24 ms·

The real concern here is making sure the existing nuclear plants have a clear glide slope toward end-of-life. Nuclear power is an extremely tight community. On

The real concern here is making sure the existing nuclear plants have a clear glide slope toward end-of-life. Nuclear power is an extremely tight community. On the nuclear carrier I was on (powered by Westinghouse plants), there was a valve (a valve!) malfunctioning and the tech rep flown out from the company took one look at it and said "This bit's in backward". "How do you know?" "I designed it". Which means the same guy had been working on that system for 30 years. The people working for this company are a matter of national security. I sure hope Secretary Mattis understands that. This, also, by the way, is a great illustration of Elon Musk's contention that these technologies don't just keep working. Brilliant, competent engineers and scientists have to invest themselves in making them work.

bch 10y ago
> This, also, by the way, is a great illustration of Elon Musk's contention that these technologies don't just keep working. Brilliant, competent engineers and scientists have to invest themselves in making them work. Is this expressed in a paper, or conference that I can watch a video of?
- throwanem 10y ago
  Probably, but it's also intuitively obvious to anyone who's owned a car, or a house, or otherwise been responsible for the function of any reasonably complex machine. Things wear out. Things break. They have to be repaired or replaced if the process of which they're a part is to continue. Knowledge is a crucial part of that, too. The Saturn rocket program is a great example - if we decided to go back to the moon tomorrow, we'd be a decade or more in the doing of it, because all the people who knew how to build those rockets, and the tools to build those rockets, and the tools to build those tools, and so on - are by now retired or deceased. We'd have to figure all that stuff out all over again, as nearly from scratch as makes no odds. There's no reason to imagine any other similarly complex technology would be different.
pm90 10y ago
This is a great point, but I'm very pessimistic about existing infrastructure getting any attention from the administration. If we're unable to upgrade and secure our nukes (!), I don't see how this would be a priority for anyone. Until that is something goes bad...
LordKano 10y ago
Last year, I interviewed with one of the companies that was born by Westinghouse shedding units a couple of decades ago and they still do this kind of thing. If a Naval unit has an issue, they'll attempt to reproduce it and develop a solution at a remote location. If they can't, they'll send an engineer across the planet to evaluate and fix it. They do this even for not "critical" systems. I was impressed at that level of dedication. It was this part that made me re-think whether or not I wanted the position. I wasn't ready to commit to being available to travel to the other side of the planet at a moment's notice if/when something goes wrong but I do appreciate the commitment. The current rush to the bottom school of thought in cost-saving will have a serious detrimental effect on our military prowess. Sure, some people think that's a good thing but I do not.
- killjoywashere 10y ago
  If you can, take that job. You will not regret it. Consider this: that tech rep probably had a resume that a dozen companies would kill for, and he's still at Westinghouse. Flying across the planet, landing on aircraft carriers.
  - LordKano 10y ago
    I have noticed that people who get hired there retire from there. I'll continue to consider it in the future.
    - madengr 10y ago
      Assuming the Westinghouse bankruptcy does not relieve them of pension obligations, etc.
- ptero 10y ago
  I may be misreading your message, but this approach seems to be an example of rational, good engineering. If a system is broken in a faraway place it is best to analyze it and develop a fix in a well equipped lab convenient for experts to work in. Once the solution is known, deploy and validate it, ideally remotely or by shipping components, not by sending your experts on site. Sending an expert to a remote site or a ship to fix a problem is a last resort.
MichaelApproved 10y ago
