Posted on 10/09/2006 9:52:33 AM PDT by thackney
SURRY, Va. — One of two nuclear reactors at Surry Power Station remained shut down Sunday after two electrical transformers that provide backup power to the plant quit working.
Unit Two was shut down around 6 p.m. Saturday after steam blew out some sheet metal, which landed on a power line that serves one of the backup transformers, said Richard Zher, a spokesman for Dominion Resources Inc., the Richmond-based power company that owns the plant. Officials weren't sure what caused the second transformer to shut down, Zher said.
That first reserve electrical transformer was repaired, and Dominion was working on the second, Zher said Sunday. A third transformer was not affected.
Backup diesel generators kicked in when the two transformers shut down, Zher said.
Zher said Dominion was investigating what caused steam to blow out the siding in a building where cold water is turned into steam, which powers a turbine that creates electricity through a generator.
"Once we have made that determination and resolved any problems, we will restart" the reactor, Zher said.
The plant issued an alert, as required by federal guidelines, he said.
"No one was injured and it didn't cause any threat to public health or safety," Zher said.
Surry's two nuclear units at Surry each produce 799 megawatts of electricity and provide 15 percent of the electricity in Dominion's service area.
Dominion, headquartered in Richmond, is one of the nation's largest producers of energy.
I believe that the reactor accident you are referring to was at the NRTS and operated by the US Army. It was the SL-1 plant.
20 + years in the commercial industry with lots of experience with x-Navy nuke guys. The Navy would never get to sea if they had to live with the NRC looking over their shoulder every minute of the day.
Then explain why they are both the lowest cost power generators with the highest capacity and availability factors.
There was no DoE then. It was all Navy, run by the Division of Naval Reactors. The AEC oversaw commercial reactors.
The navy uses PWR's, a closed loop system, as opposed to BWR's an open loop system, an open loop system is one which the steam is generated in the reactor and flows through the turbine and auxiliaries and back to the reactor, a closed loop system is one where the heat is generated in the reactor and the heat is exchanged in heat exchangers with a secondary loop in which the steam is generated.</P>
The advantage of the first is a secondary system that is not Hot outside of containment, the second cost.
Not trying to be a smartass here but what happened to the Titanic?
Were there any foot thick stainless steel clad pressure vessels on the Titanic?
Deep ocean disposal of radioactive waste containers is a good technical option that won't ever be considered due to nuclear alarmism.
Your information is totally inaccurate.
Hey, he's got 20+ years in the commercial nuclear industry, and the NRC must have given him a hard time. Cut him some slack.
That was the SL-1 research reactor that exploded on 3 January '61. And the AEC (later the NRC) said that it was not human error, but sabotage.
Here is an interesting website detailing the event:
http://www.radiationworks.com/sl1reactor.htm
High availability means nothing if they ever shut down. The minute they shut down they must be backed by something else.
Their cheapness is a matter of quite a bit of contention too.
Name one form of generation that "never" shuts down because of maintenance or malfunction. The fact is, US nuke plants have higher availability and capacity factors (~90%) than coal, oil or gas-fired plants.
Their cheapness is a matter of quite a bit of contention too.
"... Naval reactor facility."
The NRTS, to which you referred (implicitly), was an Army facility.
That cost you quote is from a paid for 20 year old plant. Not exactly the going rate.
Huh? Are you saying that wind turbine/generators never need maintenance or that they never break or their transformers never blow? (The reality is that they are highly stressed machines exposed to all kinds of elements and are very maintenance intensive.)
And exactly what complaint are are removing for wind power? Since the national average capacity factor for wind power is 26%, doesn't that mean they require back-up plants 74% of the time? It seems that by your definition, we shouldn't waste our money on wind.
That cost you quote is from a paid for 20 year old plant. Not exactly the going rate.
The costs I quoted are total Operations, Maintenance and Fuel costs -- i.e., what it costs to generate one kWh of electricity. In the case of nuclear, it also includes payments to an escrow account to cover the costs of spent fuel disposal and eventual plant decomissioning.
Not at all and I don't see where you even got that.
And exactly what complaint are are removing for wind power? Since the national average capacity factor for wind power is 26%, doesn't that mean they require back-up plants 74% of the time? It seems that by your definition, we shouldn't waste our money on wind.
People incorrectly say that wind can never provide a significant percentage of our power because of intermittance and they say that since it is intermittant it needs 100 percent back-up making it too expensive. I'm merely pointing out that nukes shut down also and need back-up as does everything else.
The 26 percent average definitely does not mean what you suggest. That would require that the wind blow 30mph 26 percent of the time and less than 10 mph 74 percent of the time. Wind turbine output varies from 0 to 100 percent through wind speeds of about 10 to 30 mph. I've visited a 52 meter windturbine about 10 times and it has always been turning, making some percentage of it's output power, except for once. That cost you quote is from a paid for 20 year old plant. Not exactly the going rate. The costs I quoted are total Operations, Maintenance and Fuel costs -- i.e., what it costs to generate one kWh of electricity. In the case of nuclear, it also includes payments to an escrow account to cover the costs of spent fuel disposal and eventual plant decomissioning.
I've seen higher numbers. Where did you find that one.
I gave you the link in an eariler post. Or you can go to the DoE EIA site and look it up yourself.
People incorrectly say that wind can never provide a significant percentage of our power because of intermittance and they say that since it is intermittant it needs 100 percent back-up making it too expensive.
I say it because demand is growing faster than we can site and build wind plants. I'm not especially opposed to them, but I am under no illusion that they are a "solution." In fact, for grid operators, they are a nuisance since they can't be effectively scheduled or ramped to meet demand fluctuations forcing them to run fossil plants in unproductive modes while decreasing revenues for those same plants and driving fixed costs per MW generated higher.
If anything, wind makes people feel good but it will never do more than that on the grid. IMHO, they could be of great value in a 'hydrogen' economy if we ever get there. Forget about connecting them to the grid where reliability and predictability are key and use their generation capacity to make hydrogen.
So your prediction is that they will never be more than a feel good toy? Do you want to quantify that prediction?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.