The U.S. nuclear industry is increasing electricity output from existing reactors through a practice called uprating, which involves using more potent fuel rods and improved turbine efficiency. This method allows for enhanced capacity without the financial and regulatory hurdles associated with building new plants. However, concerns about safety have intensified following the Fukushima disaster, raising questions about the reliability of aging equipment and the adequacy of safety measures. Critics argue that pushing older reactors beyond their original specifications could lead to significant risks, especially in emergencies. The ongoing debate highlights a growing skepticism about the nuclear industry's safety protocols and regulatory oversight.
#31
joema
106
3
Dmytry said:
...How will you justify lack of generic safety feature of being able to bring backup generators on site by chopper and connect them to pumps even if the electrical equipment is flooded? How are we to trust uprating if we can't trust plants to have such obvious, generic safety features...
The thread title is uprating of *US* nuclear plants. You're talking about a situation in *Japan* which you admit has possible site-specific design, siting and procedural flaws not found in other nations.
Other Japanese nuclear plants in the same area were hit by the same earthquake and tsunami. They are doing OK.
You can't extrapolate a problem at a single plant to a worldwide blanket safety posture of an entire industry, anymore than a single airliner crash in one country reflects the global safety posture of the entire commercial airline industry worldwide.
Well I think I helped answer OP's question, even if in indirect way (the responses by nuceng had been highly illuminating as of the attitude of the engineers towards safety). I made a thread about US nuclear industry.
Well I think I helped answer OP's question, even if in indirect way (the responses by nuceng had been highly illuminating as of the attitude of the engineers towards safety). I made a thread about US nuclear industry.
I think you severely confused the issue and took the topic way off track. And I don't agree with your opinion on engineers and safety. So, yeah, thanks for all that.
#34
Dmytry
510
1
Well, sorry, I have somewhat interview-like approach. I evaluate people. If I want to know how programmer is at programming something specific - I ask unrelated questions in interview, answers to which i can test. You disagree with the very idea of preparation for unexpected (KHG style) - you say "ALL safety features are directly the result of past accidents and future predictions." - well, if that is true in your country, then your nuclear safety is a total joke compared to Germany. I do not know if it is true, but I get another sample point. You see preparations for unexpected as unnecessary, extraordinary thing that nobody does - another confirmation. Anyways we should take this to my thread with questions about US nuclear reactor safety.
Well, sorry, I have somewhat interview-like approach. I evaluate people. If I want to know how programmer is at programming something specific - I ask unrelated questions in interview, answers to which i can test. You disagree with the very idea of preparation for unexpected (KHG style) - you say "ALL safety features are directly the result of past accidents and future predictions." - well, if that is true in your country, then your nuclear safety is a total joke compared to Germany. I do not know if it is true, but I get another sample point. You see preparations for unexpected as unnecessary, extraordinary thing that nobody does - another confirmation. Anyways we should take this to my thread with questions about US nuclear reactor safety.
I don't see how you could base safety off of anything other than past experiences and predictions for the future. That results in everything from planning for power outages to things that haven't even happened yet. You must be assuming (incorrectly) that somehow current safety features aren't drawn from experience or predictions. ALL of them are.
Preparations for the unexpected are MANDATORY. The problem is that these things are unexpected! You cannot plan for every unexpected thing! It isn't possible! Which is why you have to have basic safety features that work in as many circumstances as possible. Did the plant in Japan have adequate safety features? I have no idea. I'm not a nuclear engineer or safety inspector.
How about you stop taking my posts as you WANT to see them and actually read them and not try to pull things from them that aren't there. Oh, I don't know what you mean by saying you have an interview-like approach here, because you've done nothing like that this entire thread.
#36
Dmytry
510
1
Sigh. See post #30.
The general ability to deploy replacement generators is a solution for many unexpected things, not just the tsunami or terrorist attack or burst pipe (lol, or many cases of meteorite strike). I'm not saying you should plan for every unexpected scenario. This is precisely a basic safety feature that works in very many circumstances - unforeseen circumstances.
By interview, i meant, bit like job interview. Except i don't have to be working with you so i can obtain more honest answers in argument.
Sigh. See post #30.
The general ability to deploy replacement generators is a solution for many unexpected things, not just the tsunami or terrorist attack or burst pipe (lol, or many cases of meteorite strike). I'm not saying you should plan for every unexpected scenario. This is precisely a basic safety feature that works in very many circumstances - unforeseen circumstances.
By interview, i meant, bit like job interview. Except i don't have to be working with you so i can obtain more honest answers in argument.
None of which you can judge to any degree of accuracy or intent. Just stick to the facts of the posts, you'll do much better.
