Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu It's too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant honeypot

Author Topic: It's too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant  (Read 4441 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 18981
  • Karma: 5147
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
It’s too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant in the United States

http://atomicinsights.com/its-too-easy-to-shut-down-a-nuclear-power-plant-in-the-united-states/
« Last Edit: Dec 09, 2015, 12:09 by Marlin »

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5834
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: It's too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant
« Reply #1 on: Dec 10, 2015, 09:04 »
unless we nationalize the new clear fleet, owners have final say.
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline Radwraith

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • Karma: 331
  • Gender: Male
  • How much am I getting for this?
Re: It's too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant
« Reply #2 on: Dec 13, 2015, 01:21 »
We could stop subsidizing "pie in the sky" wind and solar projects to stabilize the overall market! Alternatively, while I'm not a big fan of federal subsidies; we could give nuclear plants the same benefits on account of them being "greener" than the wind and solar alternatives!
Remember the seven P's: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance!

Offline GLW

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5503
  • Karma: 2525
  • caveo proditor,...
Re: It's too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant
« Reply #3 on: Dec 13, 2015, 01:30 »
We could stop subsidizing "pie in the sky" wind and solar projects to stabilize the overall market! Alternatively, while I'm not a big fan of federal subsidies; we could give nuclear plants the same benefits on account of them being "greener" than the wind and solar alternatives!

NY State is already pursuing that for the plants up on Lake Ontario,...

even that is not enough business incentive for players such as Entergy,...

the 2016 Final Rules for Enhanced Security & Transportation,...

and FLEX,...

will be (is/are) the death knell for too many,...

particularly for the smaller single unit sites,... [coffee]
« Last Edit: Dec 13, 2015, 01:53 by GLW »

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

mjd

  • Guest
Re: It's too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant
« Reply #4 on: Dec 14, 2015, 05:38 »
NY State is already pursuing that for the plants up on Lake Ontario,...

even that is not enough business incentive for players such as Entergy,...

the 2016 Final Rules for Enhanced Security & Transportation,...

and FLEX,...

will be (is/are) the death knell for too many,...

particularly for the smaller single unit sites,... [coffee]

I think you are definitely correct on this one, especially for the small single unit plants. But part of the problem I see on this, especially with the recent Entergy closing announcements, is Entergy never really comes right out and says this (about NRC constantly expanding the original Design Basis). I think they should, to focus attention on this problem. But Entergy may feel caught between the rock and the hard spot. They are a fairly large player and may not want to risk antagonizing NRC. 

Offline OldHP

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Karma: 276
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: It's too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant
« Reply #5 on: Dec 15, 2015, 02:26 »
Just from my [2cents].  Security and security related regulations, began picking up in the mid/late 70's (during my first NPP plant visits and work in the late 60's and early 70's , security was basically reception) and continued through the 90's, continuing to grow larger and larger.  After 9/11, security, in most facilities, became the largest organization on site.  Nothing against security, but, it is all OH and when Income - (Operating Costs + OH) results in a loss then the facility becomes a liability and subject to closure (removal from the system).   :old:
Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

Offline Bonds 25

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Karma: 151
  • Gender: Male
  • HP Tech......Well Thats My Title Anyways.
Re: It's too easy to permanently close a nuclear power plant
« Reply #6 on: Dec 15, 2015, 07:48 »
There are ZERO legit reasons why Security should be the largest department at a Commercial Nuclear Power Plant and economically its disastrous......and beyond ridiculous.
"But I Dont Wanna Be A Pirate" - Jerry Seinfeld

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2025 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?