The Nuclear Power Thread

[artis]

I wonder how do small cores compare in neutron efficiency with larger cores. In terms of minimum necessary enrichment and fuel burnup.

Control of small cores might be easier though.

 

[anorlunda]

I wonder how do small cores compare in neutron efficiency with larger cores. In terms of minimum necessary enrichment and fuel burnup.

Control of small cores might be easier though.

I don't know that answer. But small cores must also have fewer opportunities to control shape by placement of old/new/high enrichment/low at different radial positions. I don't know if all bundles are replaced at refueling.

I also wonder if fuel costs as a percent of total costs are higher/lower/same compared to other reactors.

I also wonder about load following, and about the manpower and training for operations.

I also wonder about finding multiple sources for fuel bundles.

Modular reactors would be a new ball game, there may be many secondary factors that influence total competitiveness.

 

[Astronuc]

They probably don't do this, but it would be neat if all initial fueling and refueling could happen in the factory under controlled conditions.

I believe that there was some consideration on delivering the reactors with the initial fuel loading intact, but I don't know of that is currently the plan. One concern in transporting fuel horizontally (on its side) is the loading on the bottom fuel assemblies and the control systems. The route would have to be carefully planned to avoid bumps and shocks. When fuel is shipped, there are accelerometers on inner and outer containers, but they would only establish a threshold (go/no-go), since they are set to trigger at a given acceleration. There may be more sophisticated systems that allow a load/acceleration spectrum to be developed.

Shipping irradiated fuel would be more problematic. NuScale plants have a refueling station. I'm not sure the current fuel cycle strategy, but one would expect between 1/3 to 1/2 of the core to be exchanged. One operating plan was based on 24-month cycles (700-730 EFPD), so that every other month, one unit would be taken our of service while the other 11 modules would continue to operate. Everything is fine until one or more fuel rods leak, in which case, the reactor system would have to be flushed prior to opening the reactor vessel and removing the fuel to be discharged.

Refueling could be combined with inspection.

That is typically the case.

I've heard their reactors aren't going to be cheap, but hopefully they get cheaper as they produce more. Still, reduced "schedule uncertainty" and shorter construction timeliness is still an economic advantage. It means they start making money sooner and pay back faster.

In theory, the plant is smaller than a comparable single unit with the same output, but each of 12 modules requires a steam generator, turbine and electrical generator. The plant might use less steel and concrete, but it uses more components in the power conversion system.

On the other hand, a small issue with one reactor should not affect the output of the others, and in theory, the plant capacity factor (CF) should be greater with 11 of 12 modules continuing to operate.

They have increased the generation capacity of the modules since the initial design.

 

[Astronuc]

I wonder how do small cores compare in neutron efficiency with larger cores. In terms of minimum necessary enrichment and fuel burnup.

Small cores tend to be less efficient neutronically, due to leakage from the ends and circumferential surface. I know of one design that leaked neutrons to the extent that the steam generators and containment structure became radioactive.

Neutron leakage may be partly alleviated with neutron reflectors, usually stainless steel, or natural or depleted fuel assemblies, and axial blankets.

 

[anorlunda]

each of 12 modules requires a steam generator, turbine and electrical generator.

I read that, but I don't see why that is necessary. Historically, it was common to have many boilers feeding a common steam header.

Turbines and generators have no problems running at any fraction of rated power. Of course, it is true that availability is higher with multiple independent components, but costs are higher too. Any power plant with any source of steam generation, could have n smaller independent turbine/generators, but the designers haven't chosen to do that.

 

[Dale]

I read that, but I don't see why that is necessary. Historically, it was common to have many boilers feeding a common steam header.

I don’t think that it is necessary, but it is in keeping with their “redundant array” design philosophy. I think that is why they recommend it

 

[anorlunda]

I don’t think that it is necessary, but it is in keeping with their “redundant array” design philosophy. I think that is why they recommend it

You may be correct. But that is a very expensive way to purchase more reliability. As this table shows, cost in $/kW is a strong function of unit size. Twelve 60 MW turbine generators may cost 3-4 times as much as one 720 MW turbine generator.