#38
Dmytry
510
1
What facts? The number of people reviewing uprating proposal? Reviewing some specific uprating proposal in full detail myself? Come on. The only thing I can test is whenever attitude towards safety is what I consider to be correct attitude required for safe uprating. That's all. It's a question about human factor. And I am subjectively forming an opinion. I speak of the safety features EU has - and see reaction. No we don't need it is the reaction. I've subjectively formed an opinion that it is unsafe, and if i ever have to vote on what plant to build - it won't be US plant.
Last edited:
#39
Argentum Vulpes
Some points I'd like to address from Dmytry. The large three phase systems (AC) that are used in large industry is a completely different beast then the one phase (AC) system used in household wiring. In a house the maximum wattage of power you will find is around 4.4 kW, an industrial setting can see 7.5 kW in the smallest setting (a 10 hp motor). If an industry system gets flooded it is just not a matter of drying out the system and plugging it back in. Because of the massive amount of energy involved every part of the system must be gone over by a fine tooth comb to cheek for unexpected insulation breakdown due to arc over during surges due to shorts in the switching gear.
Japan also has the misfortune of having two different electrical systems inside the country. Half of the island has a 120V 60Hz like the USA, and the other half has a 120V 50Hz system. This brings up the problem that equipment that works on one side of the island won't work on the other side, generators included.
As for the uprating this seems fine given the following points. What has been pointed out that newer and better equipment/practices has allowed for better utilization of heat produced, and longer operation with that heat. And I have yet to meet a good engineer that doesn't err on the side of caution, epically with new technology. Given this it stands to reason that the name plate capacity of nuclear power plants are on the very conservative side.
#40
Dmytry
510
1
Argentum Vulpes said:
Some points I'd like to address from Dmytry. The large three phase systems (AC) that are used in large industry is a completely different beast then the one phase (AC) system used in household wiring. In a house the maximum wattage of power you will find is around 4.4 kW, an industrial setting can see 7.5 kW in the smallest setting (a 10 hp motor). If an industry system gets flooded it is just not a matter of drying out the system and plugging it back in. Because of the massive amount of energy involved every part of the system must be gone over by a fine tooth comb to cheek for unexpected insulation breakdown due to arc over during surges due to shorts in the switching gear.
All very true, but it is a pump which if you don't power it - you can kiss multi billion $ reactor goodbye. Plus this leaves a question of bringing and connecting a replacement pump.
Japan also has the misfortune of having two different electrical systems inside the country. Half of the island has a 120V 60Hz like the USA, and the other half has a 120V 50Hz system. This brings up the problem that equipment that works on one side of the island won't work on the other side, generators included.
Well, that's stupid but it leaves entire half of the island that's same frequency.
As for the uprating this seems fine given the following points. What has been pointed out that newer and better equipment/practices has allowed for better utilization of heat produced, and longer operation with that heat.
That is attempt at muddling the water. There is the kind of uprating where thermal output of the power plant (as well as time between refuelling) is increased, and that's what is of interest. Stretch uprating.
And I have yet to meet a good engineer that doesn't err on the side of caution, epically with new technology. Given this it stands to reason that the name plate capacity of nuclear power plants are on the very conservative side.
Hmm. In that thread I just met an engineer who literally couldn't understand the point of ability to deliver and connect replacement for critical equipment (ability which I a: thought they have, b: Germans have) and would avoid that and switch to topic of how many people tsunami killed outside the plant etc as justification for failure. He said he's involved in derating. Sorry, uprating. I was thinking of safety.
He also expressed belief that his industry is the most safety conscious, which is kind of strange given a huge number of other things that can kill people by design mistake resulting in massive loss of revenue, products that exist in the number of millions, not http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.oprconst.htm" . One laptop battery in 1000 explodes - that'd DECIMATE the manufacturer. One laptop battery in million explodes - that'd be a product recall and massive loss. One in 1000 reactors explodes - chances are we won't even know. Ditto for car design mistakes that result in accelerator pedal getting stuck etc. A lot of industries got extremely low tolerance to catastrophic failures attributable to design mistake.
Really, my opinion is that reactors are only as safe as they need to be - one per few hundreds lifetime probability of serious accident, right on the threshold of empirical detectability., safe enough to build them and expect none to blow up.
Like space shuttle: http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html
Uprating, well, you first convince me that nuke reactor design process is fundamentally different from what was described by Feynman.
Last edited by a moderator:
#41
mhs25
7
0
Dmytry said:
One laptop battery in 1000 explodes - that'd DECIMATE the manufacturer. One laptop battery in million explodes - that'd be a product recall and massive loss. One in 1000 reactors explodes - chances are we won't even know. Ditto for car design mistakes that result in accelerator pedal getting stuck etc. A lot of industries got extremely low tolerance to catastrophic failures attributable to design mistake.
