DFD

wap wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 12:54 pm

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 9:05 am http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html

Something wrong in the condenser. Not good.

15 times the original cost??

inflation's a bitch

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 12:59 pm

wap wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 12:54 pm

15 times the original cost??

inflation's a bitch

Brad. I found the actual footage of what happened at chernobyl.

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 9:05 am http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html

Something wrong in the condenser. Not good.

Fixed tubesheet design? If it was refurbished with new tubes which it would need to be from sitting for so long, possible that it's a roll leak. But who knows.

Johnny_P wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 1:45 pm

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 9:05 am http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html

Something wrong in the condenser. Not good.

Fixed tubesheet design? If it was refurbished with new tubes which it would need to be from sitting for so long, possible that it's a roll leak. But who knows.

yea who knows, who knows how long it sat, etc.

They usually just plug leaking tubes, even if they have to bring the reactor down to do so. Not sure why this is taking so long. So few deets in article.

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 1:57 pm

Johnny_P wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 1:45 pm

Fixed tubesheet design? If it was refurbished with new tubes which it would need to be from sitting for so long, possible that it's a roll leak. But who knows.

yea who knows, who knows how long it sat, etc.

They usually just plug leaking tubes, even if they have to bring the reactor down to do so. Not sure why this is taking so long. So few deets in article.

Yep. Just strange that it failed so quickly after being put in service. If it was refurbished I could see it as a roll leak, which would necessitate re-rolling that one tube and possibly a few surrounding it. If its the gasket between a tubesheet and the shell, well, you're in for some fun. Been a long time though, all that should be able to be done in just a few days. IDK about nuclear inspection and safety checks though.

This thread is a refreshing counterpoint to the "do you piss in the shower" poll.

Johnny_P wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 2:05 pm

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 1:57 pm

yea who knows, who knows how long it sat, etc.

They usually just plug leaking tubes, even if they have to bring the reactor down to do so. Not sure why this is taking so long. So few deets in article.

Yep. Just strange that it failed so quickly after being put in service. If it was refurbished I could see it as a roll leak, which would necessitate re-rolling that one tube and possibly a few surrounding it. If its the gasket between a tubesheet and the shell, well, you're in for some fun. Been a long time though, all that should be able to be done in just a few days. IDK about nuclear inspection and safety checks though.

well the mian condenser is a YUGE thing that you dont exactly pick out a catalog. the thing is the size of several city busses.

I imagine it was part of original install of plant bac in the day, and they dids test and pressure and vacuum...but shit happens as they say. Pointing fingers aint gonna help no one doe.

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 2:34 pm

Johnny_P wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 2:05 pm

Yep. Just strange that it failed so quickly after being put in service. If it was refurbished I could see it as a roll leak, which would necessitate re-rolling that one tube and possibly a few surrounding it. If its the gasket between a tubesheet and the shell, well, you're in for some fun. Been a long time though, all that should be able to be done in just a few days. IDK about nuclear inspection and safety checks though.

well the mian condenser is a YUGE thing that you dont exactly pick out a catalog. the thing is the size of several city busses.

I imagine it was part of original install of plant bac in the day, and they dids test and pressure and vacuum...but shit happens as they say. Pointing fingers aint gonna help no one doe.

Yarp

I imagine a power industry condenser is larger than any in my refinery

Johnny_P wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 2:43 pm

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 2:34 pm

well the mian condenser is a YUGE thing that you dont exactly pick out a catalog. the thing is the size of several city busses.

I imagine it was part of original install of plant bac in the day, and they dids test and pressure and vacuum...but shit happens as they say. Pointing fingers aint gonna help no one doe.

Yarp

I imagine a power industry condenser is larger than any in my refinery

2kMWTh is a shitload of heat to remove. And, you cant be sending near boiling water back into the lake/ocean/river.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/hanford ... /438227872

Damn, I had no idea that that was near me.

Earlier this morning, the Hanford Site—which is where the United States produced most of its plutonium for nuclear weapons, including the bomb dropped on Nagasaki—declared an emergency. Considering all the horrible stuff still contained within America’s most contaminated nuclear site, that did not sound good. But in a conversation with someone ordered to take cover, it turns out it might not be as bad as it sounds.

