Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Thu 05 Jan 2017, 19:44:22

U.S. plans to name nuclear reactors using potentially flawed Areva parts

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission told French nuclear power company Areva SA. it will publish as early as next week the names of U.S. reactors that contain components from its Le Creusot forge that is suspected of falsifying documents despite the company's claim that the information is proprietary.

The written notice, dated Dec. 30 and seen by Reuters on Thursday, underscores rising tension between the U.S. nuclear regulatory body and Areva after French authorities opened an investigation last month into decades of alleged forgery relating to the quality of parts produced at the forge and used in power plants around the world.

Areva sent the names of at least nine U.S. reactors with parts from Le Creusot on Dec. 15, but asked the agency not to name them due to proprietary business concerns.

Too late.

... Florida power company NextEra Energy Inc (NEE.N) said it had one reactor with one component from the Le Creusot forge but did not name the part or the reactor. NextEra owns eight reactors - four in Florida, two in Wisconsin, one in New Hampshire and one in Iowa.

Minnesota power company Xcel Energy Inc (XEL.N) said some components of the two reactor vessels at its Prairie Island plant were made at Le Creusot in the early 1970s.

In December, Dominion Resources Inc (D.N) said that its Millstone station in Connecticut has had a pressurizer from Le Creusot in service since 2006.

In addition, FirstEnergy Corp (FE.N) said its Beaver Valley reactor in Pennsylvania has steam generators and reactor vessel heads manufactured by Spain's Equipos Nucleares SA, or ENSA, which may contain some components from Le Creusot. The parts were installed in Unit 1 but will not be installed in Unit 2 for a few years.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Thu 05 Jan 2017, 20:14:10

Sounds like the plot to The China Syndrome. Faulty metallurgy covered up by falsified evidence allows substandard parts into a nuclear power plant. Then the company responsible wants to hush up the whole thing.

During an inspection of the plant before it is brought back online, Godell discovers a puddle of radioactive water that has apparently leaked from a pump. Godell investigates further and finds that a series of radiographs supposedly taken to verify the integrity of welds on the leaking pump are identical - the contractor simply kept submitting the same picture.

He tries to bring the evidence to plant manager Herman DeYoung (Brady), who brushes off Godell as paranoid and states that new radiographs would cost at least $20 million. Godell confronts D.B. Royce, an employee of Foster-Sullivan, the construction company who built the plant, as it was Royce who signed off on the welding radiographs. Godell threatens to go to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but Royce threatens him; and later a pair of goons from Foster-Sullivan parks outside his house.
The China Syndrome
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4012
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby pstarr » Thu 05 Jan 2017, 20:33:13

Wasn't the so-called 'China Syndrome' merely a fictional movie theme? I didn't really happen, you know.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26285
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 05 Jan 2017, 21:05:29

pstarr wrote:Wasn't the so-called 'China Syndrome' merely a fictional movie theme? I didn't really happen, you know.



Even in that stupid movie the safeties kicked in and prevented a meltdown.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4106
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Fri 06 Jan 2017, 15:07:08

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant to Close by 2021

The Indian Point nuclear plant will shut down by April 2021 under an agreement New York State reached this week with Entergy, the utility company that owns the facility in Westchester County, according to a person with direct knowledge of the deal.

Under the terms of the agreement, one of the two nuclear reactors at Indian Point will permanently cease operations by April 2020, while the other must be closed by April 2021. The shutdown has long been a priority for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who — though supportive of upstate nuclear plants — has repeatedly called for shutting down Indian Point, which he says poses too great a risk to New York City, less than 30 miles to the south.

“Why you would allow Indian Point to continue to operate defies common sense, planning and basic sanity,” Mr. Cuomo told reporters in June.

Entergy has agreed to make repairs and safety upgrades, including transferring spent fuel to what the state says is a safer storage system.

From the Executive Summary: Review of Emergency Preparedness of Areas Adjacent to Indian Point and Millstone
1 - The plans are built on compliance with regulations, rather than a strategy that leads to structures and systems to protect from radiation exposure.