 

[Astronuc]

I read that, but I don't see why that is necessary. Historically, it was common to have many boilers feeding a common steam header.

Turbines and generators have no problems running at any fraction of rated power. Of course, it is true that availability is higher with multiple independent components, but costs are higher too. Any power plant with any source of steam generation, could have n smaller independent turbine/generators, but the designers haven't chosen to do that.

Putting two or more 'modules' on one steam generator could be problematic when taking one module off-line. One would have to isolate the feed from one module, and the steam turbine would operating below optimal capacity.

I don't believe one would want to connect two modules to one turbine, which if one module was offline, the turbine would have 50% reduction in thermal input. So then does one connect 3, 4, or 6 modules of 12, which would mean 4, 3 or 2 turbines. There are some PWRs that have twin turbine trains, but most have a single turbine.

The idea of fully separate modules is that they generate fully independent through to the generator output.

 

[gmax137]

Does NuScale have a contract-signed customer yet? It would be really interesting to see the bid evaluation between a NuScale twelve-pack and a conventional 900-1100 MWe nuclear plant. Of course, the chances of such an eval being public are slim.

 

[Astronuc]

Does NuScale have a contract-signed customer yet? It would be really interesting to see the bid evaluation between a NuScale twelve-pack and a conventional 900-1100 MWe nuclear plant. Of course, the chances of such an eval being public are slim.

01 February 2022 - Field activities at the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) site have been completed in what Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) has described as a major milestone for the project to build a NuScale small modular reactor plant at the Idaho National Laboratory.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fieldwork-completed-in-milestone-for-UAMPS-SMR

As far as I know, UAMPS was teaming with Energy Northwest (WA) in developing a pilot plant using 6 modules of 77 MWe.

UAMPS expects to build six 77 MWe NuScale Power Modules - renamed VOYGR by NuScale late last year - at the Idaho National Laboratory site. The pressurised water reactor, with all the components for steam generation and heat exchange incorporated into a single unit, is the first SMR to receive NRC design approval.

Formal engagement of a plant operator is being negotiated, UAMPS said. Other work under way includes developing cost estimates, developing topic reports for submission to the NRC, continuing work on the standard plant design, and developing a supply chain pricing analysis. NuScale and Fluor are working on power module manufacturing trials and steam generator fabrication.

UAMPS is a political subdivision of the State of Utah that provides wholesale electric-energy, transmission, and other energy services to community-owned power systems throughout the Intermountain West region of the USA. Its members are located California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming as well as in Utah.

Last year, UAMPS was discussing a 12 unit, 600 MWe plant, or 50 MWe per module.
https://www.uamps.com/nu-scale-modular-reactor

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsuamps-downsizes-nuscale-smr-project-8937920

 

[gmax137]

It has been a while since I looked at the NuScale plant. Natural circulation drives the primary side flow through the "helical steam generators" which are located within the module containment shell. So each reactor has its own SGs. The steam exits the module and drives the main turbine/generator. External condenser and feed pumps return the feedwater to the module.

I did not see a description of the turbine/generator so I'm not sure if that is shared or if each module has its own.

Fuel Standard LWR fuel in 17 x 17 configuration, each assembly 2 meters (~ 6 ft.) in length; up to 24-month refueling cycle with fuel enriched at less than 5 percent

https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview

 

[BWV]

South Korea recommitting to nuclear

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/ne...-rapid-rebuilding-of-nuclear-industry-9849898

 

[Astronuc]

"NuScale Plant Design Overview", August 2012
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1221/ML12216A392.pdf

Status Report on the NuScale Module Developed in the Modelica Framework
https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_20117.pdf

The initial plant module was 160 MWt/50 MWe. The VOYGR system uses 250 MWt/77MWe modules.
https://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/faq

https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/report-claims-serious-problems-with-proposed-nuscale-smr/#gref

 

[etudiant]

"NuScale Plant Design Overview", August 2012
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1221/ML12216A392.pdf

Status Report on the NuScale Module Developed in the Modelica Framework
https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_20117.pdf

The initial plant module was 160 MWt/50 MWe. The VOYGR system uses 250 MWt/77MWe modules.
https://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/faq

https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/report-claims-serious-problems-with-proposed-nuscale-smr/#gref

Interesting that the power rating is up 50%, have to think that reduces the safety margin of the passive cooling setup.

 

[Astronuc]

The downside of nuclear energy (and the extractive industries) that folks don't like to discuss.
https://www.propublica.org/article/new-mexico-uranium-homestake-pollution

I remember a story from the 1970s about contamination where homes in Grand Junction, Colorado, were built with contaminated uranium mine tailings. I believe the tailing were added to the concrete or cinder blocks. The homes were well above normal background.

 

[artis]

The downside of nuclear energy (and the extractive industries) that folks don't like to discuss.
https://www.propublica.org/article/new-mexico-uranium-homestake-pollution

I remember a story from the 1970s about contamination where homes in Grand Junction, Colorado, were built with contaminated uranium mine tailings. I believe the tailing were added to the concrete or cinder blocks. The homes were well above normal background.

An interesting read.
I wonder why they don't put the waste simply back into the unused mine?
Apart from cost.

 

[Astronuc]

Bloomberg reports "World’s Biggest Nuclear-Fusion Project Faces Delays as Component Cracks"

• The $23 billion ITER project in France faces new delays

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...at-fusion-power-shows-cracks-in-silver-lining

World Nuclear News reports "The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project has announced defects have been discovered in the thermal shields and vacuum vessel sectors and warned that the consequences on schedule and cost "will not be insignificant".
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Defects-found-in-two-key-components-of-ITER-tokama

The director general of ITER, Pietro Barabaschi, said: "If there is one good thing about this situation, it is that it is happening at a moment we can fix it. The know-how we are acquiring in dealing with ITER's first-of-a-kind components will serve others when they launch their own fusion ventures. It is in ITER's nature and mission, as a unique and ambitious research infrastructure, to go through a whole range of challenges and setbacks during construction. And it is therefore our task and duty to promptly inform the engaged scientific community so that they will take precautions when dealing with the same type of assemblies."

ITER is a major international project to build a tokamak fusion device in Cadarache, France, designed to prove the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale and carbon-free source of energy. The goal of ITER is to operate at 500 MW (for at least 400 seconds continuously) with 50 MW of plasma heating power input. It appears that an additional 300 MWe of electricity input may be required in operation. No electricity will be generated at ITER.

Thirty-five nations are collaborating to build ITER - the European Union is contributing almost half of the cost of its construction, while the other six members (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the USA) are contributing equally to the rest. Construction began in 2010 and the original 2018 first plasma target date was put back to 2025 by the ITER council in 2016.

That's an optimist spin.

he cause was found to be stress caused by the bending and welding of the cooling fluid pipes to the thermal shield panels "compounded by a slow chemical reaction due to the presence of chlorine residues in some small areas near the pipe welds".

This had caused "stress corrosion cracking", ITER said, "and over time, cracks up to 2.2 mm deep had developed in the pipes".

Now, that is a stunning revelation! What the heck are chloride residues doing on stainless steel?! Stress corrosion cracking!? This would appear to be negligence on the part of someone. The problem is supposed to have been resolved = for at least two decades, as the industry began learning about it ~4+ decades ago.

During an audit in the mid-1990s, I cited a shop over concerns of halide/chloride contamination of stainless steel components. Even nearly 30 years ago, we knew not to allow chloride contamination or residues on stainless steel! Twenty+ years later, it should be well-known!

