Comment by sajithdilshan
19 hours ago
This is crazy. Why on earth wouldn’t the respective government spend money to modernize a critical infrastructure like a nuclear power plant?
This is how we would end up with nuclear disasters, not because the technology is bad, but purely because of mismanagement and human negligence.
This is crazy. Why on earth wouldn’t the respective government spend money to modernize a critical infrastructure like a nuclear power plant?
Safety and reliability come from understanding the system. Something that's old but that you know everything about is far safer than something new. This risk is that the people who know move on, or the sources of replacement parts stop working, or that other things around the system change. Then the risk curve inverts and you find the old system more of a liability than a asset.
Almost always people choose to update things either too early or too late. Knowing when to do something is hard.
That’s pure negligence. It’s not like the people that have the know how disappear suddenly . It’s the responsibility of the management to make sure the knowledge transferred to new generation.
I guess that kind of thinking is what led to the collapse of ancient civilisations like why even bother to improve anything and let everything decay and die out
You can only say such things with hindsight. In the moment, nobody knows what the future will hold. Take the space program in the US for instance. In 1969 we landed a man on the Moon. We'd repeat that several times until 1972. At that point Nixon made a speech which implied various unpleasant things about space's future, but he'd be out of office, disgraced, a couple of years later, so how big a deal could it have been anyhow?
I think almost nobody from that era would have believed you if you told them that more than 50 years later not a single human would have traveled beyond low Earth orbit, and that we'd now be struggling to recreate what we did in 1969. Furthermore a significant chunk of the world doesn't even believe we landed on the Moon anymore, no doubt in part because of this apparent anachronism.
It's not like there was any sort of collective or even singular decision to just let things die out. I mean sure Nixon did his thing intentionally, but even as a President in the golden years of the US, he was still just one man.
Basically everything collapses as far as it is allowed to, and the collapse is slowed only by:
- profit, if a system generates it, people will keep the system running.
- dilligence, usually driven by personal idealism, and unrewarded.
- legal or financial penalties, or insurance costs.
- it has collapsed to a temporarily stable state for now.
For another comment I was looking at the Grenfell Tower fire in the UK around 2017 and the people who lived there had been raising fire risks for years and the landlord (management organization) and the council had been ignoring them, and ignoring the fire department. The companies which replaced the cladding on the tower with flammable cladding were choosing the cheaper flammable option and pointing fingers as well. And during the fire, the fire service had never dealt with such a big fire and didn't have a truck with a long ladder, didn't have extended-breathing gear, had radio problems, water pressure problems from the local water company (who deny that).
This kind of backstory is typical for disasters, and for IT outages - and I've taken to believing that if something "should work" but wasn't tested recently then you should expect that it doesn't work. This is a common saying in backups (you need to test restoring), but it seems to apply everywhere. Backup internet connections that don't have enough bandwidth for the company to keep running. Disaster recovery sites that share resources with the production site. 'Disaster recovery' that recovered into a remote site, but they couldn't do CAD work remotely over their slow connection so it was still disastrous. Multiple power feeds but they were cross-wired so one failing still functionall took down everything.
If knowledge transfer "should be happening" but it's not critical to a job, or it's not profitable, or it's not legally required and audited, then it isn't happening. Subject to the dilligent idealist employee mentioned above who are temporary in the long view. Management's involvement seems not to arrange the larger system to effectively shoulder responsibility, but rather find ways to avoid personal blame while cutting costs beyond the point where everything that needs to happen keeps happening.
It’s the responsibility of the management to make sure the knowledge transferred to new generation.
That's just lazy thinking, and probably a sign you've never been a manager. For all the responsibility to lie with management you'd have to be leading people who enthusiastically do what they're asked to do, raise problems, document things, follow processes, and make sure everything is handed over to the next person when they leave.
That's not how people are. They'll have times when they're unmotivated, underpaid, grumpy, over-worked so they miss things, etc. That's when the organisational tech debt starts piling up, and there's nothing a manager can do to stop it except manage it as best they can even though they're under the same pressure, with the same lack of motivation and crap pay as everyone else.
It's so easy to think you can fix it just by keeping on top of it and micromanaging where it starts to show up. It doesn't work that way.
1 reply →
> This is how we would end up with nuclear disasters, not because the technology is bad, but purely because of mismanagement and human negligence.
I'm pretty sure constant upgrading would be more likely to cause disasters.
I can only imagine how much less reliable a modern JavaScript Electron app would be in this role...
If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Same reason why MTA in NYC still operates subway using 100 y/o signaling hardware on most of the lines.
In a way, your comment and the responses you get is a perfect allegory to inexperienced vs experienced engineering.
But similar reasoning is why Canadian trams are worse than other countries, and it's not "good experienced engineering". In this nearly hour long rant by NotJustBikes[1] the section I've linked is about the technology and how the transit authority will not move on from 100 year old track technology which makes everything worse for customers. There are junctions where tram drivers have to stop and look at the track to make sure the junction is correctly set because the single-point switching is less reliable than modern designs. Or the driver has to stop the tram and get out to use a stick to move the track and change the junction because they aren't electrified. And then pass through junctions as slowly as 10km/h because the old track design has higher risk of derailment than modern designs.
