The unreliable nature of nuclear power

[kristopher]

Oooops! Another unexpected loss of a major source of power has to be dealt with.

When nuclear proponents talk of problems associated with the variability of renewables, they neglect to point out 3 things:
1) A distributed renewable grid is designed around the variability of renewables and can handle it just as our present grid can handle shutting down Seabrook.
2) There are both planned and unplanned outages. Renewables actually have FEWER unplanned outages than conventional generation.
3) Unplanned or unanticipated outages pose far greater challenges to system reliability than planned or anticipated outages.

Low water level halts Seabrook N-plant
By Taylor M. Miles
Globe Correspondent / October 7, 2011

The Seabrook Station nuclear power plant automatically shut down Wednesday due to a low level of water in the steam generator, say officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Seabrook, N.H., plant shut down at 12:27 p.m. as it was designed to do, after sensing low water levels in the steam generator, NRC officials said. NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci said the incident did not pose a threat to public health and safety, and there were no radioactive releases.

It was unclear last night whether the plant was back up and running, and the company that owns the facility, NextEra Energy Resources, could not immediately be reached. The plant is currently stable at normal operating temperature and pressure, NRC officials said.

NextEra Energy owns about 88.2 percent of the plant, and its share generates enough power to supply the daily needs of more than 900,000 homes, according to a website for the company. It was unclear last night if customers were affected...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/10/07/seabrook_nuclear_power_plant_shuts_down_due_to_low_water_level/

[truedelphi]

1. renewables that were placed on the homeowners' individual homes

Would be even less unlikely to experience an area-wide Blackout.

[truedelphi]

2. K & R.

This household just watched an excellent documentary on the state of "regulations" that are supposedly offering oversight on the Nuclear Power Plant situation.

It was a very scary film to watch. Basically the International Atomic Energy Commission has all the power of a child's yoyo to actually intervene or do much more than scold those whose loosey goosey maintenance of Nuke Power Plants can end up costing the world an entire nation (As we are seeing with Japan and the Fukushima plant.)

Like the event mentioned inside the Globe article you cite, the Nuke Plants shroud every potential disaster in secrecy. And then when the Big One happens, that too is shrouded in secrecy.

[kristopher]

3. "Nuke Plants shroud every potential disaster in secrecy"

That is one of the most troubling aspects of dealing with the issue. There are far reaching social implications involved in making societies dependent on quasi-governmental profit seeking entities that have the ability to shield themselves from virtually all unwanted public scrutiny. It is, quite literally, a recipe for disaster.

[kristopher]

4. Ooops - "Progress Energy insists approach to bungled nuclear project was 'reasonable' "

Progress Energy insists approach to bungled nuclear project was 'reasonable'
By Ivan Penn, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Progress Energy asked the state Monday to rule the botched handling of improvements at its Crystal River nuclear plant were "reasonable" and "prudent," the first step to passing at least some costs to customers.

Customers could pay as much as $690 million or about a quarter of the $2.5 billion in repair costs and purchase of alternative energy while the plant remains offline. The plant has been offline for two years and isn't expected to return to service for at least two more.

Projections on the repair costs would make it one of the costliest nuclear incidents in U.S. history.

On Sunday, the Times documented how Progress Energy opted to manage the improvements at the nuclear plant on its own. In its decision to handle the project itself, Progress Energy became the first utility in the country to oversee cutting into its own concrete nuclear containment building and replacing the reactor's steam generators.

Progress Energy eschewed the expertise...

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/progress-energy-insists-approach-to-bungled-nuclear-project-was-reasonable/1196193

[Kolesar]

5. Retirees on modest pensions have to pay for their f-up

If they want TV or air conditioning.

I see that Florida has "construction work in progress" fees:

Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, said he is concerned that the costs to fix a problem that resulted from Progress Energy's management decision will overburden customers.

"It is my opinion ... those customers should not pay for those additional costs," Fasano said.

He said fees for building a planned nuclear plant in Levy County and now the costs for repairs will significantly increase electric bills.

