NukeWorker Forum

News and Discussions => History & Trivia => Topic started by: SloGlo on May 23, 2006, 10:05

Title: nonnuke reasons for plant closings
Post by: SloGlo on May 23, 2006, 10:05
howz about shoreham?  closed due to public outcry after about 1/2 day of operation.
Title: Re: nonnuke reasons for plant closings
Post by: alphadude on May 24, 2006, 09:50
well money talks, and Bush sr was close friends with the local politician that had lots of campaign money to get the place close down...   even though our zeal for the industry does influence our thoughts .... locals do have the right to decide.. its a democracy thang.. even though the idea maybe illogical.
Title: Re: nonnuke reasons for plant closings
Post by: Marlin on May 24, 2006, 10:21
Trojan and Rancho Seco could be added to the list of plants closed for nonnuke reasons.
Title: Re: nonnuke reasons for plant closings
Post by: vikingfan on May 24, 2006, 01:03
Songs 1 back in the early 90's.
Title: Re: nonnuke reasons for plant closings
Post by: Roll Tide on May 24, 2006, 01:25
I would say the best reason for a plant closure was Big Rock Point in MI. Plant management decided 39 years was enough, so they didn't run the final non-extended license year available. Considering plants with 10X the output are considered "borderline" on efficiency, I would say 39 years was a very good run.


In case you are counting, no one has hit 40 years while operating....
The renewals don't matter (yet)
Title: Re: nonnuke reasons for plant closings
Post by: atomicarcheologist on May 25, 2006, 09:23
The non-nuclear reasons were also present at the decision to shut down Ft. St. Vrain.
Title: Re: nonnuke reasons for plant closings
Post by: HydroDave63 on May 25, 2006, 10:22
Quote from: vikingfan on May 24, 2006, 01:03
Songs 1 back in the early 90's.

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...

Title: Re: nonnuke reasons for plant closings
Post by: SloGlo on May 28, 2006, 10:17
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...



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