🚀 go-pugleaf

Merlin Dorfman wrote:
> : It almost certainly could have been turned around.  The history of
> : Indian Point 3 was very similar, but instead of shutting it down, the
> : NYPA brought in competent management which was able to dramatically
> : improve operations at the plant.   It ultimately become one of the
> : safest and most efficient in the country.
> 
>      I suppose that's possible.  But SMUD certainly did not seem
> capable of improving its record. And, if the power seemed not to
> be needed, the argument for radical restructuring probably didn't
> carry much weight.

Look at the history.  The parallels are dramatic.  Both had capacity
factors in the 30s, both had a history of accidental radiation releases,
etc.  At one point, both were listed on Public Citizen's "ten worst"
list.  Rancho Seco was removed from service; Indian Point 3 was turned
around, runs routinely at 90+% capacity factor, and was recently sold
for $1 billion, the highest resale price for a nuclear reactor. 
(Though, of course, still much below construction cost.)  There are a
number of other reactors with similar histories.  

If nothing else, shutting down the reactor temporarily (until others
could demostrate a path to efficient operation, if ever), would have
been a more sensible approach than shutting it down permanently.  It is
a general principle of good decision making under uncertainty to defer
irreversible decisions as long as possible.  

> : The primary reason that Rancho Seco was shut down was that the power
> : wasn't needed at the time.  However, that's pretty short-sighted
> : decision making for a facility with a lifetime measured in decades.  It
> : sure would be nice to have that power now.
> 
>      If and only if the plant could be run safely.  You don't
> want to get yourself into a situation where you depend on the
> power from a plant that is subject to constant, unplanned
> shutdowns of unpredictable duration.

Again, look at other plants.  The capacity factors of nuclear reactors
have improved dramatically, along with a similar reduction in
"incidents."  We've learned a lot about how to run them efficiently and
safely.  In the aggregate, the output from nuclear plants has increased
a lot in the past decade, despite there being fewer reactors in
operation.  At one time, it was unheard of for reactors to operate
continuously between refuelings without shutdown.  Now it is routine.