"Already, just a little over 60 percent of your electric bill, my electric bill, 60 percent of that is pass-throughs, whether they be for building of nuclear plants or whatever they may be," he added. "This will only increase that percentage."

[kristopher]

6. I don't believe there will be any plants built in the USA in places without CWIP

"Construction Work In Progress" is another way to shift risks from the corporations that want to build nuclear to the ratepayers. It is now illegal in many jurisdictions because of past abuses by the nuclear industry.

The Japanese ratepayers are just learning the consequences attached to having too much trust in utilities.

pricing system under scrutiny
Utilities' lucrative, secretive method hits consumers

The government is expected to step up moves to review the electricity pricing system after a panel reported the current mechanism may have allowed Tokyo Electric Power Co. to pass unnecessarily high business costs on to consumers.
Some experts argue that power companies' regional monopolies must be ended to create more competition and facilitate reform of the current pricing system, which is said to produce higher electricity bills than in other countries.
However, it is uncertain to what extent the government can restructure the power industry.
One academic who was interviewed was skeptical about whether the government can initiate drastic reform given the strength of the industry, which is certain to strongly resist such moves....
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20111008f1.html

They've been operating on a "cost plus" profit structure so the more public money they can spend the more profits they can earn (eg 6% of 1,000,000 is more than 6% of 100,000).
Of course, that makes nuclear the preferred way to generate electricity from the utility's point of view.

[Kolesar]

7. I suppose the plant should be publicly owned if they insist on CWIP

...instead of being an asset that the utility can sell if "deregulation" allows it. You understand this better than me.

[kristopher]

8. They are still owned by private investors.

They get 80% Federal loan guarantees - even though there is a better than 50% chance of bankruptcy - and, since private investors refuse to take that 50%+ risk, the other 20% needs to be guaranteed by ratepayers in the form of CWIP payments made before plant completion.

And like Solyndra, the investors for the 80% are first in line to get paid during a bankruptcy, not the taxpayers.

In the end the bankrupt plant starts selling electricity at a cost far below what would be required to meet its debts. This produces a glut of power priced at below-market rates, which undercuts any opportunity for renewables to penetrate the market.

[Kolesar]

9. acknowledged

see ya' Monday

[sam11111]

10. Hot hot weather means cooling river water is too hot to cool the nuke plant

I believe that water cools the inner water loop.

Not an expert. Just heard the info of the title on the radio. IIRC they mentioned "around 110 degrees". Anyone know more?

IMHO nuke power is a way to facilitate getting related expertise and uranium....for later A-bombs.

Will mankind survive all this foolishness? I wonder.

[sam11111]

11. wanted- cost nuke electric vs conventional with ALL Pre and post

Plant costs folded in

eg. Uranium miner cancers, coal's low radiation cancers, Fed subsides to nukes, nuke waste storage for 250 000 yrs. , the short time before nuke decommissioning vs longer coal plant lives, ....

Oh and the cost of accidents in both plant-types, based on Fuku and Ukraine events vs coal plant accidents...folded into the cost I asking for, as cost per KWH.

That is the relevant comparison, gentlemen.

Seen it anywhere?

[kristopher]

12. Ooops! Perry nuclear plant unexpectedly can't do its job.

FirstEnergy moves a 115-ton electrical transformer across Ohio to restart Perry nuclear power plant
Published: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 9:00 PM
By John Funk, The Plain Dealer

Crews moved a monster-sized electrical transformer to the Perry nuclear power plant on Thursday - snarling traffic in Lake County as several roads had to be closed.

Perry's operators shut down the reactor Oct. 2, three days after a previous transformer failed. And the reactor probably will remain shut down until electricians and engineers are able to install the new equipment.

Plant owner FirstEnergy Corp., based in Akron, wants to restart the reactor immediately, using back-up transformers and circuits, but has been unable to get permission from federal regulators.

The company's other Ohio reactor, Davis-Besse, shut down Oct 1 for a long-planned project to replace the reactor's lid. It is expected to be out of commission for a couple of months.

The new transformer ...

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/10/firstenergy_moves_a_115-ton_el.html



The company is disturbed that they can't get a waiver for the safety issue as they did in 1996; after all, what could possibly go wrong?

