FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed

Page 7 of 10  


Are you claiming that regulatory agencies are immune to manipulation, or just the NRC because it has special god-like status of some sort?
Also, any thoughts on this? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/nyregion/02nuke.html?ref=science&pagewanted=all
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Any agency is subject to manipulation. However, what you see as deep dark sinister motives and failures of the process are just part of everyday life. Like First Energy wanting to push out an inspection date. Anytime something new comes up, a judgement call has to be made as to how urgent or critical it is to act. And typically there is some give and take between the companies involved and the agencies. Unless you want to shut down all nukes or other regulated industries for full inspections immediately, every time something is found, regardless of how critical it may or may not be.
Suppose you were a regulator, and after reviewing some new problems, you determined that some items needed to be inspected that require shut downs. You think that these inspections need to be done in the next 6 months. Then company XYZ comes to you and explains that they have a planned shutdown coming in 7 months anyway and want the deadline extended to that date, which would save them considerable costs because they could do everything at once. What would you do?

Here's my thoughts. First, the NY Times is about as anti-nuke, anti business, and liberal a paper you will find, excluding of course the small commie ones. And even they state in that article:
"Entergy and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission emphasized that the Indian Point reactor could still have been shut down safely with either of two other backup systems, although operators generally avoid using both.
They also stressed that the supply pipe was quickly repaired after the leak was found and that the water itself, which is cleaner than tap water, posed no environmental threat. "
To which I would add, the above assumes that the first emergency cooling system was inopperative, which it was not. It merely had a leak in one of it's pipes. Kind of like water dripping from a leak in a water pipe going to a building fire sprinkler system, ie something that needs to be fixed, but doesn't mean the fire system isn't capable of working. So, actually you had 3 functioning emergency cooling systems.
So, why you would even bring this up is a mystery.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

... Oh, say it isn't so, Joe!!! I can't take any more...
After 5000 reactor-years of operation I find that all our design and operational efforts were in vain--the record of no fatalities or nuclear-related injuries had absolutely nothing to do with anything we did, it just happened in spite. I don't think I can go on...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your "5000 reactor-years" tactic is defective. Give that a bit more thought. If you come up with nothing, give it some more thought.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I said I was so devastated by your revelations I couldn't go on...therefore, it would seem unlikely to be able to plumb such depths as apparently are required.
But then again, since apparently it wasn't anything the regulators and/or by inference designers and operators did anyway since they were all either incompetent at best or dishonest and unethical at worst and the results have been obtained anyway, it just somehow doesn't seem as big an issue any longer. It'll all work out anyway apparently, corruption or no.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are other risks with these facilities, but they mostly affect the employees, not so much the general public:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44694?utm_source=infocus
:-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote: ...

I know--since the thread began we've now added _another_ (roughly) 5 operational reactor-years to the total.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

And, btw, in the face of apparently overwhelming odds of corruption and incompetence--I'm left wondering just how this keeps happening...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you impressed when people say "Per miles traveled , there are less accidents with airplanes than with cars."?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep. That is generally viewed by people in the transportation industry as the main metric one should use in discussing such things (although it usually per a much bigger number." Thus, the hooha as early as the 70s where everyone was touting how much the lower speed limits were saving lives until someone pointed out the number of lives lost was a function of a lot less driving and the rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles stayed pretty much the same. You don't like that metric, pick one.
Kurt (I KNEW that transportation planning class required for my BS would come in handy eventually) Ullman
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some people take into account that when a plane falls out of the sky, the chance of survival is pretty much zilch.
By the way, you said "viewed by people in the transportation industry".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your point being?

Should I assume there is a point buried in there somewhere?
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes. Anyone can come up with feel-good statistics, like "5000 reactor-years". However, the NYT article gives a hint as to why that statistic is hard to feel good about.
Before you type your response, keep in mind (AGAIN) that I am not opposed to nuclear power at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I read it. Yo have to have some metric. Otherwise we should just decide that everything might do something catastrophic so lets not do anything. NYT to be suggesting that becuase something might happen then it is something that should not be done. Everything, NYT notwithstanding, is a balance of risk.

I am having more and more trouble reconciling that with your statements.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Impressed?" No, not particularly.
It is simply one comparative measure of risk to alternative modes of travel on a macroscopic scale.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think the article suggests that there was something completely normal that was missed in terms of maintenance. However, I view it more as a learning experience. This might be similar to now knowing how long before ball joints would fail when they were first used in automobiles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

Then again, it might not be similar at all...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With that example, I'm giving the Indian Point operator the benefit of the doubt: A maintenance issue which nobody ever expected (even though owners of old homes know what happens to certain kinds of old pipes).
Or, maybe I'm wrong and the issue WAS known, but nothing was done at the appropriate time. I'm not capable of having faith in anyone but myself and a very short list of close acquaintances, so most of the time, I assume complacency on the part of regulators.
And why not make this assumption? We have plenty of examples from other industries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

...
When you've actually been through onsite inspection, testified in front ACRS or in other NRC hearings under oath, qualified for and passed SRO exam or any other actual piece of quantitative accomplishment in the area, _THEN_ I might take some heed.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your acronyms are fun and maybe even slightly impressive, but they don't change history. I know there's a certain type of person who loves to ignore history, and that type of person should not participate in discussions like these. Faith has no place in this type of discussion, nor does defensiveness stemming from pride in one's work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.