Jack, several times over the past few years your posts have stated the NRC mission (and responsibility) is for ensuring nuclear plant designs (and operation) insure "safety."
Read NRC MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-81-10}; (note below)
doesn't it clearly say, in the Commission's own opinion and words, that safety is the responsibility of everyone who touches commercial nuclear power EXCEPT the NRC. NRC is responsible for ensuring a plant is designed (and built) according to approved codes and standards, and they do it by inspections (and document reviews). An important part of that process is by QA. But as you have pointed out several times using Korean shipbuilding as an example, QA by the appropriate end user parties is key. If all NRC does is document review against codes and standards, can't that be done by a competent administrative clerk type employee with a thorough checklist? What do we need the NRC for, just because the law (Atomic Energy Act) requires it?
Note: This document was the Commission response to the TMI2 owners trying to sue the NRC for the TMI2 industrial accident. I can't seem to copy/paste that document into this comment. If you can't find it in NRC ADAMS (or other) archives, I can send it to you as an email attachment.
Chuckle. Interesting find. Yes, pls send it to me.
The memo is basically right. At the end of the day, safety is the responsibility of the plant operator. Nuclear plant screw ups tend to be very, very expensive. The plant operators'know that. All we have to do make sure the operators bear the cost of a problem, and they will take all reasonable measures to avoid that problem. And they will focus on the things that count, not keeping natural radon off their shoes.
The Nuclear Reorganization Act is carefully designed to ensure that the plant's managers and shareholders suffer a substantial loss from any casualty. The current system focuses on metrics that can actually decrease safety. I think it was in 2012 that the Byron Station Shift Supervisor delayed a necessary scram for 8 minutes because he did not want to have that "black mark" on his record. The RO finally disobeyed his boss and scrammed the plant without his approval.
Since you mentioned Paul Ehrlich, I must point out that he wasn't just anti-nuclear, but anti cheap energy in general. In 1975, he wrote:
"In fact, giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the moral equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. With cheap, abundant energy, the attempt clearly would be made to pave, develop, industrialize, and exploit every last bit of the planet—a trend that would inevitably lead to a collapse of the life-support systems upon which civilization depends. "
This is of course the complete opposite of what really happens. Societies with an abundance of energy create wealth, and wealthy societies have lower birthrates, which is what Paul seemed to want more than anything. They also clean up their environment.
Meanwhile populations in energy-poor societies are still growing, and they pollute like mad because nobody deals with pollution until they have enough excess income to be able to afford it.
I've despised that man and his writings since I was in college in the late 1970s.
Right. To be precise, Ehrlich was against nuclear precisely because it was so cheap and abundant. But by 1975 he could see the solution:
It would be poetic justice, if we were saved from the consequences of having cheap, abundant power, not by the general understanding of its manifold dangers, but by the continued fumbling and bumbling of the nuclear power establishment.[Paul Ehrlich, 1975]
We have managed to make his hope come true beyond his wildest dreams. Nuclear in the West is now impoverishingly expensive. As Okrent put it, we are killing people. for that we can blame only ourselves. Not Ehrlich. Pass the NRA.
A look at the lead photo of Oconee shows very few cars. Unless they bus staff in from elsewhere, or people walk a long way to work, there are an unusually low number of workers. That would be part of the reason behind the 3 cents/kwh in todays dollars.
A 2022 Duke Energy Press Release says more then 800 people , which is low by American standards, but about average for aEuropean plant. Certianly, more then enough.
Staffing cost should be almost in the noise for a nuclear plant. Say it is 800 and the built up annual wage is $125,000. That's a 100 million a year. That's 0.5 cents/kWh for Oconee. Oconee is well run, but the mian reason she can produce power at 3 cents per kWh is her low CAPEX, Check out Figure 1.7 in the WCMNCA book. At $1000/kW we are under 3 cents/kWh real regarldless of discount rate at $8000/KW, you are looking at around 10 cents/kWh at Vogltle CAPEX you are in the high teens per kWh. Coal can come in under 5 cents/kWh in most of the workd. Unless your cheaper than coal, don't bother.