2 - The plans appear based on the premise that people will comply with official government directions rather than acting in accordance with what they perceive to be their best interests.

3 - The plans do not consider the possible additional ramifications of a terrorist caused event.

4 - The plans do not consider the reality and impacts of spontaneous evacuation.

5 – Response exercises designed to test the plans are of limited use in identifying inadequacies and improving subsequent responses.


These planning problems are more serious because of the large population concentrations near the Indian Point plant, and when the effectiveness of the plan requires a degree of public and responder confidence that is largely absent.

... it is our conclusion that the current radiological response system and capabilities are not adequate to overcome their combined weight and protect the people from an unacceptable dose of radiation in the event of a release from Indian Point. We believe this is especially true if the release is faster or larger than the typical exercise scenario.

Plume information is currently not available through operable automation systems that can show the State and counties the precise areas that are at risk.

Image

298,013 residents live in the 10-mile plume emergency planning zone.
972,748 residents live in the 20-mile plume emergency planning zone.
2,819,946 residents live in the 30-mile plume emergency planning zone.
7,150,492 residents live in the 40-mile plume emergency planning zone
11,782,401 residents live in the 50-mile plume emergency planning zone.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby wineberry » Sun 08 Jan 2017, 09:17:55

What will replace Indian Point's energy, natural gas? Are we still using belchers in the NE and getting nat gas from abroad?
wineberry
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun 09 Mar 2014, 20:13:28

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 20 Jan 2017, 05:20:12

Governor Cuomo of New York is making a lot of enemies in Westchester County with his unilateral anti-nuclear stance on Indian Point power plant.

5 minute press conference,

https://vimeo.com/198407931
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14033
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 21 Jan 2017, 11:49:02

wineberry - Some details on the NY situation: they may already be working on a replacement for that nuke power: take it away from other consumers. And NY doesn't even has to buy any of the infrastructure: it could sign long term supply contracts.

{Revi: take note}

Currently about as much NY electricity comes from nukes as NG. Hydro delivers about 60% of those amounts. If I were the NY gov I would look closely at TransCanada's planned sale of $10 BILLION of electricity generating infrastructure with much of it from hydro, wind and solar. And thanks to the Quebec Interconnection Grid the state of New York has access to alt energy produced in Canada. Consider what's happening already:

"Hertel–New York Interconnection: The project comprises the construction of a 58-km long, 320-kV underground direct-current (DC) line between Hertel substation in La Prairie and the Canada-United States border. The project also includes the installation of a converter at Hertel substation, which will convert alternating current to direct current to supply the new interconnection.

The new line will connect to the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) project, which is currently under study in the United States. The project proponent is Transmission Developers Inc. and the aim of CHPE is to supply power to New York City. The project includes plans to build an underground and underwater DC line between the Canada–United States border and New York City, spanning over 330 miles."
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10625
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 29 Jan 2017, 16:04:33

Here is an issue I first argued on this website in 2005. Time to adapt to reality and move forward. When even a place like CleanTechnica is getting aboard progress may soon be made. I find it interesting they refer to American Navy Submarines and Russian Icebreakers while completely ignoring all the Russian nee USSR Submarines, UK submarines, French submarines and American surface ships like the Aircraft Carriers and the dozen small nuclear US Navy ships that were in the fleet until the Clinton Administration scrapped them all in the late 1990's as part of their anti-nuclear navy program that also scrapped dozens of submarines. People don't realize Boll Clinton shrank the navy substantially in the process scrapping all the nuclear powered surface ships that were not Aircraft Carriers and about 40 percent of the Nuclear Submarines right along with them.

Where Nuclear Could Compete: Cargo Shipping

In cargo shipping, nuclear power could be the winner, according to a research paper, Considerations on the potential use of Nuclear Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology for merchant marine propulsion.

We have already been using small nuclear power plants on board more than 140 submarines and some icebreakers since the 1950s. These have been quietly plying the oceans for a good 65 years with no accidents.