You're kidding right? Are you really comparing a car accelerator sticking under normal operating conditions to getting hit with the fourth largest recorded earthquake in history?? Followed by a 15m tsunami?? Get Real.
Toyota isn't exactly going under right now, despite all the claims of their accelerators sticking. Planes crash all the time because of mechanical failure and kill lots of people.
By your reasoning, all cars should go under review because if you were in your car in Sendai when the tsunami hit, you're probably dead now. By your reasoning, we shouldn't go in any of our buildings or live in any of our housings because they are not rated for an Earthquake that's most likely never going to happen.
And tabulated them. The order (number) of approval shows that some plant did an uprate, then waited before commiting to another uprate. The earliest uprates happened 34 years ago at Calvert Cliffs, then 32 years ago at Millstone 2 and H. B. Robinson, and since.
NO. = Order of approval
Plant
% Uprate for each uprate
Total Plant Uprate = sum of all uprates for plant
MWt = Megawatt Thermal for each uprate
Total MWt = Sum of MWt of all uprates at plant
Type E = Extended, MU = Measurement Uncertainty, S = Stretch
Code:
NO. PLANT(Reactor) Total
% Plant Total
UPRATE Uprate MWt MWt DATE APPROVED TYPE ACCESSION #
79 ANO-2 7.5 7.5 211 211 4/24/2002 E ML021140674
65 Beaver Valley 1 1.4 37 9/24/2001 MU ML012690049
112 Beaver Valley 1 8 9.4 211 248 7/19/2006 E ML061720274
66 Beaver Valley 2 1.4 37 9/24/2001 MU ML012690049
113 Beaver Valley 2 8 9.4 211 248 7/19/2006 E ML061720274
56 Braidwood 1 5 5 170 170 5/ 4/2001 S ML033040016
57 Braidwood 2 5 5 170 170 5/ 4/2001 S ML033040016
114 Browns Ferry 1 5 5 165 165 3/ 6/2007 S ML070680307
42 Browns Ferry 2 5 5 164 164 9/ 8/1998 S ML042670047
43 Browns Ferry 3 5 5 164 164 9/ 8/1998 S ML042670047
37 Brunswick 1 5 122 11/ 1/1996 S 9611070136*
82 Brunswick 1 15 20 365 487 5/31/2002 E ML021550485
38 Brunswick 2 5 122 11/ 1/1996 S 9611070136*
83 Brunswick 2 15 20 365 487 5/31/2002 E ML021550485
54 Byron 1 5 5 170 170 5/ 4/2001 S ML033040016
55 Byron 2 5 5 170 170 5/ 4/2001 S ML033040016
13 Callaway 4.5 4.5 154 154 3/30/1988 S ML021650524
1 Calvert Cliffs 1 5.5 140 9/ 9/1977 S ML010400337
126 Calvert Cliffs 1 1.4 6.9 37 177 7/22/2009 MU ML091820366
2 Calvert Cliffs 2 5.5 140 10/19/1977 S ML003774265
127 Calvert Cliffs 2 1.4 6.9 37 177 7/22/2009 MU ML091820366
76 Clinton 20 20 579 579 4/ 5/2002 E ML021680108
68 Comanche Peak 1 1.4 47 10/12/2001 MU ML012890389
121 Comanche Peak 1 4.5 5.9 154 201 6/27/2008 S ML081510157
47 Comanche Peak 2 1 34 9/30/1999 MU ML021820306
69 Comanche Peak 2 0.4 13 10/12/2001 MU ML012890389
122 Comanche Peak 2 4.5 5.9 154 201 6/27/2008 S ML081510157
123 Cooper 1.6 1.6 38 38 6/30/2008 MU ML081540278
6 Crystal River 3 3.8 92 7/21/1981 S ML020600420
91 Crystal River 3 0.9 24 12/ 4/2002 S ML023430072
115 Crystal River 3 1.6 6.3 41 157 12/26/2007 MU ML073610197
92 D.C. Cook 1 1.66 1.66 54 54 12/20/2002 MU ML023570144
94 D.C. Cook 2 1.66 1.66 57 57 5/ 2/2003 MU ML030990132
124 Davis-Besse 1.6 1.6 45 45 6/30/2008 MU ML081420569
52 Diablo Canyon 1 2 2 73 73 10/26/2000 S ML003764792
71 Dresden 2 17 17 430 430 12/21/2001 E ML013620048