[kristopher]

13. Monticello Nuclear Power Plant Shuts Down - 500,000 homes lose their nuclear power

Of course the present system is designed so that those homes don't notice the loss, just as it would be if the system were designed around the operational characteristics of clean, sustainable renewable sources of energy.

Monticello Nuclear Power Plant Shuts Down

ONTICELLO — ...operators are still investigating what caused the transformer lockout.

Sandok says all safety systems reacted to the lockout as they should and the situated posed no danger to either workers or the public.

Sandok says the shutdown was not expected to be lengthy.

The Monticello plant generates enough electricity to power around a half-million homes.

http://wjon.com/monticello-nuclear-power-plant-shuts-down/

[kristopher]

14. Ooops. Swedish nuclear reactor closed after fire

Swedish nuclear reactor closed after fire
October 23, 2011

STOCKHOLM—A nuclear reactor in southern Sweden has been shut down after a fire at the plant.

Plant operator OKG's spokesman Anders Ostberg says a fire started in a turbine hall of Reactor 2 around midnight Saturday but was quickly extinguished by local rescue workers.

Ostberg said Sunday the blaze appears to have been caused by oil that leaked onto a hot surface.

But he said further investigations are needed to determine what caused the oil leak and that it wasn't immediately clear when the nuclear plant would reopen...

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/10/23/swedish_nuclear_reactor_closed_after_fire/


Scrambling to find massive amounts of backup with no warning....

[txlibdem]

15. An oil leak that caused a fire at a nuclear plant... that's rich!

:rofl:

This is why we need to end the use of fossil fuels... even our nuclear power plants aren't safe from fossils.

[kristopher]

16. Nuclear power plant remains offline after August earthquake

Ten weeks after a magnitude 5.8 earthquake knocked a central Virginia nuclear power station offline, the plant’s operator, Dominion Virginia Power, is still waiting for the go-ahead from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to restart the facility’s two reactors...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nuclear-power-plant-remains-offline-after-august-earthquake/2011/11/01/gIQAFIBUdM_story.html

[kristopher]

17. North Anna Nuclear Plant still letting down consumers

North Anna Nuclear Plant Earthquake Risk: 1977 Memo Details Cover-Up Of Seismic Knowledge

WASHINGTON -- While the 5.8 magnitude earthquake in Virginia on Aug. 23 did not happen on the ancient fault line that runs through the North Anna nuclear power station site, federal nuclear regulators and officials from Dominion Virginia, which operates the facility, covered up knowledge that they knew about the geologic hazard in the 1970s, according to a Department of Justice memo from the time.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports:
The company, then operating as Virginia Electric and Power Co., or Vepco, told the former Atomic Energy Commission in June 1973 that "faulting of rock at the site is neither known nor suspected," even though the company knew about the existence of faulting at North Anna, the 1977 memo said.


The nuclear power station, about 90 miles southwest of the nation's capital, has been shut down since the August quake...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/06/north-anna-nuclear-earthquake_n_1078870.html

Meanwhile, the wind is blowing, the sun is shining, the earth continues to produce heat, biomass is growing, rivers are flowing, tides are moving and waves are arriving on the shore - When you put all of that together you do not have events like Fukushima or even N Anna.

[kristopher]

18. Ooops. Another unexpected instantaneous loss of a major source of power has to be met with backup

Steam leak shuts Pilgrim power plant
The Patriot Ledger
Posted Nov 18, 2011 @ 08:20 AM

PLYMOUTH —

The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant was shut down Thursday night because of a steam leak in a valve.

The steam leak in a check valve, part of the cooling system, was discovered while the reactor was operating at 50 percent of capacity so that workers could conduct planned maintenance on the main condenser, Pilgrim Spokesperson Carol Whitman said.

She said the reactor had to be totally shut down before workers could determine what caused the steam leak and make repairs. She had no estimate on when the reactor would be restarted and said there was no threat to public safety.

http://www.enterprisenews.com/business/x45849960/Pilgrim-power-plant-offline

The unreliable intermittent nature of nuclear power requires about far more spinning reserve back-up than the predictable variability associated with wind and solar.