But even more effective greenhouse gas reductions are possible with commercial cargo shipping simply because we have a lot more cargo ships than US military submarines. Cargo ships move over 90% of global trade on the high seas. These are now running on fossil fumes.

Not only do these emit 1.12 billion tonnes (British count) of CO2, according to CleanShipping.org‘s 2008 report, but they also add a layer of about 133,000 metric tons of black carbon each year to the atmosphere. When black carbon falls on snow it decreases its albedo, the reflectivity of snow, so it adds to climate destruction in both ways.
(And if you have ever been on a ship, you know that these nasty diesel oil fumes really stink, too!)

But the most typical fossil fuel is diesel. It is going to take some effort to displace diesel oil for cargo shipping, among them familiarity, expertise, easy access to spare parts, and a global distribution network of diesel oil, according to a Marine Study looking at various clean options for shipping.

Advantages
1. Diesel engine technology is a well understood and reliable form of marine propulsion and auxiliary power generation technology.
2. The training of engineers to operate diesel machinery is well known and facilities exist for the appropriate levels of education.
3. Engine manufacturers have well established repair and spare part networks around the world.
4. Diesel fuel in all grades has a worldwide distribution network and is easily obtainable.


All of these home team advantages would need to be overcome for nuclear to displace diesel oil.

How Big a Power Plant Would a Nuclear Ship Need?

The nuclear power stations used in submarines are physically very small: under six feet wide by 15 feet tall. And at between 10 and 40 megawatts (MW), they are also smaller in capacity than what would be needed for a cargo ship.

It takes about 150 MW to power a typical cargo ship, using diesel generators.

Of course, 150 MW is a much smaller capacity than a land-based nuclear plant at typically at least 1,000 MW (1 GW) or more. It would take only 10% of a land-based nuclear plant to move a cargo ship.

Submarines and ice breakers have long used these small nuclear power plants on board. According to World Nuclear (which just updated its website in January, as the new administration came in):

“They deliver a lot of power from a very small volume and run on highly-enriched uranium (actually a uranium-zirconium or uranium-aluminum alloy). They need refueling only once every ten years, due to long core lives. Newer cores are now capable of going 30-50 years between refueling.”

Why Now?

There will be zero support for the renewable solutions to climate ruin for the next four years. The Trump administration will incentivize either fossil energy or nuclear. Better that they focus on nuclear from a climate point of view, but a nuclear application that might make a difference.

Nuclear for land-based electricity no longer makes sense in the US. No amount of support is going to bring down those costs.

Even wind and solar’s more expensive cousins, offshore wind and dispatchable thermal solar, are already much cheaper than nuclear, and they have only begun generating at utility scale in the last few years, unlike nuclear electricity.

A lot of price reduction comes from scale.

On land, mass-produced small nuclear plants, where most modern nuclear innovation is, will never gain acceptance as small plants only make sense close to load. And load is where all the people are. And all the people distrust nuclear. So, land-based nuclear is out.

But with thousands of cargo ships now plying the seas, small nuclear could provide the mass market that could drive down manufacturing costs, and make nuclear cargo shipping cost effective compared to diesel-fueled shipping.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14033
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Synapsid » Sun 29 Jan 2017, 19:56:19

Tanada,

You could replace "small nuclear" with "LNG" in your last sentence and you'd be up to date in another topic.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Mon 30 Jan 2017, 10:54:38

Toshiba (Westinghouse) Likely To Exit Nuclear Plant Construction Business

Westinghouse is "unlikely to carry out actual construction work for the future nuclear power plant projects to eliminate risk."

Satoshi Tsunakawa, President and CEO of Toshiba, the Japanese company that owns Westinghouse and its CB&I Stone Webster subsidiary, made that statement during a recent press conference. The event, held on January 27, was called to provide a status report for restructuring actions first announced on December 27, 2016.

The restructuring is required as a result of the growing realization that the value of Westinghouse's CB&I Stone and Webster subsidiary is probably several hundred billion yen (several billion dollars) less than its current book value. Adjusting the company's stated value with its real value will require taking a write off of "goodwill."