72 Dresden 3 17 17 430 430 12/21/2001 E ML013620048
9 Duane Arnold 4.1 65 3/27/1985 S ML021890435
70 Duane Arnold 15.3 19.4 248 313 11/ 6/2001 E ML013050389
40 Farley 1 5 5 138 138 4/29/1998 S ML012140259
41 Farley 2 5 5 138 138 4/29/1998 S ML012140259
15 Fermi 2 4 4 137 137 9/ 9/1992 S ML020720520
39 Fitzpatrick 4 4 100 100 12/ 6/1996 S 9612180303*
5 Fort Calhoun 5.6 5.6 80 80 8/15/1980 S 8008280223*
111 Ginna 16.8 16.8 255 255 7/11/2006 E ML061380133
84 Grand Gulf 1.7 1.7 65 65 10/10/2002 MU ML022890295
4 H. B. Robinson 4.5 100 6/29/1979 S 7907180064*
85 H. B. Robinson 1.7 6.2 39 139 11/ 5/2002 MU ML023110291
28 Hatch 1 5 122 8/31/1995 S ML013020073
45 Hatch 1 8 205 10/22/1998 E ML013030084
98 Hatch 1 1.5 14.5 41 368 9/23/2003 MU ML032691360
29 Hatch 2 5 122 8/31/1995 S ML013020073
46 Hatch 2 8 205 10/22/1998 E ML013030084
99 Hatch 2 1.5 14.5 41 368 9/23/2003 MU ML032691360
64 Hope Creek 1.4 46 7/30/2001 MU ML012120005
120 Hope Creek 15 16.4 501 547 5/14/2008 E ML081230540
96 Indian Point 2 1.4 43 5/22/2003 MU ML031500465
103 Indian Point 2 3.26 4.66 101.6 144.6 10/27/2004 S ML042960007
88 Indian Point 3 1.4 42.4 11/26/2002 MU ML023370080
105 Indian Point 3 4.85 6.25 148.6 191 3/24/2005 S ML050870383
97 Kewaunee 1.4 23 7/ 8/2003 MU ML031910330
101 Kewaunee 6 7.4 99 122 2/27/2004 S ML040611088
48 LaSalle 1 5 166 5/ 9/2000 S ML003716743
132 LaSalle 1 1.6 6.6 57 223 9/16/2010 MU ML101830361
49 LaSalle 2 5 166 5/ 9/2000 S ML003716743
133 LaSalle 2 1.6 6.6 57 223 9/16/2010 MU ML101830361
30 Limerick 1 5 165 1/24/1996 S ML011560244
136 Limerick 1 1.6 6.6 57 222 4/ 8/2011 MU ML110691095
21 Limerick 2 5 165 2/16/1995 S ML011560773
137 Limerick 2 1.6 6.6 57 222 4/ 8/2011 MU ML110691095
3 Millstone 2 5 5 140 140 6/25/1979 S 7907240100*
125 Millstone 3 7 7 239 239 8/12/2008 S ML082180137
44 Monticello 6.3 6.3 105 105 9/16/1998 E ML020920138
23 Nine Mile Point 2 4.3 4.3 144 144 4/28/1995 S 9505090259*
11 North Anna 1 4.2 118 8/25/1986 S ML013460131
128 North Anna 1 1.6 5.8 47 165 10/22/2009 MU ML092250616
12 North Anna 2 4.2 118 8/25/1986 S ML013460131
129 North Anna 2 1.6 5.8 47 165 10/22/2009 MU ML092250616
102 Palisades 1.4 1.4 35.4 35.4 6/23/2004 MU ML040970623
32 Palo Verde 1 2 76 5/23/1996 S ML021710572
107 Palo Verde 1 2.9 4.9 114 190 11/16/2005 S ML053130286
33 Palo Verde 2 2 76 5/23/1996 S ML021710572
100 Palo Verde 2 2.9 4.9 114 190 9/29/2003 S ML032731029
34 Palo Verde 3 2 76 5/23/1996 S ML021710572
108 Palo Verde 3 2.9 4.9 114 190 11/16/2005 S ML053130286
20 Peach Bottom 2 5 165 10/18/1994 S ML011490143
86 Peach Bottom 2 1.62 6.62 56 221 11/22/2002 MU ML031000317
25 Peach Bottom 3 5 165 7/18/1995 S ML021580312
87 Peach Bottom 3 1.62 6.62 56 221 11/22/2002 MU ML031000317
50 Perry 5 5 178 178 6/ 1/2000 S ML003724441
95 Pilgrim 1.5 1.5 30 30 5/ 9/2003 MU ML031320794
89 Point Beach 1 1.4 1.4 21.5 21.5 11/29/2002 MU ML023370142
90 Point Beach 2 1.4 1.4 21.5 21.5 11/29/2002 MU ML023370142
130 Prairie Island 1 1.6 1.6 27 27 8/18/2010 MU ML102030573
131 Prairie Island 2 1.6 1.6 27 27 8/18/2010 MU ML102030573
73 Quad Cities 1 17.8 17.8 446 446 12/21/2001 E ML013620116
74 Quad Cities 2 17.8 17.8 446 446 12/21/2001 E ML013620116
51 River Bend 5 145 10/ 6/2000 S ML003762072