> "This bit's in backward" This is why I'm against nuclear power. As safe as the technology could be, it still run by humans who make errors. If you think a bit being put in backwards isn't a big deal, check out the history of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. > The San Onofre station had technical problems over the years. In July 1982, Time wrote, "The firm Bechtel was ... embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" at San Onofre. Backwards. The reactor was installed backwards. It goes on. > In 2008, the San Onofre plant received multiple citations over issues such as failed emergency generators, improperly wired batteries and falsified fire safety data. In its annual review of 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified improvements but noted that in the area of human performance, "corrective actions to date have not resulted in sustained and measurable improvement”. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...
- lochlainn 10y ago
  >> falsified fire safety data In a situation where something that severe (and malicious) is found, what would even be the short-term response? Are the management of the plant completely replaced?
  - lightbyte 10y ago
    I would hope someone went to jail for such an extremely dangerous form of fraud.
    - xorblurb 10y ago
      Well, falsification of certificates seems to be quite common by nuclear subcontractors, and depending of the number of alternative shops able to do (kind of) the same thing (minus or plus correct quality...) those who falsify stuff might get away with a mere slap on the wrist and safety authorities telling them that it is bad, don't do it again.
- tonmoy 10y ago
badloginagain 10y ago
Living in a world where technology seems outdated after 3-4 years, having reactors reliably serving up power for several decades is kind of amazing. On the other hand, this does keep the number of people in the industry small. Sure, demonization of the power source, and regulatory standards that inhibit the development of new technologies also help, but it seems like this would be a problem regardless. I've always wondered what the demand/pay is for engineers looking to enter the nuclear industry is like.
- killjoywashere 10y ago
  The ones I know, ex-Navy, are living pretty high on the hog.
  - ben_jones 10y ago
    There most be an increasing amount of hardware/software with egregious business value (hundred million+) with a decreasing number of surviving/available designers etc. Rationally if these people were required to fix or maintain such systems their yearly value would be in the millions wouldn't it? For some reason I get the feeling that such people are not paid in the millions. Maybe double or triple a traditional salary but not in the executive-bonus tier. Do they deserve to be?
    - Chaebixi 10y ago
      > There most be an increasing amount of hardware/software with egregious business value (hundred million+) with a decreasing number of surviving/available designers etc. See COBOL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL
      - aedron 10y ago
        Yeah. I see a lot of COBOL guys that are extremely critical resources for big enterprises. As GP said, they are not paid like C-suite executives, but not very far from it, and no one asks them how they spend their time. Needless to say they are a very relaxed bunch.
skywhopper 10y ago
Wouldn't this stuff fall under Department of Energy, ie Secretary Perry? Who didn't know what the DoE did until after he was nominated?
- 0xfeba 10y ago
  > Who didn't know what the DoE did until after he was nominated? Couldn't remember the name of it either, but was going to get rid of it regardless!
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Yep, he thought that the Department of Energy was responsible for regulating the energy sector.
  - kesselvon 10y ago
    And somehow that wasn't a dead-end for his confirmation
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      If Betsy de Vos could be confirmed that should come as no surprise.
- dpc59 10y ago
  stuff can fall under multiple departments
- coredog64 10y ago
  That was proven to be "fake news". Essentially someone talked to a source (Michael McKenna) that hadn't even talked to Perry after his name was floated. Later interviews with McKenna even had him saying that he was misquoted. The DoE does lots of work in Texas, and as former governor Perry had experience in working with them on managing the US's nuclear weapons stockpile. Part of his campaign platform in 2011 was to split the National Nuclear Security Administration out of the DoE and give it to the DoD. In his statement accepting the nomination, he specifically called out the role of the DoE in safeguarding the US nuclear arsenal. Otherwise don't let me stop the "hurr Durr stupid Republicans" circle jerk.