Jack, several times over the past few years your posts have stated the NRC mission (and responsibility) is for ensuring nuclear plant designs (and operation) insure "safety."
Read NRC MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CLI-81-10}; (note below)
doesn't it clearly say, in the Commission's own opinion and words, that safety is the responsibility of everyone who touches commercial nuclear power EXCEPT the NRC. NRC is responsible for ensuring a plant is designed (and built) according to approved codes and standards, and they do it by inspections (and document reviews). An important part of that process is by QA. But as you have pointed out several times using Korean shipbuilding as an example, QA by the appropriate end user parties is key. If all NRC does is document review against codes and standards, can't that be done by a competent administrative clerk type employee with a thorough checklist? What do we need the NRC for, just because the law (Atomic Energy Act) requires it?
Note: This document was the Commission response to the TMI2 owners trying to sue the NRC for the TMI2 industrial accident. I can't seem to copy/paste that document into this comment. If you can't find it in NRC ADAMS (or other) archives, I can send it to you as an email attachment.
Mike,
Chuckle. Interesting find. Yes, pls send it to me.
The memo is basically right. At the end of the day, safety is the responsibility of the plant operator. Nuclear plant screw ups tend to be very, very expensive. The plant operators'know that. All we have to do make sure the operators bear the cost of a problem, and they will take all reasonable measures to avoid that problem. And they will focus on the things that count, not keeping natural radon off their shoes.
The Nuclear Reorganization Act is carefully designed to ensure that the plant's managers and shareholders suffer a substantial loss from any casualty. The current system focuses on metrics that can actually decrease safety. I think it was in 2012 that the Byron Station Shift Supervisor delayed a necessary scram for 8 minutes because he did not want to have that "black mark" on his record. The RO finally disobeyed his boss and scrammed the plant without his approval.
Since you mentioned Paul Ehrlich, I must point out that he wasn't just anti-nuclear, but anti cheap energy in general. In 1975, he wrote:
"In fact, giving society cheap, abundant energy at this point would be the moral equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. With cheap, abundant energy, the attempt clearly would be made to pave, develop, industrialize, and exploit every last bit of the planet—a trend that would inevitably lead to a collapse of the life-support systems upon which civilization depends. "
This is of course the complete opposite of what really happens. Societies with an abundance of energy create wealth, and wealthy societies have lower birthrates, which is what Paul seemed to want more than anything. They also clean up their environment.
Meanwhile populations in energy-poor societies are still growing, and they pollute like mad because nobody deals with pollution until they have enough excess income to be able to afford it.
I've despised that man and his writings since I was in college in the late 1970s.
UM
Right. To be precise, Ehrlich was against nuclear precisely because it was so cheap and abundant. But by 1975 he could see the solution:
It would be poetic justice, if we were saved from the consequences of having cheap, abundant power, not by the general understanding of its manifold dangers, but by the continued fumbling and bumbling of the nuclear power establishment.[Paul Ehrlich, 1975]
We have managed to make his hope come true beyond his wildest dreams. Nuclear in the West is now impoverishingly expensive. As Okrent put it, we are killing people. for that we can blame only ourselves. Not Ehrlich. Pass the NRA.
A look at the lead photo of Oconee shows very few cars. Unless they bus staff in from elsewhere, or people walk a long way to work, there are an unusually low number of workers. That would be part of the reason behind the 3 cents/kwh in todays dollars.
A 2022 Duke Energy Press Release says more then 800 people , which is low by American standards, but about average for aEuropean plant. Certianly, more then enough.
Staffing cost should be almost in the noise for a nuclear plant. Say it is 800 and the built up annual wage is $125,000. That's a 100 million a year. That's 0.5 cents/kWh for Oconee. Oconee is well run, but the mian reason she can produce power at 3 cents per kWh is her low CAPEX, Check out Figure 1.7 in the WCMNCA book. At $1000/kW we are under 3 cents/kWh real regarldless of discount rate at $8000/KW, you are looking at around 10 cents/kWh at Vogltle CAPEX you are in the high teens per kWh. Coal can come in under 5 cents/kWh in most of the workd. Unless your cheaper than coal, don't bother.
It is alos Figure 7 in this post. Talk about loss of short-term memory.