4 Comments

  1. Rod, you need to update the filmmakers on that scare ad about Shoreham that the oil people ran during the controversy over the plant opening. Or maybe you already have shown it to James. Talk about a smoking gun!

  2. Gwyneth – actually, James and Ray were the ones who found it and shared it with me. They discovered it during their library document searches.
    I think that the final product is going to be interesting and useful. Harvey and Karl do an excellent job of playing themselves and demonstrating the foolishness of their positions. You, on the other hand come off rather well as a person with critical thinking skills who is willing to change her mind when provided access to better information.

  3. Hi Rod,
    I’m a newbie to your blog. I was a consultant to (and former employee of) GE on the Shoreham Project after the ill-fated decision to not proceed beyond hot testing. The fuel had to be removed before complete decommissioning. We actually took the slightly irradiated fuel and made pioneering shipments of it by truck, barge and rail to the Limerick Station in PA for reinsertion and use. That series of shipments remains a model for the intermodal movement of this material. In this case there was a need to preserve the mechanical integrity of the assemblies since they were going back in-core in. I wrote a complete report on the entire operation for the DOE – OCRWM. Was a great project even though the demise of Shoreham was a huge waste.

  4. Robert – welcome to Atomic Insights and thank you for sharing your thoughts on Shoreham.
    It is definitely a story that continues to influence the progress of the nuclear industry; one of the reasons that it is difficult to finance a plant is that financial people in New York are aware of the fact that the plant was very contentious during construction, received its operating license, but was never allowed to operate and produce revenue to repay the loans.
    A large fraction of the financial industry is probably still personally writing checks every month in their electric bills to pay off those loans, even today.
    It is important for the nuclear industry to really understand what happened and why it happened so that they can avoid its recurrence.

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Atomic environmentalism

    One of the big reasons that I favor the expanded use of atomic fission power is that it is the cleanest source of reliable power available. As part of my effort to share that knowledge with people that might not have heard it yet, I have begun writing for CleanTechnica.com, which is part of the…

  • Jack Spencer Published a Must Read Paper About Misplaced Government Efforts to Support Small Reactor Development

    Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation has published an issue paper titled Senate Attempts to Promote Small Nuclear Reactors Fall Short that is worth reading. He notes that the sector is showing some significant private activity already. He expresses concerns that I share that some of what the Senate is proposing will be counter productive…

  • More "Little Guys" Bragging About A Century of Natural Gas Supplies

    Back on September 25, 2009, I wrote about a three part National Public Radio special about the U. S. domestic natural gas that portrayed the industry as a “mom and pop” enterprise made up of thousands of small companies with little political clout in Washington, DC. I expressed my skepticism about that portrayal at the…

  • GE BWR's Like Oyster Creek and Vermont Yankee Were Originally Designed For Power Uprate to 620 MWe

    I came across an interesting statement in an article titled “Coal Industry Review” written by Alfred T. Wells, Jr. and published in the September-October 1964 issue of the Financial Analysts Journal. (I know, I need to find some more interesting hobbies besides digging through ancient magazine journal articles.) Here is the quote that caught my…