The reduction in goodwill value is based on CB&I's existing and predicted future liabilities associated with completing four nuclear plant construction projects, two at Plant Vogtle in northeast Georgia and two at the V.C. Summer site in northwest South Carolina.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 30 Jan 2017, 12:25:08

Synapsid wrote:Tanada,

You could replace "small nuclear" with "LNG" in your last sentence and you'd be up to date in another topic.


LNG like Petroleum and Coal is a very limited duration fossil fuel. Many large ships work for 60 or more years before being scrapped and replaced. Looking 60 years down the road if we still have a high technology civilization Oil will be very dear, LNG nearly as treasured both as chemical feedstocks for the plastics industry and somewhat for energy use. I wouldn't want to invest big bucks in a technology that has a use by date built in lower than the expected lifetime of the device I am installing it on.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14033
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 30 Jan 2017, 15:14:28

Some people argue you can use renewables for baseload power, but the only renewable you can use for shipping is to install sails and use the wind like we did before coal fired steam was invented.

The rational first place to deploy moderate sized nuclear is to make as much long distance shipping as possible nuclear powered, it just makes good sense.

IIRC back in the 1970's the USSR had ships that used a small nuclear reactor for cruising power then if they needed high speed they used fossil fuel to superheat the steam and make the turbines spin much faster, so they could travle faster.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4106
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Synapsid » Mon 30 Jan 2017, 16:51:11

Tanada,

I wouldn't want to make such an investment either. It's happening, though.

Lots of optimism about LNG, not necessarily well founded.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 30 Jan 2017, 17:59:27

What's really killing America's nuclear plants
30 January 2017
The premature shutdown of America's nuclear power plants is nothing short of a national catastrophe, writes Jarret Adams.
The agreement to close prematurely the Indian Point Energy Center north of New York City felt like a gut punch. The latest in a string of closure announcements, Indian Point hurts so deeply because of its high-profile and proximity to the world's leading financial centre.
As many as two-thirds of America's 99 reactors could shut down by 2030. Today we are building four. The only way to change this trajectory in the near term is to convince more Americans that nuclear energy makes sense. But we are not doing enough to earn more supporters and remain too focused on finding technical solutions.
Nuclear energy produces - by a wide margin - the largest portion of America's carbon-free power. It is the nation's safest and most reliable source of electricity. The reality is that every time a nuclear plant shuts down the power that replaces it is less reliable, produces more emissions, and costs more.
But too few people know this or care. That is what is really driving nuclear energy out of business. The nuclear energy industry has not invested enough in telling people why they should value this important technology.
The same thing is happening in other countries with established nuclear fleets. If the US nuclear sector falls apart, others will follow.
Led by brilliant, hard-working engineers, the industry would rather find an engineering solution to a challenge than one involving squishy stuff like marketing and public relations.
When opponents claim nuclear plants are not safe enough, the industry develops a doohickey to make them even safer, even though nuclear energy is already America's safest source. This, of course, increases their costs.
When critics say that nuclear power is too expensive (and most vocal critics belong to organisations pursuing legal and regulatory actions to make it more so), the industry has pursued ambitious initiatives to cut costs.
Cutting costs and developing safer new technologies are important, but they are not enough to save the plants at risk.
If people care about the climate effects of closing plants, they should consider this: the five nuclear reactors that closed since 2013 annually produced about the same amount of carbon-free power as all US solar power in 2015 combined.
Six years after the incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan and faced with declining public support, the US nuclear sector is cutting spending on public outreach.
People inherently prefer subsidized wind and solar because they understand the simple technology and think they somehow seem safer. Without a carbon tax, highly unlikely at least at the federal level, nuclear energy is generally more expensive than fossil fuels.
As business guru Michael Porter noted, businesses must either be the cost leader or differentiate. With natural gas prices at historic lows, nuclear energy must differentiate itself.
How do other industries convince customers to pay more for a product that is more reliable, safer and environmentally friendly? They invest in more marketing, advertising, and public relations.
As we are witnessing in real time, treating nuclear-generated electricity as a commodity is a recipe for failure. Nuclear energy is a premium product and must be sold as such.
The professionals tasked with marketing and communication have performed heroically. But they need more resources if we are going to turn the tide.
Each nuclear plant that closes prematurely results in the loss of hundreds of high-paying jobs and hurts the local tax base.
Each nuclear plant that shuts down early makes our electricity less clean, less reliable and more expensive.
Each nuclear plant whose light goes out before its time should be a rallying cry for the diligent and dedicated people who build, operate and supply them.
Jarret Adams
Comments: Send them to editor@world-nuclear.org
Jarret Adams is founder and CEO of Full On Communications, a public affairs and strategic communications consultancy focused on the nuclear energy sector.


