Mechanics of Elevator Trim. In Detail.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:30:11 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:


Additionally, there is the issue of the limited life span of nuclear
generating facilities, generally about 25 years.

Larry, where the hell do you come up with this stuff?


I presume you have no quarrel with my contention that nuclear
generating facilities have a limited life span.

The 25 year figure was related to me by a worker at the San Onofre, CA
nuclear plant whom I chanced to meet on a ski lift some years ago. I
recall, that I was surprised to learn that nuclear plants were life
limited. So I was aware that the first nuclear reactor installed at
San Onofre, CA was shutdown after ~25 years, and presumed that was the
expected life span for all of them.


http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironme...SFactSheet.htm
Unit 1 was retired in 1992 after 25 years of service and is
currently being decommissioned.

Now I see that San Onofre Plant 1 was actually shutdown prematurely:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/envi.../nukelist1.htm
Unit 1 was closed prematurely due to the costs of required seismic
retrofitting.


Indeed the other two reactors on the San Onofre site have longer life
spans:


http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...sanonofre.html
U.S. Nuclear Plants
On-line Date License Expiration Date

Unit 2 Sept. 7, 1982 Feb. 16, 2022

Unit 3: Sept. 16, 1983 Nov. 15, 2022

Which works out to about a 40 year useful life span, and the useful
live of the plant at Diablo Canyon is similar:


http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...rs/diablo.html

So, I thank you for calling my error to my attention. I'll try to
research my facts before stating them in the future.

Below is some information I found interesting as I researched this San
Onofre issue:


http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironme...missioning.htm
Q. What is Decommissioning?
A. Decommissioning consists of decontamination, dismantling,
shipment and final disposition of nuclear power plant components,
and site rehabilitation.

Decommissioning is a condition of the plant's operating license
from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Q. When will decommissioning occur?
A. Decommissioning began in 1999 and the majority of the plant's
structures and facilities are expected to be decontaminated,
dismantled and removed from the site by 2008.

Q. How much will it cost to decommission Unit 1? How will it be
paid for?
A. The cost is estimated at $460 million. Sufficient money is
expected to be available to accomplish decommissioning now through
a trust fund financed through rates that was established when the
plant began operating.

Q. How many US nuclear plants have been decommissioned?
A. Four utility-size nuclear power plants have undergone complete
decommissioning, including Shippingport, Pennsylvania (72 MW),
completed 1989; Pathfinder, South Dakota (66MW), completed in
1992; Shoreham, New York (849 MW), completed in 1994; and Fort St.
Vrain, Colorado (330 MW); completed in 1996.

Q. How long did SONGS 1 operate and how much electricity did it
generate?
A. The unit operated from Jan. 1, 1968 to Nov. 30, 1992. ...

It produced about 53.35 billion kilowatt-hours (enough to energize
1 million households for 9 years). Its generating capacity was 450
megawatts (enough to energize about 500,000 homes at a time). For
comparison, SONGS 2 and 3 generate 1,100 megawatts each.


http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironme...teDisposal.htm
Waste Disposal

Two distinct types of waste which require special handling and
disposal are produced at San Onofre, low-level and high-level
radioactive waste.

Low-level wastes typically contain small amounts of radioactivity
similar to those produced by medical procedures. Examples of such
waste materials include items such as towels, gloves and tools
used by workers, and water purification filtering materials.

High-level waste is the solid spent, or used, uranium fuel rods.
Disposal of used fuel requires long term, high-reliability
isolation from the environment.



Please take a look at this page.
http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/plant...ation/ano.aspx

Unit 1 went into service in 1974 and is licensed until 2034.
Unit 2 went into service in 1980 and is licensed until 2038.


Indeed:
Arkansas Nuclear One
Unit 1 Unit 2
Commercial Operation Date: December 1974 March 1980
License Expiration Date: 5/20/34 7/18/38



I'm pleased that you find no fault in the other points I raised
concerning nuclear power generation's radioactive waste.

