Re: a good start [pun intended]
First, thanks for taking to heart the recent request from the Vultures to maintain some civility and avoid personal attacks. /s
Second, SONGS and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries proposed to update the plant using "like for like" engineering. Had they done that, SONGS would still be online, and I would not be paying for the cleanup as a customer as part of my current (huh, huh) electric bill...
Third, yes, engineering advances always provide the possibility of improvement when refitting a plant, but if you make changes TEST THEM PROPERLY! From one (https://www.ans.org/news/article-1286/san-onofre-debate-now-more-public-and-more-technical/) of the many reports on this matter:
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determined that computer modeling used during the design phase by the manufacturer, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, underpredicted the thermal hydraulic conditions in the steam generators which contributed to the unstable tube vibration. The unstable tube vibration caused the unexpected wear in the steam generators."
"Reading of the linked MHI documents reveals clearly that the problem is partly theoretical, partly physical. On the one hand, an assumption in force in steam generator design industry-wide has held that "if out of plane FEI is prevented by design, in-plane FEI can not occur." This has been proven wrong-at least in the San Onofre steam generators-although it must be stated clearly that this event at San Onofre is the first confirmed occurrence of in-plane FEI known in the industry."
"We also see in the report (again, quite clearly) that the design of the Anti-Vibration Bars, which restrain the U-tubes, was slightly modified-and was thought to be improved-in Unit 3. What actually happened was that making the parts to finer (closer) tolerances reduced their contact force-and thus their ability to restrain the U-tubes-and helped lead to the motion-related impact wear."
In total, MHI made four significant design changes to the original equipment, each intended to contribute to increased output from the plant, Sadly, their computer modelling did not quite capture the actual effect of these changes, and the "like for like" equipment both rubbed and hammered itself to death. After only a few months of operation.
Yes, testing this properly would have slowed the process down, but as I already said the plant would still be producing instead of becoming a cost center.
So, sure turn it back on, but for fsck's sake, TEST AND CORRECT the deficiencies beforehand!!!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
