billvon 3,076
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
Quote>No, not pay for, yes, end subisidies . . . .
That will, without question, end nuclear power in the US. Which is fine if that's your goal, but it sounds like it's not. The ONLY way nuclear can survive in the US is with massive subsidies.
>AND reduce the stupid exessive regulatory and licensing needed to build one
Given nuclear's track record in this country, removing regulatory oversight on the power plants would be a bit of a mistake.
San Onofre was recently scrammed after a heat exchanger let loose. Turns out that they replaced the original heat exchanger with a different design intended to increase total power a bit. Didn't do enough analysis on it, and the geometry of the design was such that the heat exchanger tubes were smacking into each other until they actually wore all the way through - thus venting reactor coolant into the secondary (external) loop.
That doesn't sound like an industry that needs less regulation. And given that it could make large parts of Orange County uninhabitable if there was a big problem, it's probably not something we should just roll the dice on.
Note that I did not say end but rather reduce.
And if the bs regulations were removed (again, not saying end oversite) then IMO these plants could be built without gov subsidies
Of course they would need to be allowed to get a decent rate of return (for those that are rate regulated) as well
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,076
>Note that I did not say end but rather reduce.
Which regulations would you "reduce?"
>And if the bs regulations were removed (again, not saying end oversite)
>then IMO these plants could be built without gov subsidies
That's not the problem. The biggest problem is liability. No insurance company in the world would insure a private company that might someday accidentally destroy Orange County. So the US has the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, an insurance policy that covers catastrophic accidents.
Removing that governmental coverage would end nuclear power in the US.
Which regulations would you "reduce?"
>And if the bs regulations were removed (again, not saying end oversite)
>then IMO these plants could be built without gov subsidies
That's not the problem. The biggest problem is liability. No insurance company in the world would insure a private company that might someday accidentally destroy Orange County. So the US has the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, an insurance policy that covers catastrophic accidents.
Removing that governmental coverage would end nuclear power in the US.
brenthutch 444
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>If Obama has spent the billions of dollars elsewhere, perhaps on bridges,
>roads and schools, we would have hundreds of thousands of jobs.
He did that as well. In fact I believe conservatives recently attacked him for doing just that. I am sure you see no problems with both condemning him for doing it and crucifying him for not doing it.
>. http://hotair.com/...green-tech-ventures/
Your posts might have a bit more credibility if you didn't base them on "the leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your posts might have a bit more credibility if you read more carefully and see that it is a piece by CBS, not a blog.
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>If Obama has spent the billions of dollars elsewhere, perhaps on bridges,
>roads and schools, we would have hundreds of thousands of jobs.
He did that as well. In fact I believe conservatives recently attacked him for doing just that. I am sure you see no problems with both condemning him for doing it and crucifying him for not doing it.
>. http://hotair.com/...green-tech-ventures/
Your posts might have a bit more credibility if you didn't base them on "the leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your posts might have a bit more credibility if you read more carefully and see that it is a piece by CBS, not a blog.
billvon 3,076
>Your posts might have a bit more credibility if you read more carefully
>and see that it is a piece by CBS, not a blog.
Perhaps if you post that three times you'll feel a little better?
>and see that it is a piece by CBS, not a blog.
Perhaps if you post that three times you'll feel a little better?
brenthutch 444
That one must have stung!
billvon>No, not pay for, yes, end subisidies . . . .
That will, without question, end nuclear power in the US. Which is fine if that's your goal, but it sounds like it's not. The ONLY way nuclear can survive in the US is with massive subsidies.
>AND reduce the stupid exessive regulatory and licensing needed to build one
Given nuclear's track record in this country, removing regulatory oversight on the power plants would be a bit of a mistake.
San Onofre was recently scrammed after a heat exchanger let loose. Turns out that they replaced the original heat exchanger with a different design intended to increase total power a bit. Didn't do enough analysis on it, and the geometry of the design was such that the heat exchanger tubes were smacking into each other until they actually wore all the way through - thus venting reactor coolant into the secondary (external) loop.
That doesn't sound like an industry that needs less regulation. And given that it could make large parts of Orange County uninhabitable if there was a big problem, it's probably not something we should just roll the dice on.
It's just been announced that San Onofre is being shuttered.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,076
Well that sucks. I was hoping they could find a way to replace the heat exchanger without shutting down.
What I'm thinking is that they couldn't come up with the money to replace it. The release indicated that there was too much uncertainty for investors. I think that means nobody would loan the money for it and there wasn't enough cash reserve. Considering that ratepayers are still paying for the new exchangers, asking for a rate increase is not politically viable.
I'm wondering what the future will hold with the site...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
I'm wondering what the future will hold with the site...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,076
>What I'm thinking is that they couldn't come up with the money to replace it.
What I am wondering is why they didn't go back to Mitsubishi and say "hey, your steam generator broke. You know, the one we paid you hundreds of millions for. Turns out there was a design flaw. Are you going to replace it or what?"
What I am wondering is why they didn't go back to Mitsubishi and say "hey, your steam generator broke. You know, the one we paid you hundreds of millions for. Turns out there was a design flaw. Are you going to replace it or what?"
billvon>No, not pay for, yes, end subisidies . . . .
That will, without question, end nuclear power in the US. Which is fine if that's your goal, but it sounds like it's not. The ONLY way nuclear can survive in the US is with massive subsidies.
>AND reduce the stupid exessive regulatory and licensing needed to build one
Given nuclear's track record in this country, removing regulatory oversight on the power plants would be a bit of a mistake.
San Onofre was recently scrammed after a heat exchanger let loose. Turns out that they replaced the original heat exchanger with a different design intended to increase total power a bit. Didn't do enough analysis on it, and the geometry of the design was such that the heat exchanger tubes were smacking into each other until they actually wore all the way through - thus venting reactor coolant into the secondary (external) loop.
That doesn't sound like an industry that needs less regulation. And given that it could make large parts of Orange County uninhabitable if there was a big problem, it's probably not something we should just roll the dice on.
Three Mile Island is having similar tube-tube wear problems with their new steam generators.
[Reply]What I am wondering is why they didn't go back to Mitsubishi and say "hey, your steam generator broke. You know, the one we paid you hundreds of millions for. Turns out there was a design flaw. Are you going to replace it or what?"
They probably did. And Mitsubishi is probably saying, "not a design flaw but negligent installation." So there will be a lawsuit including Mitsubishi, every architect, engineering firm, mettalurgist and fabricator, distributor, contractor, subcontractor and accountant involved in it.
Maybe it'll all be worked out by 2025...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
That will, without question, end nuclear power in the US. Which is fine if that's your goal, but it sounds like it's not. The ONLY way nuclear can survive in the US is with massive subsidies.
>AND reduce the stupid exessive regulatory and licensing needed to build one
Given nuclear's track record in this country, removing regulatory oversight on the power plants would be a bit of a mistake.
San Onofre was recently scrammed after a heat exchanger let loose. Turns out that they replaced the original heat exchanger with a different design intended to increase total power a bit. Didn't do enough analysis on it, and the geometry of the design was such that the heat exchanger tubes were smacking into each other until they actually wore all the way through - thus venting reactor coolant into the secondary (external) loop.
That doesn't sound like an industry that needs less regulation. And given that it could make large parts of Orange County uninhabitable if there was a big problem, it's probably not something we should just roll the dice on.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites