Talk:Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
}}
General Article Improvements
[edit]I've found and watchlisted this starter article, which can be fairly easily expanded. Since I may not get to it very efficiently, here's some suggestions to anyone who passes through:
The article reference structure needs some fixing, and an entry should be put in the WP article List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents#1970s, to note the 1978 generator dryout incident, which is notable per the NRC source.
There are numerous apparently reliable sources (Sacramento Bee, etc) readily available through online search that describe the maintenance and safety failures that occurred at the plant (many of which were not publicized until years later).
Separately and similarly, there are also sources online that discuss how the plant was not economical, never reached its planned level of productivity, and led to the huge increases in utility bills to SMUD's customers that sources indicate likely prompted the successful ballot initiative which ultimately closed the plant (rather than or at least in addition to emergency incidents and safety concerns). Steveozone (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure some article somewhere mentions that the contractor was Bechtel, along with other pertinent information that should be included. Personally, I worked on this monstrosity when I was in college as a summer job and in my opinion it was a clusterfuck of the first order. Wastrel Way (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- why... cost and improper installation? I'm curious how we avoid these big cost increases for ratepayers in the future for any new installs. 162.115.44.103 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
"operator"?
[edit]Is SMUD truly the "operator" of this thing? It is NOT operational anymore. They are charged with keeping the area safe for recreational and presumably other uses, but is "operation" truly the correct term for this since it isn't operating as what it was designed to be. 2600:1004:B16D:C243:4CD3:E8C8:7183:9BCC (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well it's still considered a "station" even tho it's been decomm'd, and "operation" these days likely means keeping it safe for the public cuz of the park nearby. 162.115.44.103 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)