samstave 10y ago
This is one of the best annecdotal posts I have ever read on the internet. My grandfather was a nuke eng for GE his entire career, built Hanford - he is the reason I got into what I do... He died of cancer as they didnt quite yet know that radiation was a problem for human health when they started out... My dads best friend was sec energy under reagan.... I am speechless with respect to how moronic this admin is to nuclear everything
- kwhitefoot 10y ago
  > He died of cancer as they didnt quite yet know that radiation was a problem for human health when they started out... That's putting it a bit strong, after all Marie Curie died of "aplastic anemia brought on by exposure to radiation" in 1934. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie And "actress Midori Naka, present during the bombing, was studied extensively for radiation poisoning. Her death in 1945 was the first to be officially documented as having been caused by radiation poisoning" http://www.news-medical.net/health/Radiation-Poisoning-History.aspx http://www.news-medical.net/health/Radiation-Poisoning-Histo... So they might not have had good statistics but they certainly had reason to be cautious. Of course radiation is also used to treat cancer, there is a good side to many things.
  - donarb 10y ago
    And before that, women were poisoned with radium, which was used to mark watch dials with luminous paint. What's remarkable was that executives and scientists were aware of the toxic nature of the radioactive paint, yet the women were instructed to use their lips to form points on their brushes to make the painting more precise. Lawsuits happened in the 1930's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
    - samstave 10y ago
      Yup... and I recall having a Radium clock in my grandparents house when I was a child... I can still see the thing in my minds eye. It looked very similar to this: https://img1.etsystatic.com/163/0/7022168/il_340x270.1212341565_rw4g.jpg https://img1.etsystatic.com/163/0/7022168/il_340x270.1212341...
logfromblammo 10y ago
"Oh. So you designed it so that it could go in backward, and that would cause it to malfunction? Must be embarrassing for you to come out and fix that now."
iamacynic 10y ago
for westinghouse to file bankruptcy less than 90 days into a new republican administration with a focus on defense, nationalism, and domestic business is a pretty obvious move to get either a bailout or absorbed into DoD or DoE. and i'm pretty sure the secretary of defense "understands" the people who run his entire nuclear fleet are sort of important, the question is, does rick perry? magic 8 ball says: reply hazy.
- kesselvon 10y ago
  Westinghouse is a Japanese subsidiary now. It's basically a move to GTFO out of the nuclear power market
  - iamacynic 10y ago
    so then, sounds like quickest and cheapest (bankruptcy) way to do that is to get that division absorbed by another defense contractor or the gubmint.
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > It's basically a move to GTFO out of the nuclear power market Except the losses come from the construction of new reactors (the AP1000 for the Vogtle and Summer plants), not the operation of them.
    - fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
      Westinghouse's business model was to try to break even on construction and make money servicing and selling fuel rod assemblies.
WalterBright 10y ago
> This bit's in backward It should be impossible to install components backwards in a critical system (learned that when working on designs at Boeing).
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Thats just a challenge to a construction worker. "Stupid pointy headed geeks got it backwards again dale! Help me get er in there right." Meaning only to keep the project rolling. This is why choice of crew, not just management, is critical in building.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    Boeing is well aware of the problem with workers forcing things to fit the wrong way anyway, and take that into consideration, making it as hard as practical to do so. For example, if the hydraulics are hooked up backwards, the controls are reversed, which is a disaster. So the design: 1. uses different port sizes for the input and output 2. one port uses left hand threads, the other right hand 3. the lines are physically not long enough to reach the wrong port 4. very clear labeling 5. inspections and signoffs
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

