re: #269 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Really? Wasn’t there a letter from an Edison engineer saying that they really don’t, and if they proceed with the fix the problem will reoccur?

The latest thing I can find is someone from the company saying they’re not sure if reactor 3 could be scrapped or not. Is there something more recent from the company saying that they really have a handle on the problems and assurance that it won’t happen again?

What I have seen is that the best fix would be a new set of redesigned tubes, courtesy of the manufacturer who is responsible. Or perhaps a return to the lower capacity design. The suggested cheaper fix (from Edison) is to plug enough of the tubes that it becomes a lessened capacity and lessened risk machine. Options actually abound. Mitsubishi is responsible for the current tube failures.

What I see there is a facility and location that is (or was until today) licensed nuclear facility for now and the future. Putting a safer design in, perhaps hyperion designs or thorium designs or whatever future engineering would indicate.

if you really understand climate change data, you most likely understand how badly we need to deploy all the low and no CO tech we can for energy. That means nuclear. Nothing else offers the scale we need for now.

The math is beyond me, but I’d love to see how much gas oil or coal will be burned to offset this closure. Because the atmospheric gas imbalance is the harm we have now as a certainty. The data is strong in favor of well run nuclear energy. Of course energy tech is so vast and so necessary that caveat applies to them all.