[kristopher]

19. OOOPS!!! Reactor coolant leak sends NC utilities scrambling for more than replacement power.

Inspectors to visit nuclear plant Monday
By Jim Brumm
[e-mail]
Published: Friday, November 18, 2011 at 8:48 p.m.
Last Modified: Friday, November 18, 2011 at 8:48 p.m.

The reactor coolant leak that resulted in the shutdown of Brunswick Nuclear Plant's Unit II on Wednesday was due to improper reassembly of the reactor pressure vessel, Progress Energy told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission late Thursday.

In a report posted on the NRC website early Friday, the utility said this resulted in a condition that "significantly" degraded plant safety.

But "the safety significance of this event was minimal" because the Brunswick Nuclear control room operators took appropriate action to shut down the reactor when the elevated leakage was identified, the Progress Energy report stated.

Brunswick Nuclear spokesman Ryan Mosier said it was determined that at least 10 reactor pressure vessel head bolts were not fully tensioned when the vessel was reassembled earlier this week following maintenance work that began Nov. 5....

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20111118/ARTICLES/111119601/-1/sports03?Title=Inspectors-to-visit-nuclear-plant-Monday

[Nederland]

20. Nuclear reliability versus Wind Reliablility

[kristopher]

21. That is a graph of "variablity" not "reliability",

What happens when, as demonstrated by this thread, a utility is suddenly and unexpectedly faced with the loss of 1,000,000,000 watts of power that they are counting on? What are the consequences to the design of the infrastructure for accommodating that not-so-rare problem? That is a problem with "reliability".

In contrast, even though solar and wind are more "variable" we have a great deal of understanding about impending changes in their output and we can plan the inputs to deal with it in exactly the same way we deal with the variability in deamdn.

[Nederland]

22. Really?

we have a great deal of understanding about impending changes in their output and we can plan the inputs to deal with it...

Really? Please tell me what the output of all the wind power farms in Germany will be for the rest of the month. Then on December 1st we can go look at the data and determine whether or not our "understanding about impending changes in their output" is sufficient to plan the way you describe. Thanks.

[kristopher]

23. Is that how you think the grid is managed?

Since you are implicitly making the ridiculous, totally naive claim that the system is inherently unable to deal with variability, f your assertion were a proof, it would mean that we are able to and routinely do predict the precise amount of demand on an hour by hour basis for the same period of time as you've specified. Any deviations from the predicted demand would exactly mimic the variability we see from aggregated renewable sources so it would lead to the same inability of the grid to function.

Is that your claim; that we cannot deal with the variability of demand? If it is not then you are going to have to explain why we can deal with variability on the one hand, but not on the other.

When it comes to the final analysis a grid built around centralized generation requires far more back-up than a renewable, distributed grid, and, the reliability of the centralized grid as a whole is lower than that of a distributed grid.

[Nederland]

24. An excellent point

Your are correct that demand varies and the existing grid deals with that variability by having excess capacity (or what is called spinning reserves) on line to compensate for that variability. However, I think you exagerate the degree to which demand fluctuates. At any given point in time demand is going to be within 5% of predicted values. But your point is well taken--it is not necessary for predictions of renewable output to be exactly accurate in order for a 100% renewable sourced grid to work properly. So I'll be extremely generous and say that if you can be right within 20%, I'll concede the point. Just tell us what the power output of all the wind farms in Germany will be for the rest of the month and we will see if you can get within 20%. Thanks.

[kristopher]

25. You just made it obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Trying to pretend that you do and adjusting your remarks to turn it into a challenge to me simply doesn't cut it.

I'll repeat it yet again - we've been operating grids for over 100 years and we understand extremely well how they work. Your claim is nothing more than a sham. So yes, the burden of proof is on you to provide some shred of evidence that the body of knowledge we have accumulated over that time is somehow wrong or lacking in enough depth to support your contention.