bch 10y ago

> This, also, by the way, is a great illustration of Elon Musk's contention that these technologies don't just keep working. Brilliant, competent engineers and scientists have to invest themselves in making them work. Is this expressed in a paper, or conference that I can watch a video of?

throwanem 10y ago
Probably, but it's also intuitively obvious to anyone who's owned a car, or a house, or otherwise been responsible for the function of any reasonably complex machine. Things wear out. Things break. They have to be repaired or replaced if the process of which they're a part is to continue. Knowledge is a crucial part of that, too. The Saturn rocket program is a great example - if we decided to go back to the moon tomorrow, we'd be a decade or more in the doing of it, because all the people who knew how to build those rockets, and the tools to build those rockets, and the tools to build those tools, and so on - are by now retired or deceased. We'd have to figure all that stuff out all over again, as nearly from scratch as makes no odds. There's no reason to imagine any other similarly complex technology would be different.

pm90 10y ago

This is a great point, but I'm very pessimistic about existing infrastructure getting any attention from the administration. If we're unable to upgrade and secure our nukes (!), I don't see how this would be a priority for anyone. Until that is something goes bad...

LordKano 10y ago

Last year, I interviewed with one of the companies that was born by Westinghouse shedding units a couple of decades ago and they still do this kind of thing. If a Naval unit has an issue, they'll attempt to reproduce it and develop a solution at a remote location. If they can't, they'll send an engineer across the planet to evaluate and fix it. They do this even for not "critical" systems. I was impressed at that level of dedication. It was this part that made me re-think whether or not I wanted the position. I wasn't ready to commit to being available to travel to the other side of the planet at a moment's notice if/when something goes wrong but I do appreciate the commitment. The current rush to the bottom school of thought in cost-saving will have a serious detrimental effect on our military prowess. Sure, some people think that's a good thing but I do not.

killjoywashere 10y ago
If you can, take that job. You will not regret it. Consider this: that tech rep probably had a resume that a dozen companies would kill for, and he's still at Westinghouse. Flying across the planet, landing on aircraft carriers.
- LordKano 10y ago
  I have noticed that people who get hired there retire from there. I'll continue to consider it in the future.
  - madengr 10y ago
    Assuming the Westinghouse bankruptcy does not relieve them of pension obligations, etc.
ptero 10y ago
I may be misreading your message, but this approach seems to be an example of rational, good engineering. If a system is broken in a faraway place it is best to analyze it and develop a fix in a well equipped lab convenient for experts to work in. Once the solution is known, deploy and validate it, ideally remotely or by shipping components, not by sending your experts on site. Sending an expert to a remote site or a ship to fix a problem is a last resort.

MichaelApproved 10y ago

> "This bit's in backward" This is why I'm against nuclear power. As safe as the technology could be, it still run by humans who make errors. If you think a bit being put in backwards isn't a big deal, check out the history of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. > The San Onofre station had technical problems over the years. In July 1982, Time wrote, "The firm Bechtel was ... embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" at San Onofre. Backwards. The reactor was installed backwards. It goes on. > In 2008, the San Onofre plant received multiple citations over issues such as failed emergency generators, improperly wired batteries and falsified fire safety data. In its annual review of 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified improvements but noted that in the area of human performance, "corrective actions to date have not resulted in sustained and measurable improvement”. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...

lochlainn 10y ago
>> falsified fire safety data In a situation where something that severe (and malicious) is found, what would even be the short-term response? Are the management of the plant completely replaced?
- lightbyte 10y ago
  I would hope someone went to jail for such an extremely dangerous form of fraud.
  - xorblurb 10y ago
    Well, falsification of certificates seems to be quite common by nuclear subcontractors, and depending of the number of alternative shops able to do (kind of) the same thing (minus or plus correct quality...) those who falsify stuff might get away with a mere slap on the wrist and safety authorities telling them that it is bad, don't do it again.
tonmoy 10y ago

badloginagain 10y ago

Living in a world where technology seems outdated after 3-4 years, having reactors reliably serving up power for several decades is kind of amazing. On the other hand, this does keep the number of people in the industry small. Sure, demonization of the power source, and regulatory standards that inhibit the development of new technologies also help, but it seems like this would be a problem regardless. I've always wondered what the demand/pay is for engineers looking to enter the nuclear industry is like.

killjoywashere 10y ago
The ones I know, ex-Navy, are living pretty high on the hog.
- ben_jones 10y ago
  There most be an increasing amount of hardware/software with egregious business value (hundred million+) with a decreasing number of surviving/available designers etc. Rationally if these people were required to fix or maintain such systems their yearly value would be in the millions wouldn't it? For some reason I get the feeling that such people are not paid in the millions. Maybe double or triple a traditional salary but not in the executive-bonus tier. Do they deserve to be?
  - Chaebixi 10y ago
    > There most be an increasing amount of hardware/software with egregious business value (hundred million+) with a decreasing number of surviving/available designers etc. See COBOL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL
    - aedron 10y ago
      Yeah. I see a lot of COBOL guys that are extremely critical resources for big enterprises. As GP said, they are not paid like C-suite executives, but not very far from it, and no one asks them how they spend their time. Needless to say they are a very relaxed bunch.

skywhopper 10y ago

Wouldn't this stuff fall under Department of Energy, ie Secretary Perry? Who didn't know what the DoE did until after he was nominated?