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'd call ITER a dumpster fire, except that a dumpster fire actually produces energy.

 

[bhobba]

This is why at the current stage of the debate of transitioning to low-carbon power sources, or even if we should, engineers and engineering economists should have much more involvement. I find the lack of their current involvement somewhat disturbing. For example, a simple analysis of the current Australian government policies showed what they want to do would cost trillions - way beyond what we can afford, plus multiple wind farms the size of Tasmania in the Simpson desert. This is just early stages in the debate, but I don't think governments should be saying what they will be doing (e.g. relying mostly on wind and solar but dismissing nuclear) at this point. All that will happen is when the rubber hits the road, they will have eggs on their faces. We don't discuss politics here, but one would think such would not be good for their re-election prospects.

Thanks
Bill

 

[artis]

This is why at the current stage of the debate of transitioning to low-carbon power sources, or even if we should, engineers and engineering economists should have much more involvement. I find the lack of their current involvement somewhat disturbing. For example, a simple analysis of the current Australian government policies showed what they want to do would cost trillions - way beyond what we can afford, plus multiple wind farms the size of Tasmania in the Simpson desert. This is just early stages in the debate, but I don't think governments should be saying what they will be doing (e.g. relying mostly on wind and solar but dismissing nuclear) at this point. All that will happen is when the rubber hits the road, they will have eggs on their faces. We don't discuss politics here, but one would think such would not be good for their re-election prospects.

Thanks
Bill

But then again we are at a point where a teenager from Sweden can yell at grown ups at the UN and everybody just accepts that as normal.
These public stunts won't change a damn thing, we need to find a couple of engineers who could yell some sense into energy politics, maybe then we could balance our carbon emissions with carbon free sources so much so that we can buy ourselves time and have a rather decent living too.

 

[bhobba]

we need to find a couple of engineers who could yell some sense into energy politics, maybe then we could balance our carbon emissions with carbon free sources so much so that we can buy ourselves time and have a rather decent living too.

Just a couple? This is getting more into politics than I, as a mentor, am comfortable with, but will try and stay clear of politics. We need an informed public conversation on the whole issue. We can help here by giving the facts. There are some experts in this area that regularly post here. On other forums, if it doesn't degenerate into the use of the Ad Hominem fallacy, I point those who want the facts to this forum. I know the cost of electricity here in Australia is rising enormously. There are multiple reasons, but regardless of the cause, there will likely be some public backlash - we will see. I have seen discussion shows, the premier one here in Australia, called Q&A, where they occasionally have an engineer and other participants' claims get challenged on engineering grounds. We need more of that, IMHO. Also, the public must understand you can't have it all. Public polling has now been done that confirms people want something done on climate change but are only willing to pay a pittance (I could give the link, but contains stuff that I would judge as political - suffice to say it is from a well-respected news outlet the Australian ABC):

'More than 54,000 Australians took part in the nationally representative Australia Talks National Survey, and climate change was one thing they said was keeping them up at night. When we asked how much more they’d be personally willing to spend to help prevent climate change, the numbers varied. Some people wouldn’t spend anything more (21 per cent), and some were happy to spend thousands (9 per cent) — but most of us sit somewhere in the middle. On average, we’re willing to chip in at least $200 each year*.'

The plans of the current government will cost MUCH more than that. Interesting times ahead are all I can say.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Astronuc]

Bloomberg - How to Tear Down a Nuclear Power Plant in Vermont and Bury It in Texas
https://news.yahoo.com/tear-down-nuclear-power-plant-110007719.html

The Vermont Yankee power plant sits on the bank of a scenic river in Vernon, Vermont, and for more than 40 years, the atoms split in its reactor generated as much as 70% of the state’s electricity. But then natural gas prices undercut the plant’s electricity and local anti-nuclear protesters worried about safety marched with signs that read “Hell no, we won’t glow.” Entergy Corp., the big Louisiana-based power company that owned Vermont Yankee, shut the plant down in 2014. It then sold the site to NorthStar Group Services Inc., which is now responsible for the decommissioning.

