NukeWorker Forum

News and Discussions => Nuke News => Topic started by: Marlin on Jun 04, 2018, 11:53

Title: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: Marlin on Jun 04, 2018, 11:53
Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan


http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/oyster-creek-nuclear-plant-submits--year-billion-closing-plan/article_01e9921f-60ae-5fe0-830c-271fd98a5889.html
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: Bonds 25 on Jun 04, 2018, 10:46

"The faster they can get (the waste) into dry cask storage and get rid of the pools, the better," New Jersey Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel said.


Funny...it wasn't that long ago they were saying dry cask storage is extremely dangerous......


Whatever creates more fear mongering about the Nuclear Power Industry and increases expenses to the Utility is the name of the game. It is completely disgusting these blatant BS Anti-Nukes ALWAYS seem to get their moronic input into all articles about Nuclear energy. 


It takes 360 million gallons of water a day to cool the spent fuel pool  ::)
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: SloGlo on Jun 05, 2018, 08:47
Quote from: Bonds 25 on Jun 04, 2018, 10:46

It takes 360 million gallons of water a day to cool the spent fuel pool  ::)
how many pumps are inn that s.f.p.? aye yam familiar wit 1500 gpm pumps inn that area...
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: TVA on Jun 05, 2018, 07:15
You surely meant 2.2 million and given it's normally a closed system the real number is uh zero.
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: hamsamich on Jun 05, 2018, 07:36
I think what he was getting at is the volume of water required to keep the fuel pool safe compared to nothing for dry casking and how silly the sierra club is.
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: TVA on Jun 05, 2018, 07:48
It isnt 360 million gallons per day. At most its a couple million with maybe a 100 gallons make up.
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: TVA on Jun 05, 2018, 07:56
The largest fuel pool in the world is just under a million gallons
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: TVA on Jun 05, 2018, 07:57
No way is Bonds and operator
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: hamsamich on Jun 05, 2018, 09:14
yeah he is an hp.  but I get his point.
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: TVA on Jun 05, 2018, 09:23
There is no valid point.
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: Ksheed on Jun 06, 2018, 09:35
If you had read the article linked in the OP it would have been obvious that Bonds was quoting the article. Utilizing a bit of veiled sarcasm to state how absurd the quoted GPD amount is/was.


If you did read the article then maybe some reading comprehension would be helpful prior to slamming a poster for what they posted.


Pretty sure it doesn't take a licensed operator to figure out that 360 million GPD is a ridiculous amount of water, far in excess of what it should take to cool a SFP. RP's do spend quite a bit of time around the SFP, probably know a little bit about it. [2cents]
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: SloGlo on Jun 06, 2018, 11:10
Quote from: ksheed12 on Jun 06, 2018, 09:35
If you had read the article linked in the OP it would have been obvious that Bonds was quoting the article. Utilizing a bit of veiled sarcasm to state how absurd the quoted GPD amount is/was.

witch is ware eye was.
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: GLW on Jun 06, 2018, 11:38
Quote from: ksheed12 on Jun 06, 2018, 09:35
If you had read the article linked in the OP it would have been obvious that Bonds was quoting the article. Utilizing a bit of veiled sarcasm to state how absurd the quoted GPD amount is/was.......

see?!?!?!?

it 'most always comes down to the emoticons,.....

this is "Roll Eyes" -  ::)


and this is dripping sarcasm -  [sarcasm]


I only mention this because I lobbied for the dripping sarcasm emoticon for a long time on these boards exactly because my prodigious use of typed sarcasm was so very often missed and I was multilithically eviscerated by folks who did not "get it",...
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: SloGlo on Jun 06, 2018, 06:13
Quote from: GLW link=topic=45195.msg204931#msg204931
... I was multilithically eviscerated by folks who did not "get it",...

quite the picture of a pressing situation 🤤
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: hamsamich on Jun 06, 2018, 10:54
god really TVA?  so you are agreeing with Sierra Club?  the point is, since you are so dense, the SC said dry casking is extremely dangerous,  but now they are saying essentially the exact opposite.  I'd like to know...are you just laughing at us for responding to your idiocy?  or are you really that dense?  because if you are just saying things to provoke people....not cool man.
Title: Re: Oyster Creek nuclear plant submits 60-year, $1.4 billion closing plan
Post by: Laundry Man on Jun 07, 2018, 03:44
I can say that the dry casking I participated in with the outage services guys at the creek wasn't extremely dangerous.  As to the amount of gallons going in and out of the condenser bay, I'll leave that up to the professionals.  They did not teach me that number when I went through system training.  I can tell you all about the poop hole room and the steam jet air ejector it contains though.
LM