Come on, Neds, it shouldn't be hard to find some peer reviewed literature that supports your assertions that a renewable grid will not work. I mean, after all, that is the fundamental claim that would make it far easier for you climate deniers to maintain the status quo -and with all that coal, oil and nuclear money being spent to do just that it is literally inconceivable that such work hasn't been produced if it had the least chance of getting through peer review.

And yet, it doesn't exist.

That isn't even strange.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

27. Do you EVER have a coherent thought?

It appears that you so fixated on protecting nuclear power from its critics and greenwashing it that you are incapable of rational discussion.

You wrote, "The grid uses Natural Gas Peaking Plants - the most expensive - **That's your solution????**"

My solution for what?

The discussion you are interjecting yourself into is this: "Can we build a 100% renewable grid that will equal or exceed the level of reliability of todays centralized grid?"

WTF does your attempt to attack me have to do with that?

[txlibdem]

28. You don't even know which sub-thread you are commenting on

Why don't you get some coffee or Chai Tea and think again...

[kristopher]

29. Actually I do.

This discussion is a bleed over from this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x317183

Where, as I said, the discussion is ""Can we build a 100% renewable grid that will equal or exceed the level of reliability of todays centralized grid?"

So, I repeat, "WTF does your attempt to attack me have to do with that?"

Or if you can't figure out a way to fit your herky-jerky screed into the actual context of the discussion you are entering, perhaps you'd be kind enough to make it a rational thought with a point instead of focusing so hard on your personal attack.

[txlibdem]

30. Your link has NOTHING to do with this sub-thread

But I have a feeling you know that but don't want to enter the discussion of utilities needing to use Peaking Natural Gas plants if wind power output should dip (or disappear for days as is shown in Neder's chart).

Nor do I ever see a post from you admitting that wind and solar *need* energy storage in order to avoid the use of expensive natural gas plants. If you feel that this is an attack on you I can't imagine why. To put those fears to rest, please admit the truth about variability of wind resources and the absolute need for energy storage.

For wind and solar PV plants:
Pumped Hydro
Gravity Power - a variant on pumped hydro - http://www.gravitypower.net/
CAES - compressed air energy storage

And for solar thermal power plants:
Molten Salt Energy Storage

The answers are here. Safe and limitless solar and wind power can take over from coal, oil and fracking natural gas. Why won't you admit that???

[kristopher]

31. The link takes you to the parent of this subthread.

In fact the post you responded to, #25, is a very specific reference back to that thread.

"I'll repeat it yet again - we've been operating grids for over 100 years and we understand extremely well how they work. Your claim is nothing more than a sham. So yes, the burden of proof is on you to provide some shred of evidence that the body of knowledge we have accumulated over that time is somehow wrong or lacking in enough depth to support your contention.

Come on, Neds, it shouldn't be hard to find some peer reviewed literature that supports your assertions that a renewable grid will not work. I mean, after all, that is the fundamental claim that would make it far easier for you climate deniers to maintain the status quo -and with all that coal, oil and nuclear money being spent to do just that it is literally inconceivable that such work hasn't been produced if it had the least chance of getting through peer review.

And yet, it doesn't exist.

That isn't even strange.

[txlibdem]

33. A sub-thread is an offshoot of the "CURRENT" thread, not an entirely different OP

But I guess you meant it as "a continuation of a long-standing argument" between you and Neder which spans the entirety of DU so I'll just leave it at that.

For the record, this link will illustrate the exact definition of the term "sub-thread" aka "subthread" aka "sub thread"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1828206

I'm not one to argue semantics (unless I can really zing you with it)... :hi:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

35. I never said that a renewable grid will not work

I refuse to respond to your strawman argument.

[kristopher]

36. Climate deniers are such adorable little scamps...

...especially the ones that try to rebrand themselves as "skeptics" once the writing is on the wall and it apparent even to them that persisting in their opposition with arguments based on straight denial that there is evidence "proving" global warming does nothing but make them look foolish.