93 River Bend 1.7 6.7 52 197 1/31/2003 MU ML030350194
10 Salem 1 2 73 2/ 6/1986 S ML011660249
58 Salem 1 1.4 3.4 48 121 5/25/2001 MU ML011520386
59 Salem 2 1.4 1.4 48 48 5/25/2001 MU ML011520386
60 San Onofre 2 1.4 1.4 48 48 7/ 6/2001 MU ML012180237
61 San Onofre 3 1.4 1.4 48 48 7/ 6/2001 MU ML012180237
104 Seabrook 5.2 176 2/28/2005 S ML050590334
110 Seabrook 1.7 6.9 61 237 5/22/2006 MU ML061430044
80 Sequoyah 1 1.3 1.3 44 44 4/30/2002 MU ML021230531
81 Sequoyah 2 1.3 1.3 44 44 4/30/2002 MU ML021230531
67 Shearon Harris 4.5 4.5 138 138 10/12/2001 S ML012880381
77 South Texas 1 1.4 1.4 53 53 4/12/2002 MU ML021130083
78 South Texas 2 1.4 1.4 53 53 4/12/2002 MU ML021130083
7 St. Lucie 1 5.5 5.5 140 140 11/23/1981 S ML013530273
8 St. Lucie 2 5.5 5.5 140 140 3/ 1/1985 S ML013600080
26 Surry 1 4.3 105 8/ 3/1995 S ML012710328
134 Surry 1 1.6 5.9 41 146 9/24/2010 MU ML101750002
27 Surry 2 4.3 105 8/ 3/1995 S ML012710328
135 Surry 2 1.6 5.9 41 146 9/24/2010 MU ML101750002
22 Susquehanna 1 4.5 148 2/22/1995 S 9503070354*
62 Susquehanna 1 1.4 48 7/ 6/2001 MU ML011970199
116 Susquehanna 1 13 18.9 463 659 1/30/2008 E ML081050530
19 Susquehanna 2 4.5 148 4/11/1994 S ML010170334
63 Susquehanna 2 1.4 48 7/ 6/2001 MU ML011970199
117 Susquehanna 2 13 18.9 463 659 1/30/2008 E ML081050530
14 TMI-1 1.3 1.3 33 33 7/26/1988 S ML003779786
35 Turkey Point 3 4.5 4.5 100 100 9/26/1996 S ML013390234
36 Turkey Point 4 4.5 4.5 100 100 9/26/1996 S ML013390234
31 V. C. Summer 4.5 4.5 125 125 4/12/1996 S ML012320013
109 Vermont Yankee 20 20 319 319 3/ 2/2006 E ML060050024
16 Vogtle 1 4.5 154 3/22/1993 S ML012330056
118 Vogtle 1 1.7 6.2 60.6 214.6 2/27/2008 MU ML080350345
17 Vogtle 2 4.5 154 3/22/1993 S ML012330056
119 Vogtle 2 1.7 6.2 60.6 214.6 2/27/2008 MU ML080350345
75 Waterford 3 1.5 51 3/29/2002 MU ML020940202
106 Waterford 3 8 9.5 275 326 4/15/2005 E ML051030082
53 Watts Bar 1.4 1.4 48 48 1/19/2001 MU ML010260074
24 WNP-2 (Columbia) 4.9 4.9 163 163 5/ 2/1995 S ML022120154
18 Wolf Creek 4.5 4.5 154 154 11/10/1993 S ML022030519
Code:
137 Total MWt 17,543.20
Total MWe 5848
Some caveats from the NRC page:
*Documents can be requested from the Public Document Room
Capacity Recapture Power Uprates for Provisional Operating License Plants are not included in this table. These are Haddam Neck uprate of 24% in 1969, Oyster Creek uprate of 14% in 1971, Palisades uprate of 15% in 1977, Ginna uprate of 17% in 1984, Maine Yankee uprate of 10% in 1989, and Indian Point 2 Uprate of 11% in 1990.
NOTE:The NRC staff approved an MUR power uprate for Fort Calhoun on January 16, 2004, which authorized an increase in the licensed thermal power limit to 1,524 megawatts-thermal. The Omaha Public Power District was subsequently informed by Westinghouse that the potential instrument inaccuracies in the Advanced Measurement and Analysis Group (AMAG) ultrasonic flow meter would not allow implementation of the MUR power uprate at Fort Calhoun. As a result, on May 7, 2004, prior to implementation of the MUR power uprate, the Omaha Public Power District submitted an exigent license amendment request to return Fort Calhoun�s licensed thermal power limit to 1,500 megawatts-thermal, the pre-MUR level. On May 14, 2004, the NRC staff approved this license amendment.