All personnel have been accounted for and there was no evidence of a radiological release, Destry Henderson, a Hanford Site spokesman said in a video posted on its Facebook page

SixSpeeder wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 1:55 pm http://www.king5.com/news/local/hanford ... /438227872

Damn, I had no idea that that was near me.

Earlier this morning, the Hanford Site—which is where the United States produced most of its plutonium for nuclear weapons, including the bomb dropped on Nagasaki—declared an emergency. Considering all the horrible stuff still contained within America’s most contaminated nuclear site, that did not sound good. But in a conversation with someone ordered to take cover, it turns out it might not be as bad as it sounds.

All personnel have been accounted for and there was no evidence of a radiological release, Destry Henderson, a Hanford Site spokesman said in a video posted on its Facebook page

Hanford is a gross place.

But they did really dumb shit like using the river water for direct cooling of the reactors used to make plutonium.

There is a commercial nuke on the site as well.

Nimby

SixSpeeder wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 2:02 pm Nimby

been in your back yard sine the 40's

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 2:05 pm

SixSpeeder wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 2:02 pm Nimby

been in your back yard sine the 40's

Yuck.

[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2017 6:06 pm TMI shutting down in 2019. They haven't been able to sell their power at a profitable rate in three years. Gas & heavily subsidized wind and solar claim another victim.

FIFY

[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2017 7:38 pm

Big Brain Bradley wrote:
FIFY

PA brah. Renewables only account for 4% of all generation. It's alllllll gas.

no doubt its a huge part, but electricity can go a lonnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggg way. The artificial cheapening of wind and solar is a factor. Just like NG is.

https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/n ... ummer.html

half the new ap 1000's in the USA just got canceled.

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:40 pm https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/n ... ummer.html

half the new ap 1000's in the USA just got canceled.

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:40 pm https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/n ... ummer.html

half the new ap 1000's in the USA just got canceled.

[user not found] wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:52 am

Big Brain Bradley wrote:https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/n ... ummer.html

half the new ap 1000's in the USA just got canceled.

So what's the root cause here? Yes the Toshiba/ Westinghouse bankruptcy is critical but have we gone TOO FAR with safety? Are we spending more than the realistic risk?

In my opinion the regulatory structure is mostly to blame. Low cost electricity from gas is not helping.

I mean is there such a thing as too safe? well when you have a system that fundamentally is not walkaway safe.... this is what you get. Checks and balances on checks and balances.

The Light water reactor is simply not the best design for commercial power. Sure it works, and sure we didn't necessarily know all this when we went down this path in the 50's.
BUT, now the whole regulatory structure is built around LWR's. Even considering a technology other that that is hugely expensive. I mean it's a 10+ year NRC approval process, and it aint free. The gov has really stifled innovation and investment here, and the worst part is they designed, tested, and proved out many of the alternative designs....and operated the test reactors safely for YEARS. But all we get is LWR's


I think new Pressurized water reactors are dead in the US due to the hugely more complex containment structions, steam generators, etc. No utility has ordered GE's 'new' ABWR (advanced boiling water reactor). That is likely because 'that's the kind that melted in fukushima'
The real talk is, if those reactors would have been PWR's we would have likely been in more serious shit. PWR's by design have a higher power density.....ie they melt down faster in an accident. Fukushima is a pretty much non event for everywhere on the planet except the area immediately around fukushima.

Yea I'm ok with going a bit overboard with regard to nuclear reactor safely regs.

wap wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:41 am Yea I'm ok with going a bit overboard with regard to nuclear reactor safely regs.

you shouldn't be, it designs you into a hole and you get stuck with old tech.

Newer designs are safer.

Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:51 am

wap wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:41 am Yea I'm ok with going a bit overboard with regard to nuclear reactor safely regs.

you shouldn't be, it designs you into a hole and you get stuck with old tech.

Newer designs are safer.

Sorta like the NHTSA not allowing the safer Audi laser headlights because they don't meet current requirements I guess?
Ok, fair enough. I'll amend my statement a bit:
I'm ok with going a bit overboard with regard to smart, logical, scientific nuclear reactor safety regs. Better?