Private sector won't touch it.
Never did.

That is why our government had to step in years ago to cover it (corporate welfare) otherwise it is not a feasible source of power.

--

Private sector won't touch it.
Never did.

That is why our government had to step in years ago to cover it (corporate welfare) otherwise it is not a feasible source of power.
============================

You've been reading the anti-nuke propaganda. I've heard it all the time that insurance
companies won't insure nuclear power plants.. BLAH BLAH...

It's a misquoting of the Price-Anderson Act. Price Anderson requires nuclear reactor
owners to get insurance from commercial underwriters, i.e. insurance companies, and they do;
up to a certain level which was determined by a study by scientists at Brookhaven National
Lab of what the worst possible accident could be.

The anti-nukes weren't satisfied with that - they want to price nuclear power out of the market
by requiring excessive protection. Therefore, IF an accident happens that exceeds the
commercial insurance, the Government covers the overage, and then is reimbursed by the
nuclear industry.

Funny how the anti-nukes always omit the part about the Government being reimbursed.

PamW

Ultimately, the consumer.

Are all the evacuees and disrupted businesses going to be made whole by TEPCO? What happens when it happens here. Say Indian Point, not fifty miles from NYC.

Ultimately, the consumer.
============================

Of course - who else.

That's why they call us "consumers".

We are the ones that "consume" the product.

We have a chain of providers who each add their own bit of added value - until
we get to the "consumer". After the the "consumer" there is no more value.

We are the "consumers" We "consume" the product.

Therefore, all costs for making and providing that product should be paid by
the person that disposes of the product - namely the "consumer".

PamW

It is the consumer who is on the hook for the high price of nuclear facility failures.

Oh BTW - taxpayers will pay for the vast majority of the costs of disposing spent fuel - the Nuclear Waste Fund is woefully inadequate.

More Corporate Welfare for the nucular industry

yup

Oh BTW - taxpayers will pay for the vast majority of the costs of disposing spent fuel - the Nuclear Waste Fund is woefully inadequate.
=======================================

The Nuclear Waste Fund is running a positive balance. That is there has been more
money collected than has been spent. The NWF has collected about $35 Billion, spent
$10 Billion, and have a positive balance of $25 Billion:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/05/usa-nuclear-waste-idUSN0519035620100405

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN0928322320110309

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/25/energy-nuclear-idUSN2423031720100225

The nuclear industry doesn't get to decide how much it is to pay. Congress sets
the rate. Congress set the rate based on what DOE told them would be the best
estimate.

Once again we see the anti-nukes can't assign fault where it lies. If the tax,
and it is a tax levied by Congress, is too low, then it must be the industry's fault.
It couldn't be Congress' fault. After all, some of our friends are members of Congress...

PamW

Looks like the NWF is a few clams light

fail

yup

to make sure that an ordinary person doesn't have a clue what's going on. If you prevent people from understanding what's happening, you win the argument.

So if you have somebody who knows something about nuclear power just blow them out of the water; that way you keep people from learning anything and you win!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFAeFe08CZQ

I'm an "ordinary person" who's expanded knowledge of nuclear issues results from simply fact-checking the thread's nuclear expert, PamW.

I have documented here, and on another thread, the inaccuracies of some of here claims. She has yet to concede a single one.

So who's "prevent{ing} people from understanding what's happening", TG? A nuclear expert who spouts erroneous information and refuses to join in correcting the record, or the posters spending a moment to realize smoke is blowing as if from a cooling tower? :shrug:

you even have a special word for overstating criticism! Very entertaining.