I combined uprates for each plant and summed the total % and MWt, and then looked at the combinations.
Code:
Uprates No
MU 19
E 9
S 30
MU+E 4
MU+S 5
S+MU 19
S+E 3
S+MU+E 2
S+E+MU 2
93
Code:
Total
NO Reactor Uprate Plant Total
Uprate MWt
1 ANO-2 E 7.5 211
2 Beaver Valley 1 MU+E 9.4 248
3 Beaver Valley 2 MU+E 9.4 248
4 Braidwood 1 S 5 170
5 Braidwood 2 S 5 170
6 Browns Ferry 1 S 5 165
7 Browns Ferry 2 S 5 164
8 Browns Ferry 3 S 5 164
9 Brunswick 1 S+E 20 487
10 Brunswick 2 S+E 20 487
11 Byron 1 S 5 170
12 Byron 2 S 5 170
13 Callaway S 4.5 154
14 Calvert Cliffs 1 S+MU 6.9 177
15 Calvert Cliffs 2 S+MU 6.9 177
16 Clinton E 20 579
17 Comanche Peak 1 MU+S 5.9 201
18 Comanche Peak 2 MU+S 5.9 201
19 Cooper MU 1.6 38
20 Crystal River 3 S+MU 6.3 157
21 D.C. Cook 1 MU 1.66 54
22 D.C. Cook 2 MU 1.66 57
23 Davis-Besse MU 1.6 45
24 Diablo Canyon 1 S 2 73
25 Dresden 2 E 17 430
26 Dresden 3 E 17 430
27 Duane Arnold S+E 19.4 313
28 Farley 1 S 5 138
29 Farley 2 S 5 138
30 Fermi 2 S 4 137
31 Fitzpatrick S 4 100
32 Fort Calhoun S 5.6 80
33 Ginna E 16.8 255
34 Grand Gulf MU 1.7 65
35 H. B. Robinson S+MU 6.2 139
36 Hatch 1 S+E+MU 14.5 368
37 Hatch 2 S+E+MU 14.5 368
38 Hope Creek MU+E 16.4 547
39 Indian Point 2 MU+S 4.66 144.6
40 Indian Point 3 MU+S 6.25 191
41 Kewaunee MU+S 7.4 122
42 LaSalle 1 S+MU 6.6 223
43 LaSalle 2 S+MU 6.6 223
44 Limerick 1 S+MU 6.6 222
45 Limerick 2 S+MU 6.6 222
46 Millstone 2 S 5 140
47 Millstone 3 S 7 239
48 Monticello E 6.3 105
49 Nine Mile Point 2 S 4.3 144
50 North Anna 1 S+MU 5.8 165
51 North Anna 2 S+MU 5.8 165
52 Palisades MU 1.4 35.4
53 Palo Verde 1 S 4.9 190
54 Palo Verde 2 S 4.9 190
55 Palo Verde 3 S 4.9 190
56 Peach Bottom 2 S+MU 6.62 221
57 Peach Bottom 3 S+MU 6.62 221
58 Perry S 5 178
59 Pilgrim MU 1.5 30
60 Point Beach 1 MU 1.4 21.5
61 Point Beach 2 MU 1.4 21.5
62 Prairie Island 1 MU 1.6 27
63 Prairie Island 2 MU 1.6 27
64 Quad Cities 1 E 17.8 446
65 Quad Cities 2 E 17.8 446
66 River Bend S+MU 6.7 197
67 Salem 1 S+MU 3.4 121
68 Salem 2 MU 1.4 48
69 San Onofre 2 MU 1.4 48
70 San Onofre 3 MU 1.4 48
71 Seabrook S+MU 6.9 237
72 Sequoyah 1 MU 1.3 44
73 Sequoyah 2 MU 1.3 44
74 Shearon Harris S 4.5 138
75 South Texas 1 MU 1.4 53
76 South Texas 2 MU 1.4 53
77 St. Lucie 1 S 5.5 140
78 St. Lucie 2 S 5.5 140
79 Surry 1 S+MU 5.9 146
80 Surry 2 S+MU 5.9 146
81 Susquehanna 1 S+MU+E 18.9 659
82 Susquehanna 2 S+MU+E 18.9 659
83 TMI-1 S 1.3 33
84 Turkey Point 3 S 4.5 100
85 Turkey Point 4 S 4.5 100
86 V. C. Summer S 4.5 125
87 Vermont Yankee E 20 319
88 Vogtle 1 S+MU 6.2 214.6
89 Vogtle 2 S+MU 6.2 214.6
90 Waterford 3 MU+E 9.5 326
91 Watts Bar MU 1.4 48
92 WNP-2 (Columbia) S 4.9 163
93 Wolf Creek S 4.5 154
Ten units have not uprated.
