California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›22 »

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

I think you're correct that Biden will strengthen the surveillance state more than Trump has, that's a good point.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2020 20:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:58

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Kenning posted:

Obviously not, decommissioning nuclear power plants is appropriate once they reach their useful lifespan. However, the fact that the nuclear fleet hasn't been replenished properly is indeed the result of misguided environmentalism, in part by aging hippies who conflate it with nuclear weapons production/testing and in part by affluent enviro-dipshits who've never seriously engaged the issue, and just feel like nuclear plants are scary, for some reason.

That's not why PG&E and SCE wanted to get out of the nuclear business. It is because they're a massive financial risk and SONGS is a perfect example. All it took was one shipping fuckup and the entire plant is financially ruined. And it is those financial concerns that drive PG&E and SCE not public approval or public interest.

Until profit is decoupled from generation we won't see utilities wanting to build nuclear regardless of public opinion, and the recent massive cost overruns at the few who have tried only further solidifies that reality.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2020 23:40

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

The Cubelodyte posted:

Is that what happened? A quick Googling didn�t yield me much, though I admit I�m beat from the heat and not fully coherent today.

Good question, that�s what I had heard initially and I hadn�t followed up, but looks like it was instead a design defect in the replacement steam generators:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-san-onofre-anniversary-2016jan30-htmlstory.html

quote:

The design team in question was a joint Edison-Mitsubishi effort, and federal nuclear regulators cited both parties for failures leading up to the San Onofre leak.

As the NRC put it, the problem was �the failure to verify the adequacy of the thermal-hydraulic and flow-induced vibration design of the San Onofre replacement steam generators, resulting in excessive and unexpected steam generator tube wear.�

Edison officials say they relied on Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for advice about whether a federal license amendment was required.

�Had MHI told SCE that a design change was needed to make the RSG�s safe, SCE would have approved it, even if that change would have required a license amendment,� Brown wrote. �MHI repeatedly told SCE that the design MHI proposed was safe, and the design did not require a license amendment.�

Mitsubishi did not respond to a request for comment for this story. The company in the past has said it could not have anticipated the unprecedented type of tube vibrations that occurred in exceptionally large generators commissioned by Edison.

The NRC has since confirmed that no license amendment was required for the San Onofre steam generators, and in fact, the issue may be irrelevant to the plant failure.

�The San Onofre steam generator tube degradation occurred as a result of issues introduced during the design phase that were unrecognized and, thus, were not considered in the licensee�s 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation,� the agency said in a March 2015 �lessons learned� memo about San Onofre.

Whether the amendment was required or not, investigators have probed whether the project would have received approval after undergoing such a review.

Elmo Collins, the former federal administrator who oversaw San Onofre until March 2013, told the NRC�s inspector general for an October 2014 report that if the license amendment review had been conducted, it is unlikely the steam generators would have been approved.

�The steam generators as designed were basically unlicensable,� he said. �We wouldn�t approve them.�

He said inspectors conducting a review would have noticed, in particular, the high �void fraction� of 95 percent when no other plant in the industry was above 90 percent.

�Some reviewer would have said this as an outlier,� Collins told investigators, �and we need to understand that.�

The corporate blame game on who�s fault it is, but it�s the same financial problem where there are a bunch of ways the plant can be financially ruined if a part of it is damaged or fails.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2020 06:07

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Kenning posted:

This is obviously a problem, but the fact that nuclear in principle can supply our needs right now, and solar/wind in principle could supply our needs at some point in the future as development continues is worth considering, since if we don't have something right now what we have is coal.

But reality is the opposite isn�t it? We are already clearly able to build renewables right now while it is nuclear that is feasible at some point in the future as development continues.

You can blame political undevelopment for stalling nuclear, but the reality is we�re adding more renewables on the grid (even on a MWh basis) than nuclear. And it�s worse on a cost basis where we�ve spent billions on new nuclear that won�t even get finished, while costs for wins, solar, and batteries all have been declining.

Like I�m all in favor of nuclear but in the meanwhile while we make it feasible again we better keep building renewables.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2020 06:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›22 »