My daughter is a structural engineer. She primarily does design work, but she has been assigned to inspection work as well. The builder/contractor will / should have their own inspector to make sure things are built according to plans. But the client will also hire their own inspector to make sure that things are done according to plan - you have to be on site as steel is placed, as forms are set up, etc. Concrete is unforgiving after it has hardened. The inspector needs to have the plans and know what they are doing and what is important.
Jack; why don't you explain what modules you're talking about because whatever point that you are trying to make is meaningless without context. Building a ship and a nuclear power plant are vastly different activities. I agree that independent review is a necessity for a nuclear plant construction project, but not of the type and scope of what goes on at a shipyard because the differences between the two. There was a time when nuclear power plants were constructed under a fixed price contract, but that quickly disappeared because it was not profitable. A shipbuilding project may afford the luxury of fixed price contract because its scope is well contained, and the external agencies involved in a nuclear building project are quite different and are not as easily satisfied as the building of a ship. The view that nuclear power plants are just so much steel and concrete and are subject to the same laws of construction is like the outmoded view that nuclear power plants were just another way to boil water.
Yes, the "external agencies" for nuclear construction are just as important as construction standards and monitoring, points Mr Davanney has cogently addressed at length elsewhere.
Otherwise Mr Devanney's observations stand. Further specification of what module it was from Shaw Industries that didn't fit adds nothing to the discussion. "It didn't fit" says it all.
I think one can make the argument that nuclear power plants are just another way to boil water, and a better way at that.
Sorry I should have used the word submodule instead of module. The train transportable Shaw submodules are tiny by shipyard standards. They would barely quality as sub-assemblies for which the overall dimensional tolerance in the yard is +/- 5mm and the good yards almost never fail to comply. I believe the dimensional tolerance for the Shaw submodules was +/- 5/8 inch or +/-15mm. Obviously Shaw failed to meet this much looser requirement.
Ships and nuclear plants are just metal bending. They are both subject to exactly the same physics. A nuclear power plant IS just another way to boil water. The big difference is the regulatory regime, and, as you point out, that difference has massive implications. Both nuclear cost and nuclear quality would be vastly improved if we junked the current nuclear regulatory system and moved to same sort of system by which we regulate shipbuilding and other beneficial but hazardous activities.
When you say submodule, I still have no idea what you mean. Whatever you are referring to has to be a component of some system or structure.
As to metal bending and boiling water, ships (at least the non-nuclear ones) aren't subject to neutron embrittlement and meeting requirements for negative reactivity feedback. Thereby goes the oversimplified argument of being subject to the same physics, among other differences. The just another way to boil water outlook led to poor performance of nuclear generation in the 1970s, Three Mile Island, and the creation of INPO in 1979 to overcome the fossil fuel mindset. I agree that the regulatory system can be burdensome and improved, but expecting nuclear power generation to fit the mold of some other type of construction project will not improve its quality and safety.
Shaw built both structural submodules and mechanical (piping) submodules. In this case, we are focusing on the structural submodules.
There are some differences between a coal plant and a nuclear plant. The coal plant
has to handle far higher pressures and temperatures, 50 thousand times as much fuel,
and a hundred thousand times as much waste. Nuclear plants have to deal with radioactivity and decay heat. Both sets of issues are straightforward engineering problems.
Nuclear (like coal) lost control of its costs in the early 1970's, oil priced driven, boom. ALARA based regulation prevented any cost recovery in the ensuing slump. See other articles on this site.
I have built 8 large tankers in Korean yards, including the 4 largest double hull tankers ever built. I can guarantee you if the Shaw N-stamped submodules had been built in one of these yards to normal shipbuilding standards, the quality would have been far, far superior (it could hardly be worse) and the cost far, far lower.
Great analogy. Both ships and nuclear reactors are big complicated metal machines that have to withstand large forces and perform with great reliability. Failure can have catastrophic consequences. It sounds like the nuclear industry forgot the lessons taught by Deming.
The piano I bought won't fit through any of the doors to the house excuse works for pianos and houses.
Shaw, Westinghouse and Southern Co. aren't in the home building business.