ANO-1
Catawba 1
Catawba 2
Diablo Canyon 2
McGuire 1
McGuire 2
Nine Mile Point 1
Oconee 1
Oconee 2
Oconee 3
See above post for comment on Oyster Creek.
Last edited:
#44
pcr01
6
0
NUCENG said:
Ok, you are welcome to chime in as well.
Thank you, pleasure to be here.
NUCENG said:
There is no such thing as a risk free life and never will be. We have a choice of managing risk or losing the benefits of technology. Technology with risk management has increased life expectancy, not reduced it.
Yes, but even though technology has granted a longer life for billions of people, at the same time, they often live a life that is not even worth living due to extreme poverty.
Also, technology has contributed to improving the infant mortality rate which contributes to the overpopulation in the underdeveloped world and for the most part the non-Caucasoid world.
Another point, why should such a risky energy producing technology be used to power ipods, TVs, kitchen appliances, and over all, such degenerate run of the mill societies such as North America (ie, divorce rate over 50%, highest incarceration rate in the world, epidemic obesity)?
200+ years ago when people talked under candlelight/fire people were less sleep deprived (humans literally got more sleep), and people were more industrious and mature down to the children regardless if they couldn't read or write.
Total Total
Reactor Uprate Plant MWt
% Uprate
Sequoyah 1 MU 1.3 44
Sequoyah 2 MU 1.3 44
TMI-1 S 1.3 33
Palisades MU 1.4 35.4
Point Beach 1 MU 1.4 21.5
Point Beach 2 MU 1.4 21.5
Salem 2 MU 1.4 48
San Onofre 2 MU 1.4 48
San Onofre 3 MU 1.4 48
South Texas 1 MU 1.4 53
South Texas 2 MU 1.4 53
Watts Bar MU 1.4 48
Pilgrim MU 1.5 30
Cooper MU 1.6 38
Davis-Besse MU 1.6 45
Prairie Island 1 MU 1.6 27
Prairie Island 2 MU 1.6 27
D.C. Cook 1 MU 1.66 54
D.C. Cook 2 MU 1.66 57
Grand Gulf MU 1.7 65
Diablo Canyon 1 S 2 73
Salem 1 S+MU 3.4 121
Fermi 2 S 4 137
Fitzpatrick S 4 100
Nine Mile Point 2 S 4.3 144
Callaway S 4.5 154
Shearon Harris S 4.5 138
Turkey Point 3 S 4.5 100
Turkey Point 4 S 4.5 100
V. C. Summer S 4.5 125
Wolf Creek S 4.5 154
Indian Point 2 MU+S 4.66 144.6
Palo Verde 1 S 4.9 190
Palo Verde 2 S 4.9 190
Palo Verde 3 S 4.9 190
WNP-2 (Columbia) S 4.9 163
Braidwood 1 S 5 170
Braidwood 2 S 5 170
Browns Ferry 1 S 5 165
Browns Ferry 2 S 5 164
Browns Ferry 3 S 5 164
Byron 1 S 5 170
Byron 2 S 5 170
Farley 1 S 5 138
Farley 2 S 5 138
Millstone 2 S 5 140
Perry S 5 178
St. Lucie 1 S 5.5 140
St. Lucie 2 S 5.5 140
Fort Calhoun S 5.6 80
North Anna 1 S+MU 5.8 165
North Anna 2 S+MU 5.8 165
Comanche Peak 1 MU+S 5.9 201
Comanche Peak 2 MU+S 5.9 201
Surry 1 S+MU 5.9 146
Surry 2 S+MU 5.9 146
H. B. Robinson S+MU 6.2 139
Vogtle 1 S+MU 6.2 214.6
Vogtle 2 S+MU 6.2 214.6
Indian Point 3 MU+S 6.25 191
Monticello E 6.3 105
Crystal River 3 S+MU 6.3 157
LaSalle 1 S+MU 6.6 223
LaSalle 2 S+MU 6.6 223
Limerick 1 S+MU 6.6 222
Limerick 2 S+MU 6.6 222
Peach Bottom 2 S+MU 6.62 221
Peach Bottom 3 S+MU 6.62 221
River Bend S+MU 6.7 197
Calvert Cliffs 1 S+MU 6.9 177
Calvert Cliffs 2 S+MU 6.9 177
Seabrook S+MU 6.9 237
Millstone 3 S 7 239
Kewaunee MU+S 7.4 122
ANO-2 E 7.5 211
Beaver Valley 1 MU+E 9.4 248
Beaver Valley 2 MU+E 9.4 248
Waterford 3 MU+E 9.5 326
Hatch 1 S+E+MU 14.5 368
Hatch 2 S+E+MU 14.5 368
Hope Creek MU+E 16.4 547
Ginna E 16.8 255
Dresden 2 E 17 430
Dresden 3 E 17 430
Quad Cities 1 E 17.8 446
Quad Cities 2 E 17.8 446
Susquehanna 1 S+MU+E 18.9 659
Susquehanna 2 S+MU+E 18.9 659
Duane Arnold S+E 19.4 313
Clinton E 20 579
Vermont Yankee E 20 319
Brunswick 1 S+E 20 487
Brunswick 2 S+E 20 487
Of the 93 units that have uprated, 56 units (60%) uprated less than 6%, 17 units (18%) upreated from 6 to 7%, and 20 units (22%) uprated by more than 7%, and some the latter realized uprates of 20%. And some units have received license extensions of 20 years.
