News and Discussions > History & Trivia

nonnuke reasons for plant closings

<< < (2/2)

atomicarcheologist:
The non-nuclear reasons were also present at the decision to shut down Ft. St. Vrain.

HydroDave63:

--- Quote from: vikingfan on May 24, 2006, 01:03 ---Songs 1 back in the early 90's.

--- End quote ---

SONGS 1 needed SGRP pretty badly, and other post-TMI upgrades to the NSSS system. SCE could spend 150 million to upgrade a plant with a 60-70% capacity factor, or take a sweet deal from the Calif PUC of about 450 million in shutdown incentives.

Rancho Seco was a bond measure to the tune of 400 million to make major post-TMI mods, make other upgrades such as having CEAs actually move the same direction that the operator was shimming (wiring problems) and a raft of other issues. There was also political scheming goin on, where one of the SMUD board had a pal ( a fairly famous state Assemblyman in the LA area) who could get a great deal with developers as soon as the spent fuel left site and the 1 mile zone no longer mattered. Shucks, even Democrats in 1988 though that Yucca Mountain would take fuel eventually....the bond measure went 55/45 against doing the upgrades, which is surprising how many SMUD voters DID want to keep Rancho Breako going

Ft St Vrain pretty much drained PSCo dry. Vital location for generation though, so it now hosts 3 GE 7FA gas turbines and a 200 MW HRSG. Gotta love the hand-crafted wood blocks on the turbine deck, and the 300 gazillion survey points in the reactor building...

SloGlo:

--- Quote from: HydroDave63 on May 25, 2006, 10:22 ---Gotta love the hand-crafted wood blocks on the turbine deck, and the 300 gazillion survey points in the reactor building...



--- End quote ---

lawdy, won must admire the pre marssim approach.   betcha yinz cood do that place with 120 points these daze.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page