0xfeba 10y ago
> Who didn't know what the DoE did until after he was nominated? Couldn't remember the name of it either, but was going to get rid of it regardless!
enraged_camel 10y ago
Yep, he thought that the Department of Energy was responsible for regulating the energy sector.
- kesselvon 10y ago
  And somehow that wasn't a dead-end for his confirmation
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    If Betsy de Vos could be confirmed that should come as no surprise.
dpc59 10y ago
stuff can fall under multiple departments
coredog64 10y ago
That was proven to be "fake news". Essentially someone talked to a source (Michael McKenna) that hadn't even talked to Perry after his name was floated. Later interviews with McKenna even had him saying that he was misquoted. The DoE does lots of work in Texas, and as former governor Perry had experience in working with them on managing the US's nuclear weapons stockpile. Part of his campaign platform in 2011 was to split the National Nuclear Security Administration out of the DoE and give it to the DoD. In his statement accepting the nomination, he specifically called out the role of the DoE in safeguarding the US nuclear arsenal. Otherwise don't let me stop the "hurr Durr stupid Republicans" circle jerk.

samstave 10y ago

This is one of the best annecdotal posts I have ever read on the internet. My grandfather was a nuke eng for GE his entire career, built Hanford - he is the reason I got into what I do... He died of cancer as they didnt quite yet know that radiation was a problem for human health when they started out... My dads best friend was sec energy under reagan.... I am speechless with respect to how moronic this admin is to nuclear everything

kwhitefoot 10y ago
> He died of cancer as they didnt quite yet know that radiation was a problem for human health when they started out... That's putting it a bit strong, after all Marie Curie died of "aplastic anemia brought on by exposure to radiation" in 1934. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie And "actress Midori Naka, present during the bombing, was studied extensively for radiation poisoning. Her death in 1945 was the first to be officially documented as having been caused by radiation poisoning" http://www.news-medical.net/health/Radiation-Poisoning-History.aspx http://www.news-medical.net/health/Radiation-Poisoning-Histo... So they might not have had good statistics but they certainly had reason to be cautious. Of course radiation is also used to treat cancer, there is a good side to many things.
- donarb 10y ago
  And before that, women were poisoned with radium, which was used to mark watch dials with luminous paint. What's remarkable was that executives and scientists were aware of the toxic nature of the radioactive paint, yet the women were instructed to use their lips to form points on their brushes to make the painting more precise. Lawsuits happened in the 1930's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
  - samstave 10y ago
    Yup... and I recall having a Radium clock in my grandparents house when I was a child... I can still see the thing in my minds eye. It looked very similar to this: https://img1.etsystatic.com/163/0/7022168/il_340x270.1212341565_rw4g.jpg https://img1.etsystatic.com/163/0/7022168/il_340x270.1212341...

logfromblammo 10y ago

"Oh. So you designed it so that it could go in backward, and that would cause it to malfunction? Must be embarrassing for you to come out and fix that now."

iamacynic 10y ago

for westinghouse to file bankruptcy less than 90 days into a new republican administration with a focus on defense, nationalism, and domestic business is a pretty obvious move to get either a bailout or absorbed into DoD or DoE. and i'm pretty sure the secretary of defense "understands" the people who run his entire nuclear fleet are sort of important, the question is, does rick perry? magic 8 ball says: reply hazy.

kesselvon 10y ago
Westinghouse is a Japanese subsidiary now. It's basically a move to GTFO out of the nuclear power market
- iamacynic 10y ago
  so then, sounds like quickest and cheapest (bankruptcy) way to do that is to get that division absorbed by another defense contractor or the gubmint.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > It's basically a move to GTFO out of the nuclear power market Except the losses come from the construction of new reactors (the AP1000 for the Vogtle and Summer plants), not the operation of them.
  - fnordfnordfnord 10y ago
    Westinghouse's business model was to try to break even on construction and make money servicing and selling fuel rod assemblies.

WalterBright 10y ago

> This bit's in backward It should be impossible to install components backwards in a critical system (learned that when working on designs at Boeing).

Neliquat 10y ago
Thats just a challenge to a construction worker. "Stupid pointy headed geeks got it backwards again dale! Help me get er in there right." Meaning only to keep the project rolling. This is why choice of crew, not just management, is critical in building.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  Boeing is well aware of the problem with workers forcing things to fit the wrong way anyway, and take that into consideration, making it as hard as practical to do so. For example, if the hydraulics are hooked up backwards, the controls are reversed, which is a disaster. So the design: 1. uses different port sizes for the input and output 2. one port uses left hand threads, the other right hand 3. the lines are physically not long enough to reach the wrong port 4. very clear labeling 5. inspections and signoffs

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]