One can access reports to review what is involved in the uprates and license extensions.
pcr01, I find everything in your post completely absurd and based almost entirely on your own opinion. And what does it even have to do with the thread?
#47
pcr01
6
0
Drakkith said:
pcr01, I find everything in your post completely absurd and based almost entirely on your own opinion. And what does it even have to do with the thread?
Yes, but even though technology has granted a longer life for billions of people, at the same time, they often live a life that is not even worth living due to extreme poverty.
Also, technology has contributed to improving the infant mortality rate which contributes to the overpopulation in the underdeveloped world and for the most part the non-Caucasoid world.
Another point, why should such a risky energy producing technology be used to power ipods, TVs, kitchen appliances, and over all, such degenerate run of the mill societies such as North America (ie, divorce rate over 50%, highest incarceration rate in the world, epidemic obesity)?
200+ years ago when people talked under candlelight/fire people were less sleep deprived (humans literally got more sleep), and people were more industrious and mature down to the children regardless if they couldn't read or write.
Yes, we Americans live in the worst country in the world, except for all the other ones. There is extreme poverty in the world, but would that condition really be better without uprates or nuclear power? Would throwing people out of work really help? I know the United States has usually been the first on the scene in cases of natural disasters. I spent as much time in the military on humanitarian assistance than I ever did in combat. We have made mistakes, but it has mostly been with the best intentions. 200 years ago there were no cures or vaccines for polio, yellow fever, smallpox, malaria, or the plague. Kings, Queens, and Emperors ruled and their subjects had no rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. I wonder about how much sleep they really got with hunger and disease and 16 hour work days.
Just to keep this focused on the topic of this thread, yes, power uprates may be powering ipods, and televisions, and kitchen appliances. But they are also powering plants that produce medicines. They have allowed scientists to use computers to develop implrovements in agricultural production that feeds the world and hopefully soon even more of the world. Power uprates may be powering kitchen appliances - like refrigerators that have drastically cut hunger or poisoning due to spoilage. I guess that eliminating refrigerators might cut down on obesity. As bad as you think things are, do you really believe it would be better if prople didn't know how to read and write?
So what is your solution for the people whose lives aren't worth living? Overpopulation can be solved by allowing disease to return. Do you really want to go back two centuries just to get more sleep? Perhaps you would be better going back only 70 years, just before nuclear power, at a time when Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin decided there were millions of lives not worth living.
Of the 93 units that have uprated, 56 units (60%) uprated less than 6%, 17 units (18%) upreated from 6 to 7%, and 20 units (22%) uprated by more than 7%, and some the latter realized uprates of 20%. And some units have received license extensions of 20 years.
One can access reports to review what is involved in the uprates and license extensions.
There are actually four different types of uprates to my knowledge. First, plants built in the early days were deliberately derated about 5% in compensation for perceived uncertainties in the analysis tools available at that time. As those tools improved and were validated plants performed "Stretch Power Uprates" to regain that production, Second, there are BOP uprates such as improved thermal efficiency by turbine replacements, Third, there are extended Power Uprates, based on continuing improvements in analysis tools, plant operating experience, and improved fuel designs. Finally, there are Margin Uncertainty Recovery uprates based on the more accurate measurement of Feedwater Flow in power measurement with better instrumentaion.
I appreciate the list, but at a minimum it is missing the Monticello extended power uprate.
I came to the PF forums when I found references to the Fukushima thread. I am willing to provide my technical expertise and experience to help others who are interested in that viewpoint. I will even respond to philosophical discussions if they are respectful of opposing viewpoints.