http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Wha ... 11701.html
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4106
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Zarquon » Wed 01 Feb 2017, 18:30:23

Subjectivist wrote:The rational first place to deploy moderate sized nuclear is to make as much long distance shipping as possible nuclear powered, it just makes good sense.


Say "TerrorismTerrorismTerrorismTerrorismTerrorismTerrorismTerrorismTerrorism" a hundred times, quickly, without taking a breath. Call the Coast Guard or whoever and ask if you can get an operating license. Then call your insurance company and ask what the premium for your boat would be.
Zarquon
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 19:53:46

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Thu 02 Feb 2017, 18:45:30

Zarquon wrote:
Subjectivist wrote:The rational first place to deploy moderate sized nuclear is to make as much long distance shipping as possible nuclear powered, it just makes good sense.


Say "TerrorismTerrorismTerrorismTerrorismTerrorismTerrorismTerrorismTerrorism" a hundred times, quickly, without taking a breath. Call the Coast Guard or whoever and ask if you can get an operating license. Then call your insurance company and ask what the premium for your boat would be.


Because some jihadis with guns and knives can disassemble a nuclear reactor in a ship they hijack? With what, forks? There are designs already that can't be forced into critical state and there is no way some hijacked ship is going to be sailed to Somalia for disassembly with a sink-it air strike.

Living in fear of what terrorists may do is submitting to their terror. F*ck 'em and choose the right designs.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Thu 09 Feb 2017, 07:00:48

Trouble-hit French nuclear plant rocked by explosion

An explosion and fire have occurred at the Flamanville nuclear plant on France's northern coast but there is no nuclear risk, officials say.

In 2015, a weakness, believed to be a construction fault, was discovered in the steel housing the reactor core at the reactor under construction

Several people may have been injured in the blast, which happened in a machine room around 10:00 (09:00 GMT), Ouest-France newspaper reports. A rescue vehicle has been sent to the site in Normandy, it says.

Flamanville has two nuclear reactors. A third one under construction is the model for a new reactor in the UK.
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 09 Feb 2017, 09:55:57

A mechanical fault in a non nuclear portion of the plant is news why? Its just an industrial accident like take place in hudreds of locations world wide every day.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4106
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Power Thread pt 8 (merged)

Unread postby vox_mundi » Wed 29 Mar 2017, 07:17:50

After Crippling Cost Overruns, Toshiba's Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy

Toshiba Corp's U.S. nuclear unit Westinghouse filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors on Wednesday, just three months after huge cost overruns were flagged, as the Japanese parent seeks to limit losses that threaten its future.

Bankruptcy will allow Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse, once central to Toshiba's diversification push, to renegotiate or even break its construction contracts, though the utilities that own the projects could seek damages. It could even pave the way for a sale of all or part of the business.

For Toshiba, the aim is to fence off soaring liabilities and keep the group afloat. Toshiba said Westinghouse-related liabilities totaled $9.8 billion as of December, making it one of the industry's most costly collapses to date; it had earlier estimated writedowns would swell to $6.3 billion.

The filing will now trigger complex negotiations between the Japanese conglomerate, its unit and creditors, and could embroil the U.S. and Japanese governments, given the scale of the collapse and U.S. government loan guarantees for new reactors.

... Activity stalled by the end of 2011 when the United States failed to adopt legislation curbing carbon emissions
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3662
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests