[ RadSafe ] Re: Shoreham and Rancho Seco and Nuclear Fleet Performance

[Cehn at aol.com]

To add to George's Rancho Seco history, its important to note that 2 or 3  
ballot measures were floated by the opposition to nuclear power in  California.  
The first 1 or 2 failed, but the last one finally passed. (If  it hadn't, 
there would have been yet another anti-nuclear measure.)  The  ballot was binding 
because SMUD is a public agency.  If it were private,  the rules would have 
been quite different. Finally, SMUD had just sunk about  $100 million into the 
plant when the  ballot measure passed.
 
Joel I. Cehn
Oakland, CA
_joelc at alum.wpi.edu_ (mailto:joelc at alum.wpi.edu)  
 
In a message dated 5/17/2005 12:33:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
radsafe-request at radlab.nl writes:


Rancho Seco was an entirely different mess.  The Sacramento  Municipal
Utility District (SMUD) was (is) a relatively small  publicly-owned electric
utility that operated a single nuclear power plant  (I do not recall what
other generating assets they actually owned).   They were a small
organization that was seriously overextended and simply  lacked the resources
to properly operate and maintain the facility.   High personnel turnover and
equipment failures from inadequate maintenance  were chronic and the plant
operated at a very poor capacity factor.   The voters finally enacted a
referendum under which the plant would be  closed if it could not maintain a
reasonable capacity factor over a period  of time (about two years as I
recalled.)  The facility never attained  the required capacity factor and was
subsequently closed.  SMUD had no  business being in the nuclear power
business.


range.  Not  bad overall.

George J. Vargo, Ph.D., CHP
Senior Scientist
MJW  Corporation
http://www.mjwcorp.com
610-925-3377
610-925-5545  (fax)
_vargo at physicist.net_ (mailto:vargo at physicist.net)