My daughter is a structural engineer. She primarily does design work, but she has been assigned to inspection work as well. The builder/contractor will / should have their own inspector to make sure things are built according to plans. But the client will also hire their own inspector to make sure that things are done according to plan - you have to be on site as steel is placed, as forms are set up, etc. Concrete is unforgiving after it has hardened. The inspector needs to have the plans and know what they are doing and what is important.
Government needs to be kept on shipbuilders schedule and specifications.
Jack; why don't you explain what modules you're talking about because whatever point that you are trying to make is meaningless without context. Building a ship and a nuclear power plant are vastly different activities. I agree that independent review is a necessity for a nuclear plant construction project, but not of the type and scope of what goes on at a shipyard because the differences between the two. There was a time when nuclear power plants were constructed under a fixed price contract, but that quickly disappeared because it was not profitable. A shipbuilding project may afford the luxury of fixed price contract because its scope is well contained, and the external agencies involved in a nuclear building project are quite different and are not as easily satisfied as the building of a ship. The view that nuclear power plants are just so much steel and concrete and are subject to the same laws of construction is like the outmoded view that nuclear power plants were just another way to boil water.
Yes, the "external agencies" for nuclear construction are just as important as construction standards and monitoring, points Mr Davanney has cogently addressed at length elsewhere.
Otherwise Mr Devanney's observations stand. Further specification of what module it was from Shaw Industries that didn't fit adds nothing to the discussion. "It didn't fit" says it all.
I think one can make the argument that nuclear power plants are just another way to boil water, and a better way at that.
Ed,
Sorry I should have used the word submodule instead of module. The train transportable Shaw submodules are tiny by shipyard standards. They would barely quality as sub-assemblies for which the overall dimensional tolerance in the yard is +/- 5mm and the good yards almost never fail to comply. I believe the dimensional tolerance for the Shaw submodules was +/- 5/8 inch or +/-15mm. Obviously Shaw failed to meet this much looser requirement.
Ships and nuclear plants are just metal bending. They are both subject to exactly the same physics. A nuclear power plant IS just another way to boil water. The big difference is the regulatory regime, and, as you point out, that difference has massive implications. Both nuclear cost and nuclear quality would be vastly improved if we junked the current nuclear regulatory system and moved to same sort of system by which we regulate shipbuilding and other beneficial but hazardous activities.
When you say submodule, I still have no idea what you mean. Whatever you are referring to has to be a component of some system or structure.
As to metal bending and boiling water, ships (at least the non-nuclear ones) aren't subject to neutron embrittlement and meeting requirements for negative reactivity feedback. Thereby goes the oversimplified argument of being subject to the same physics, among other differences. The just another way to boil water outlook led to poor performance of nuclear generation in the 1970s, Three Mile Island, and the creation of INPO in 1979 to overcome the fossil fuel mindset. I agree that the regulatory system can be burdensome and improved, but expecting nuclear power generation to fit the mold of some other type of construction project will not improve its quality and safety.
Ed,
Shaw built both structural submodules and mechanical (piping) submodules. In this case, we are focusing on the structural submodules.
There are some differences between a coal plant and a nuclear plant. The coal plant
has to handle far higher pressures and temperatures, 50 thousand times as much fuel,
and a hundred thousand times as much waste. Nuclear plants have to deal with radioactivity and decay heat. Both sets of issues are straightforward engineering problems.
Nuclear (like coal) lost control of its costs in the early 1970's, oil priced driven, boom. ALARA based regulation prevented any cost recovery in the ensuing slump. See other articles on this site.
I have built 8 large tankers in Korean yards, including the 4 largest double hull tankers ever built. I can guarantee you if the Shaw N-stamped submodules had been built in one of these yards to normal shipbuilding standards, the quality would have been far, far superior (it could hardly be worse) and the cost far, far lower.
Great analogy. Both ships and nuclear reactors are big complicated metal machines that have to withstand large forces and perform with great reliability. Failure can have catastrophic consequences. It sounds like the nuclear industry forgot the lessons taught by Deming.