SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A large majority of geeks are enamored with nuclear power -- it's very cool technology after all. The problem of course, is that a nuclear power plant is a complex piece of machinery and successfully building one to operate safely is a delicate task, a lesson Toshiba learned the hard way:
Those troubled projects in the American South are now threatening the Japanese icon's foundations. The value of Toshiba shares has been cut in half over the last six weeks, wiping out more than $7 billion in market value.
It appears a huge part of the problem stems from reliance on a pipe supplier. James Bernhard Jr. bought a pipe fabrication business ("Shaw") for $50k in a bankruptcy deal and then used his awesome dealmaking ability to parlay that into becoming Toshiba's plumber. Of course, in the modern world being a great businessman means sucking money down like a frat boy at a keg, and Bernhard went on to sell Shaw for $3.3 billion even while screwing up all the pipes (from TFA linked above):
After Westinghouse hired Shaw to handle construction in 2008, it wasn't long before the company's work came under scrutiny. By early 2012, NRC inspectors found steel in the foundation of one reactor had been installed improperly. A 300-ton reactor vessel nearly fell off a rail car. The wrong welds were used on nuclear modules and had to be redone. Shaw "clearly lacked experience in the nuclear power industry and was not prepared for the rigor and attention to detail required,'' Bill Jacobs, who had been selected as the state's monitor for the project, told the Georgia Public Service Commission in late 2012.
So there you have it. The reason some geeks (me for example) oppose nuclear power has nothing to do with the technology, and absolutely everything to do with the morons who run it. Businessmen being in charge of this technology means it will never achieve its potential and that it will always be dangerous, because by the time something goes wrong, they'll be spending their billions on hookers and blow in some remote private tropical island paradise, far far away from any consequences of any kind.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by schad on Tuesday February 14 2017, @01:56PM
I know that we tend to be engineers on this site, and so we look on them fondly, but "the CEO is an engineer!" is not exactly a recipe for success or moral clarity. I mean, many (most?) pharma companies are either run by an M.D. or have one very far up in the food chain. But you wouldn't exactly hold them up as models of quality corporate governance.
I'd say the real problem is that these companies stopped actually making the things they are selling, and instead turned themselves into general contractors. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. But it's completely unlike being an industrial manufacturing company, and requires entirely different skill- and mind-sets. So when you see these companies which have spent the last 100 years doing industrial manufacturing -- and also a little bit of design work here and there -- suddenly try to "pivot" into general contracting work, it's always a disaster. Look at Boeing and the Dreamliner. They're having exactly the same sorts of problems as Toshiba, and it's because they're outsourcing most of their supply chain. So they have problems with quality control, they (and their contractors) have problems with shortages, they have problems shipping things around to where they need to be. Suppliers complain that they don't know what the parts they're making are going to be used for, so they can't tell if they're any good or not. Workers complain that parts arrive all out of order (which is a big deal when a "part" might be a mostly-assembled airplane fuselage that can't just be set in a corner until you're ready for it). Shippers complain that no thought was given to how to get parts from A to B.
All of these problems can be solved, with enough time and practice. The auto manufacturers have mostly got it all sorted out by now. Boeing is having a harder time because they're a much lower-volume business. And I think nuke companies will have a harder time still because every single power plant is custom-built. And all the assembly -- and even some of the fabrication -- has to be done on-site, unlike with planes and cars. It's hard to see how they'll ever be able to get enough generalizable experience to make the process go any smoother in future efforts. I really think they may have no option but to bring basically the entire operation back in-house again, and focus their "contracting" efforts on logistics instead (a vastly easier problem).
Remember, we've actually built a whole lot of incredibly safe nuclear reactors. And they were built by ruthless profit-seeking corporations. Probably with less government oversight, too. I'm not advocating for a return to those days. I'm just pointing out that "for-profit" and "light regulatory burden" do not inevitably lead to meltdowns. Just as "non-profit" and "extensive oversight" do not inevitably lead to safety.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 14 2017, @02:12PM
Oh, so many words to say: engineers (as CEO or not) and engineering are necessary but not sufficient to run a successful business
Same apply to economists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Geezer on Tuesday February 14 2017, @02:21PM
The only incredibly safe nuclear reactors I have direct personal experience with (Westinghouse A2W and C1W) were built and maintained with an enormous amount of government oversight (military: NavSea Code 08, civilian: AEC/NRC), ruthless profit-seeking notwithstanding. However, these were military projects overseen by one of the most demanding engineers who ever slid a slide rule, Hyman Rickover.
I do agree that the more generalized trend in large "manufacturing" enterprises toward out-sourcing everything but the profits has unfortunate effects on the quality of the end product as you describe, and an obfuscated accountability chain that makes liability enforcement a real challenge.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by linkdude64 on Tuesday February 14 2017, @07:16PM
A highly relevant quote on the topic from the man himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover#Three_Mile_Island [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 14 2017, @02:58PM
Moral clarity? Since when do morals and large-scale business have anything at all to do with each other? Businesses exist to make money. Period. They're fundamentally amoral structures. That's one reason sociopaths are disproportionately likely to end up running them.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday February 14 2017, @10:25PM
That's how they are currently set up to run, but it is a fundamental law of nature that requires it to be thus. Simply changing corporation law making it clear that profit seeking takes back seat to being a good member of the community in certain definable ways, backed up by decade long prison terms, would change that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tibman on Tuesday February 14 2017, @03:00PM
The outsourcing thing has always been interesting to me. If our crew can do the job for X and outsourced can do it for X/2 then either the outsource is paid less, delivers less (quality), or is more efficient. None of those are good reasons to outsource. If their process is better then don't outsource to them. Learn their process and improve ours. If they are delivering less quality then obviously we don't want the outsource. If their team is paid less it could be a several things. Lower cost of living is acceptable and is actually a valid reason to outsource. If they are paid less because they are less experienced then we shouldn't outsource.
It's interesting to me because business sees things differently. Cheaper is better even if it means firing the local team and not waiting for them to learn a better process. Cheaper is better, even if quality slips. Cheaper is better even if it is providing experience to potential competitors and gutting our experienced team.
Personal investment in your company is a thing too. A contractor doesn't give a crap about your company. Local employees might care though.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.