Unfortunately, there are other objectionable environmental issues with
coastally sited generating facilities:


http://www.fox6.com/news/local/story...8-415c783dc82a
Artificial Reef is Built After San Onofre Nuclear Plant Damages
Kelp Beds

Last Update: 6/12 7:18 am

A $40 million, 150-acre artificial reef being built off San
Clemente is one of the most advanced anywhere, thanks to Southern
California Edison, which is bankrolling the work to replace kelp
beds damaged by the San Onofre nuclear plant, it was reported
Friday.

Crews have begun carefully dumping boulders into about 50 feet of
water to anchor what marine biologists hope will grow into a kelp
forest, which would shelter fish and other creatures just south of
the oceanfront nuclear-powered electricity generating station, the
Los Angeles Times reported. ...

Cloudy cooling water discharged from the plant, according to a
1989 study, drifts south and blocks the sunlight needed by a kelp
forest, of which about 180 acres have been damaged, The Times
reported.

Edison agreed to build the reef as part of a deal with the
California Coastal Commission. ...

The reef, more than a half-mile offshore, will be patches of rocks
that fit together like a puzzle and stretch about 2.5 miles,
roughly from San Clemente Pier to San Mateo Point, Craig Eaker of
Edison told The Times. ...

The power plant, which needs massive amounts of water to cool the
reactor, sucks in and kills about 600 tons of fish annually, even
though Edison has tried to remedy the problem.



http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan...al/me-onofre15
The NRC “always claims there isn’t a high safety risk,” said Edwin
Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned
Scientists. “But these fabrications went unnoticed by supervisors
and managers for 5 1/2 years. This says something about the
inadequacy of the NRC’s inspection process.”

Commission officials that a fire protection specialist on the
midnight shift from April 2001 to December 2006 falsified records
about hourly patrols around the plant to check for fires. ...

“A major fire at a nuclear reactor could release a thousand times
the long-lived radiation of the Hiroshima bomb,” Hirsch said.
“Fire protection data is the last thing one should tolerate being
fabricated at a nuclear power plant.” ...

Hirsch noted that the current violations were the latest of a
number of problems at San Onofre. Earlier this month, NRC
inspectors discovered the failure of an emergency generator during
three tests in late December. The diesel generator is one of two
that provide electricity to safety systems in the event of a power
outage.

Edison officials said the generator failed because of a faulty
speed sensor, which was replaced.

Dricks said the agency began investigating the fire patrol
fabrications in January 2007. NRC has uncovered the four other
violations. ...


http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan...al/me-onofre16
January 16, 2008

Seven workers at the San Onofre nuclear power plant near San
Clemente have been disciplined or fired in connection with a rash
of safety and security problems uncovered by federal regulators
last year, Southern California Edison officials said Tuesday. ...

“Where the acts were deliberate misconduct, employees were
discharged and contract workers were no longer permitted on the
property,” said Gil Alexander, an Edison spokesman. “Where the
conduct was determined to be less egregious, alternative
disciplinary actions were taken.” ...

The other violations involved a radiation worker who failed to
comply with a work permit; a failure by supervisors to oversee an
unqualified technician whose work led to the temporary shutdown of
a safety system; and two lapses in plant security. ...



http://www.animatedsoftware.com/envi.../nukelist1.htm
Nuclear power plants and other large nuclear facilities in the
United States Operating or closed.

Including their individual histories, locations, technical
details, official contact points, and local activist groups.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:30:11 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Additionally, there is the issue of the limited life span of nuclear
generating facilities, generally about 25 years.
Larry, where the hell do you come up with this stuff?


I presume you have no quarrel with my contention that nuclear
generating facilities have a limited life span.



No pretty much everything man made has a limited lifespan.






I'm pleased that you find no fault in the other points I raised
concerning nuclear power generation's radioactive waste.

Unfortunately, there are other objectionable environmental issues with
coastally sited generating facilities:

There are objectionable environmental issues with everything.

The biggest problem with nuclear energy is what to do with the waste. I
vote for shooting it into the sun.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in news:-pGdnUPS0Ij-
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:30:11 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Additionally, there is the issue of the limited life span of nuclear
generating facilities, generally about 25 years.
Larry, where the hell do you come up with this stuff?


I presume you have no quarrel with my contention that nuclear
generating facilities have a limited life span.



No pretty much everything man made has a limited lifespan.


Except jerky, of course.


Bertie