The designs for the electrified track switches were made by one company which was sold, re-sold, and then burned down and the designs lost, and there isn't anywhere else to buy them because nowhere else uses such old track design anymore, so not only is Toronto struggling to buy parts to continue electrifying the manual junctions, it's struggling to custom-make enough replacement parts to keep the aging electric switches working faster than they fail.
And they were using trolley poles to connect to the overhead power lines instead of Pantographs until 2017, 50-100 years after everywhere else, which meant a) they couldn't get enough power through them to run air conditioning, and b) they are more likely to fall off the power line and the tram stops and the driver has to get out and reconnect them, and c) their newer trams now have to have custom dual-power connections to go through older parts of the network, and d) the carbon shoes on the trolley poles wear out quicker which means the trams are dirtier and taken out of service for maintenance more often in the wet which is when people want to use trams more.
[1] https://youtu.be/HhQxNHrD6fA?t=2311
OK, but the context here is IT in mission critical infrastructure, like energy or banking. These industries will not jump on the latest technology and will drag their feet for as long as possible, and for good reasons.
Also, I happen to be familiar with NotJustBikes, watch regularly. I don't see this as the same kind of problem. What you explained is clearly BROKE. What we're talking about works just fine and migration to newer technology doesn't provide advantages outside easier maintenance. It can't be justifies by costs, either.
> If it's not broken, don't fix it.
I understand that way of thinking for a small business computer system. Not for a critical infrastructure. Also if people actually thought about like that we would still be in stone age, like why invent something new or use a new technology? Keep on using rocks to crack nuts and kill animals
I think you can imagine the difference between “I did some work and made this thing that is clearly better, but we might have a few kinks to work out” and “I did some work, and if I did it perfectly, it’s just as good as the old thing, but we might have a few kinks to work out.”
I agree with you. First, "broken" is not a binary, it might not be broken but it might not work well either. Second, sooner or later everything breaks, and you better be ready for when that happens.
Their 100 y/o hardware is built from stuff that's still produced though. We still make relays (not identical ones but ones that perform the same function), wires, and mechanical levers. The system's behavior is not encoded in the relays but in the connections between them. If you had a CPU made of separate transistors you could replace burned out transistors with any future transistors but if you had one made of chips you'd need those exact chips that were out of production.
Replacing the relays in old telephone switches is a problem because they use so many weirdly specific types of relays - but those systems are only found in museums now. I believe track control uses fairly ordinary DPDT, etc., relay designs.
A friend discovered that one of the more modern pieces of equipment instrumenting those old signals was an ancient WYSE terminal from the late 90s that had been bricked over during a station project.
They moved a booth or something and the compartment it was stuffed in was missed during the cleanout. The thing was working for at least 20 years and may still be there!
I worked with a client that had a cash disbursement system working on an ancient dBase 16-bit application. They had a very difficult to change process that required multiple transactions because the system couldn't represent the dollar amounts appropriately.
Lindy's law:
For non-perishable things - i.e technologies, ideas, books, institutions - the expected remaining lifespan is roughly proportional to how long they have already survived
Time acts as a filter: what has already withstood a long stretch of disorder is more robust, so the longer it lasts, the longer it is expected to last.
The old nuclear software running on mainframes have passed the test of time. The new software, has yet to.
Nassim Taleb talks about this at length in his book, Antifragile.
> Why on earth wouldn’t the respective government spend money to modernize a critical infrastructure like a nuclear power plant?
Same reason they don't modernize health care infrastructure. It's too expensive, people die if they get it wrong and they get voted out of office for their troubles.
Because what they have works well enough to be NRC-certified, and they have enough spare parts to comfortably outlast the rated lifetime of the reactor.
Relevant: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...
There is no reason a more modern system would be better in any aspect.
Now you know why "nuclear power may have been dangerous in the past, but with modern technology it's completely safe and Chernobyl will never happen again" is not a good argument.
Chernobyl didn’t happen because of technological blunder or even human negligence. It happened because poverty caused by communism in Soviet Union had to use old outdated (not the modern nuclear technology at that time) graphite tips in carbon rods because it was cheap and also kept it as a secret from the facility operators giving them a false sense of trust on the kill switch.
Chernobyl is the perfect example to not use outdated old technology. Had they used the modern western technology at that time to upgrade their nuclear reactors the kill switch would have prevented the whole disaster instead of increasing the neutrons make the core a nuclear bomb.
Next time educate yourself with facts before making a fool out of yourself
> old outdated
Wikipedia's pages on Chernobyl say that construction started in 1972 and the problem with the control rods causing an initial spike of power was discovered in 1983 ?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Accident_se... (search 'Ignalina nuclear power plant')
Chernobyl was very much not "old", it was a more modern design than the PWRs which are built today. Chernobyl Unit 4 was also basically brand new, only 3 years old at the time of the disaster. The RBMK design dates from the 60s, whereas the PWR is from the 40s.
"Had they used the modern western technology" ... "Next time educate yourself with facts before making a fool out of yourself"
But you are aware that this thread is about a reactor in the west, that "updated" their certified hardware to a VM instead running on windows NT?
1 reply →
Now you know why making arguments from 20 year old anecdata makes you look foolish