Decommissioning the plant, which NorthStar estimates will cost about $600 million, is being paid for by a massive trust fund that the plant’s customers contributed to when the plant was generating electricity.

Nuclear plants are required to set aside a 'decommissioning fund' as well as a fund to store the spent nuclear fuel, since they cannot ship it to a federal repository.

The article brings up the irradiated fuel rods, which are known as "spent fuel" not "fissile material", and they are part of the high level waste (HLW). It's actually the fission products and the transuranic elements (isotopes) from transmuted uranium that are highly radioactive. The reactor vessel (and its internal structure) is either high or medium level was since it has become radiocative from the neutrons that leak out of the reactor core and into the stainless steel and pressure vessel. There are also corrosion products that circulate in the cooling water, which are collected by filters (a separate disposal issue) during operation, but also at the end of operation where the cooling system is flushed to remove remaining corrosion products.

 

[russ_watters]

For example, a simple analysis of the current Australian government policies showed what they want to do would cost trillions - way beyond what we can afford, plus multiple wind farms the size of Tasmania in the Simpson desert. This is just early stages in the debate, but I don't think governments should be saying what they will be doing (e.g. relying mostly on wind and solar but dismissing nuclear) at this point. All that will happen is when the rubber hits the road, they will have eggs on their faces. We don't discuss politics here, but one would think such would not be good for their re-election prospects.

I was with you until the end. Solar and wind are sexy and nuclear is not, so supporting solar and wind is how you get votes. And who cares how much it costs when you're buying votes with other peoples' money? Sure, it will fail eventually, but when? Before the next election?

 

[bhobba]

Solar and wind are sexy and nuclear is not, so supporting solar and wind is how you get votes. And who cares how much it costs when you're buying votes with other peoples' money? Sure, it will fail eventually, but when? Before the next election?

Good point. The debate is in the early stages, and it is only recently that nuclear was even in the discussion. Whenever I discussed it elsewhere, I often got ill-informed vitriol. At least that has now stopped.

Thanks
Bill

 

[russ_watters]

Nuclear plants are required to set aside a 'decommissioning fund' as well as a fund to store the spent nuclear fuel, since they cannot ship it to a federal repository...

...which they also paid for but didn't get.

 

[anorlunda]

I was with you until the end. Solar and wind are sexy and nuclear is not, so supporting solar and wind is how you get votes. And who cares how much it costs when you're buying votes with other peoples' money? Sure, it will fail eventually, but when? Before the next election?

I second that. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, allowing politics to have decision making power over electric supply is a recipe for failure. Such decisions need to be in the hands of engineers.

 

[artis]

I second that. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, allowing politics to have decision making power over electric supply is a recipe for failure. Such decisions need to be in the hands of engineers.

Exactly. Somehow everybody understands this when it comes to medicine, whether a politician or a climate activist, once your lungs get inflammation or your heart begins to fail you seek the best doctor to buy you the most time and get the highest chance of survival and getting back to normal.

When it comes to energy policy and solving the climate problems , all of a sudden it's like watching a hockey match, everybody suddenly becomes and expert.

Just today I watched a Greta interview, I don't want to talk her down but I really don't get the idea, why is she famous? Has she said anything new or given us a better plan ?
All I see is a arrogant teenager who skipped school and got some rich sponsors.
Basically the corporate world is trying to stay in power by simply switching rhetoric and buying up famous people to lobby on their behalf. Much like the tobacco industry did back in the day to keep smoking popular.

Meanwhile real engineers and real companies have already given us practically all the products actual science can come up with to use for energy production, all we need to do is get smart and sane people to cut out a plan on how much to use of each type of energy source.Basically we have two options, either we shut down and all sit in a silent and dark circle eating nothing but carrots to be carbon neutral or we go back to using nuclear and then balance it with everything else we can get like solar and wind and natural gas etc.
I think eventually people will settle back to nuclear once they realize that trying to power the modern world with just renewables skyrockets the energy prices.