Now here you are attempting the same two-step dance with the idea of moving our sources of generation to renewables. No, of course you didn't say "it won't work"; you just try to accomplish the same argument by claiming -against all authority and 100 years of accumulated knowledge to the contrary - that we don't "know" it will work and therefore we should not do anything until we undertake some nebulous "test" to be abso-fucking-lutely sure that it will work. Never mind that there is no expert in the field that has any doubt whatsoever that it will work. Never mind that there is aren't even any fossil fuel/nuclear funded researchers that have published any sort of evidence to support your need for a "test".

You're like a child with chocolate icing smeared across its face holding out his empty hands and saying "I didn't take the cake".

You take the cake.

[Nederland]

37. You are ignorant

The Obama administration has allocated 3.4 billion dollars to promote the development of smart grids in the US. I have always supported program like this. What I object to is the absurd assertion of yours that smart grid technology is "basic engineering that isn't even as complicated as the computer you are using". I know first hand that your assertion is false because I live in Boulder CO, home to one of the most ambitious projects that got funded by the Smart Grid initiative. I watched the program cost go from a projected $15.3 million to an actual $44.8 million (while accomplishing only half of the original objectives) and result in Xcel asking for a rate increase to cover the cost overruns. Numbers like those are not those of "basic engineering" and well understood technologies. Those are the kind of numbers you see from brand new technology that requires significant investment and development before it can possibly accomplish what you claim.

[kristopher]

38. Well, thank you for such kind words.

The development of a "smart grid" is much like the use of rare earth elements in the manufacture of wind turbines and evs. It isn't essential to the basic technologies. What it is though, is a means of producing marginal improvement in effectiveness or efficiency.

In the case of the smart grid, it is useful for either the existing mix of generating sources or a mix built around renewables. It is less likely to get attention in the present mix, however, because the smart grid is largely an energy efficiency improvement and the economic model behind centralized generation is built around expansion of energy use, not conservation and efficiency.

What it does for the move to a renewable infrastructure is that it reduces the need for storage by integrating the small scale systems better than they would otherwise be and allowing them to perform as back-up for each other in a way that otherwise would not be possible. It is a means of accelerating the rate of transition and since it is required anyway, a means of reducing overall infrastructure costs associated with the transition.

I don't imagine the right wing sources you use for information on development of the local project there (the tone is oozing out of your remarks) focus much on those parts of the "spending problem" demonstrated by the "half" successful project that is so much over-budget.

That project doesn't support your position in our larger discussion at all.



"We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using Nature's inexhaustible sources of energy — sun, wind and tide. ... I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."
-In conversation with Henry Ford and w:Harvey Firestone (1931); as quoted in Uncommon Friends : Life with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, Alexis Carrel & Charles Lindbergh (1987) by James Newton, p. 31
wiki

[kristopher]

34. Ooops there goes Monticello again; popping off for another unscheduled holiday

Xcel Energy today said its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant shut down over the weekend due to low oil pressure in its turbines.

The 600-megawatt plant shut down at 11:12 p.m. Saturday when four pressure switches sensed low oil pressure in its turbines, Xcel spokeswoman Mary Sandok said today.

... Xcel officials said the outage is not expected to be lengthy but declined to specify how long. Estimating the length of the outage could affect the price of energy that Xcel will buy on the open market to make up for the loss of Monticello, Sandok said.

...This is the third non-scheduled outage reported at the nuclear power plant this year.

http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_19383739

Also see this at post 13 upthread:
http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_19383739

The unreliable nature of nuclear power has to be planned for with a lot more spinning reserve than a renewable grid would require.

[kristopher]

39. Ooops!. Milestone Nclear plant in Conn. decides not to come back to work. Replacement power needed.

Conn. nuclear power plant analyzes problems with restarting reactor shut for refueling
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
November 22, 2011 - 6:17 am


WATERFORD, Conn. — Officials at Millstone Power Station are analyzing what kept operators from restarting a nuclear reactor that was shut for refueling.

The Day of New London reports (http://bit.ly/sZczaf ) that Ken Holt, spokesman for Millstone owner Dominion Resources Inc., said Monday that Millstone was continuing to isolate the cause of the problem while preparing to restart....

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/21c811acdd494571ac05077e028a0546/CT--Millstone-Reactor-Restart/