Actually we are seeing this in Europe now, once we cut Russian oil and gas which was cheap, we now have left only our own baseload + renewables, but guess what, their not enough so we buy and buy and our electricity price has climbed and continues to do so and nobody knows when it will stop.

 

[Rive]

Just today I watched a Greta interview ... All I see is a arrogant teenager who skipped school and got some rich sponsors.

An opinion, then: I too can't really sense the sincerity and will from politics to address the climate change according to its importance and weight. And I can tell that most here might agree. And teenagers around the world might miss the matching education and experience yet, but they do sense that their future got openly exploited and abandoned.
So while the whole Greta phenomenon is very controversial, it has deep roots. And in case it won't get proper and sincere response, it may just open up the next generation for radicalization.
We are just at the point where the old green dogmas finally got questioned, and I really don't think we need a new wave of radical ideas.

The issue might not belong here but dismissal is just not a good idea at this point.

 

[artis]

An opinion, then: I too can't really sense the sincerity and will from politics to address the climate change according to its importance and weight. And I can tell that most here might agree. And teenagers around the world might miss the matching education and experience yet, but they do sense that their future got openly exploited and abandoned.
So while the whole Greta phenomenon is very controversial, it has deep roots. And in case it won't get proper and sincere response, it may just open up the next generation for radicalization.
We are just at the point where the old green dogmas finally got questioned, and I really don't think we need a new wave of radical ideas.

The issue might not belong here but dismissal is just not a good idea at this point.

Fair point , but keep in mind I never said I dismiss Greta and that whole agenda outright, I perfectly realize the data and what it shows. But I myself prefer a scientific/engineering approach to this not a political/slogan/hype approach.

It is true that the climate problems have been talked over at least since the 90's and yet little has been done. But here is the crucial part that I actually believe Greta might not understand or at least many of her followers don't.
The reason why so little has been done on climate is not because all politicians and societies are inherently evil and selfish. It is simply because quite honestly we don't have that many options to use in order to continue to supply our modern way of life.
Let's not forget that most of what we have is because thanks to oil and gas.
When we found out CFC's harmed ozone we moved rather quickly and now the problem is largely solved, but that worked so nicely only because CFC could be easily swapped out for other less damaging agents, oil and gas is a different story.

Changing away from that as every engineer will know is really not that easy.

So this is the part that I dislike and find controversial, Greta and company is asking for the right thing but at the same time they refuse to understand the complexity and deep rooted dependence that we have on fossil fuels. Shouting and waving flags won't help here.

And the fact that so many climate activists are also against nuclear really leaves us with not many options.

I'd say both sides need to get real and drop the act and pretending. The people in charge need to sense the urgency and once in a while rely on professionals not public opinion while the activists need to stop the childish wishful thinking and come to the table and accept some harsh realities, probably the most important of them all is that the west and US will have to get back in nuclear otherwise this is not sustainable.
Closing off nuke plants and building what in their place?
Hydro is already used almost as much as it can, building a 1GW wind farm takes up a lot of land and when it comes to it not that many people actually want to live right next to a wind turbine.
So there is some hypocrisy also in the green climate side.

 

[anorlunda]

I think it is important to stress that allowing rules to be designed by engineers does not change public vs private, brown vs green, large vs small, central vs distributed sectors of interest. The system operator I worked for is governed by stakeholders (listed below). The voting power of stakeholders was negotiated. The rules which govern markets and operation of the grid were designed by committees representing all stakeholders. However, the stakeholders sent their engineers and economists to the committee meetings, not managers or politicians or lawyers. Many stakeholders engage specialized consulting engineers to represent their interests. So you can still have public versus private interest sectors, but the actual design work is done by engineers.

In contrast, places like Texas, California, and apparently Tasmania. Legislators are writing the rules, not engineers. Those have been mostly disasters. It is like @artis' analogy to medicine, where legislators pass a law saying which pill must be prescribed for which symptom.

Categories of stakeholders include: End-Use Consumer, Investor-Owner Transmission Owners, Public Power Party, Energy Service Co., Large Consumer, Residential Consumer, Environmental Party, Large Energy Using Governmental Agency, Small Consumer, Generator, Load, State Public Power Authority, Generator Owner, Load Serving Entity, Supplier, Industrial Consumer, Other Supplier, Transmission Owner, Commercial Consumer, Parties to the ISO Agreement, Demand Response Provider, Distributed Generator. State regulating agencies, and public interest groups may represent certain stakeholders.

 

[bhobba]

Legislators are writing the rules, not engineers. Those have been mostly disasters.

Having worked for the government for 30 years, when people complain about politicians and retreat to the side of politics they identify with, what is often happening is not politics; it is mandarin public servants protecting their rears. It's the process-oriented culture that the PS mostly adopts rather than a result-oriented one. It's their risk avoidance bias. Eventually, it is difficult to tell exactly when; it all falls like a house of cards. Surprisingly, the senior people in the PS know this (and I, too, was surprised when I found this out) and have attempted to do something about it, but to no avail. I spoke to one lady working on one such attempt (called management in the 90s), and she said they should not have even bothered. A recent example is during the pandemic, rules were established for interstate travel. Of course, there were exceptions. Some cases were obvious exceptions but were rejected. They were reported in the media. Our Premier (like a US state governor) was hammered. Anyway, she finally actually looked closely at the unit approving these exceptions. In a moment of actual honesty (rare for politicians - they often spin everything and anything) admitted the issue was a tick-and-flick culture in the unit, not looking at each case as a whole.

I get the feeling our energy system is heading down the same path. Like the Covid exceptions, the government will be forced to correct the bureaucratic ineptitude, but when and how bad it eventually gets, who knows.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

what is often happening is not politics; it is mandarin public servants protecting their rears.

I disagree. The question is "who decides" public servants or engineers, public servants or doctors?

Think of all the technical questions you answer here on PF. Suppose we assigned not you, but public servants to answer those questions? That's the wrong choice regardless of the attributes of public servants.

 

[bhobba]

The question is "who decides" public servants or engineers, public servants or doctors?

I see your point. The right people, who are fearless, should be advising the government. The issue is that the culture of covering your rear and pleasing your employer often does not lead to fearlessness, so, as you correctly say, they are the wrong people.

Not always, of course. I remember a Q&A episode where an engineering advisor of a previous prime minister, who also was on the panel, pointed out several 'porkies' the previous PM was espousing. The previous PM response was - that does not sound right. The problem was, being the previous advisor, he got his facts from the same source. This was a case where the previous Public Servant did the right thing.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PeterDonis]

The question is "who decides" public servants or engineers, public servants or doctors?

Before you can answer this, you need to figure out what kind of thing it is that is to be decided.

If the thing to be decided is a technical question, like "what possible failure modes are there for nuclear reactor design X, and how can they be mitigated?", then that is a technical question that should be decided by technical means.

But if the thing to be decided is "how should country A generate energy?", that is not a technical question (although answers to a bunch of technical questions can certainly be relevant to it). It's a social question. Technical experts are not any better qualified to decide social questions just because they're technical experts.

The underlying issue with trying to decide social questions is whether or not there are any people who are "qualified" to decide them. But even without answering that question, it seems evident that bureaucratic institutions are generally not well structured to address such questions. That is what @bhobba is observing.

 

[PeterDonis]

The right people, who are fearless, should be advising the government.

This assumes that (a) such "right" people exist at all, and (b) the government will act appropriately on their advice. But the experience you describe suggests that (a) is rare, and (b) virtually impossible.