Sandy Showed Nuke Plants' Vulnerability

[Steeplerot]

What have the US done wrong with regard to nuke that would continue with a modern Gen III/IV design?
Chuck

More complicated plants do make make an engineers job of planning for the worst any better. Nor does a more expensive plant suddenly make private industry/government collusion shrouded in secrecy by the nature of the industry any less of a insane plan for inevitable fail.

We are just slowly nuking ourselves with every new wasteland on the face of the planet.

Whatever happened to being a good steward of gods earth? Christians?

 

[K1052]

More complicated plants do make make an engineers job of planning for the worst any better. Nor does a more expensive and more dangerous plants make private industry/government collusion shrouded in secrecy by the nature of the industry any less of a insane plan for inevitable fail.

Newer plants are simpler and safer than old designs, not more complex.

 

[Acanthus]

NG and coal are worse. Reserves are also limited.

Wind, Solar, Tidal are incremental, and require a lot of energy to produce themselves.

Dams destroy enormous masses of usable land and have their own issues with safety.

What is left?

 

[Acanthus]

More complicated plants do make make an engineers job of planning for the worst any better. Nor does a more expensive plant suddenly make private industry/government collusion shrouded in secrecy by the nature of the industry any less of a insane plan for inevitable fail.

We are just slowly nuking ourselves with every new wasteland on the face of the planet.

Whatever happened to being a good steward of gods earth? Christians?

Passive convection cooling is far far less complex than pump-driven cooling from an external source.

How do you feel about ITER?

 

[Mark R]

Also, they fail to mention that Oyster Creek is literally the oldest US plant. Modern (Gen III+) plants can passively cool all of their systems without any power or human intervention.

Only for a very limited time.

Typically 12-24 hours, until the battery systems for controls run down.

Even the very latest designs (Gen III+) of which none have been built, only offer up to 72 hours of passive cooling for the reactor (these are not limited by batteries, but by heat absorbing capacity of the building - if the skin of the building can be kept cool with additional water supplies, rain, etc. then this period can be prolonged) in the event of power and generator loss.

However, not all Gen III+ systems offer passive cooling. For example, the European EPR only has a few hours of battery controlled semi-passive systems. If all power is lost, then the plant is done for within hours (they get around this, by using 4 generators capable of running all plant systems in different buildings; and 2 "ultimate" generators installed deep inside vaulted areas of the plant to keep UPSs topped up and provide instrumentation - the ultimate generators would be able to maintain the semi-passive systems).

Similarly, spent fuel pools generally only have limited - around 72 -160 hours - of passive safety before water levels drop to dangerous levels. It's never been considered necessary to have additional backup on the spent fuel pools, as at the time the regulations were written and plants built, it was inconceivable that a spent fuel pool could ever be left unattended and unwatched. This really is something that should be addressed. That said, the cooling demands of spent fuel pools are very low - a garden hose would be all you need to keep one topped up indefinitely.

 

[Steeplerot]

Passive convection cooling is far far less complex than pump-driven cooling from an external source.

With far more complication to support the passive cooling. If you have a PCV rupture you would compromise the delicate balance of pressure to circulate since the system relies on vast new networks of piping to maintain safety. (and we have seen how the industry avoids these issues like the plague or just buys out regulation.)

When they fire up the emergency diesel pumps for testing at a lot of these old plants in the USA every once in awhile, a lot don't even turn over. The industry is a mess, they haven't even got the balls to acknowledge the risks and mistakes our plants have in common with the Japanese plants or taken any action since what has been learned since Fuku.

Why? Because the USA designed Fuku. And we have a lot of MKI GE reactors even older with more spent fuel sitting on top.

Trust the nuke industry with more endless amounts of taxpayer money when they have never delivered? yeah right.

 

[bfdd]

Meh I'm seriously not worried about nuke plants at least not newer designs, old ones? Crap shoot, but we should start building newer reactors. Though that isn't really a popular thing right now.

 

[K1052]

With far more complication to support the passive cooling. If you have a PCV rupture you would compromise the delicate balance of pressure to circulate since the system relies on vast new networks of piping to maintain safety. (and we have seen how the industry avoids these issues like the plague or just buys out regulation.)

You'd probably need a BLU-116 or a low yield nuclear weapon detonated at close range for that. A touch outside even the most improbable scenarios.

 

[Farang]

Is it not the case that if humans die, these nuke plants would eventually melt down and destroy all life on Earth? Or am I nuts? That's a disturbing thought that our species kills everything else as it dies off.

 

[Steeplerot]

A touch outside even the most improbable scenarios.

You heard the exact same thing from the industry apologists about a PCV even leaking just 2 years ago.



You cannot responsibly say that. No engineer could.

The bs like this goes on and on, and more plants keep popping.

It's just going to have to be a fuku here before people look at what is going on I guess like the Japanese public.

A damn shame.

 

[Steeplerot]

Is it not the case that if humans die, these nuke plants would eventually melt down and destroy all life on Earth? Or am I nuts? That's a disturbing thought that our species kills everything else as it dies off.

The southern hemisphere would be spared a good part of the fallout, but yes, not long after humans (a few hours) these plants would have no cooling. -Like Japan.

There are plants in the southern hemisphere (South Africa if I remember correctly) but sooner or later a good part of life would be affected, the stuff is very long lasting and a lot of it travels up the food chain to accumulate at the top. Tuna for example being predatory get a big amount.

To say our 300 something power plants would kill everything is a bit much. Some surface dwelling species (Tardigrades for example) are naturally resistant. Or plain live somewhere where the fallout would not rainout or be exposed. New Zealand would be pretty safe.

 

[nehalem256]

Hurricane Sandy: Problems at Five Nuke Plants

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/hurricane-sandy-problems-nuke-plants/story?id=17598503#.UJLzKcXR5EJ

We are playing a very dangerous game with very high stakes here.

Economically it is not even worth it, the plants have never been profitable without massive corporate welfare.

The problem is not a partisan one, face it, both parties have fallen over themselves to make this mess since the start.

I myself have no problem with smaller reactors like in subs and for medical isotopes, but jamming huge buildings full of this stuff with no plan in a serious emergency near population areas and keeping everything secretive is stupid.

For many many generations to pay the cost for. A few decades of unprofitable power. It's insane.

Even Einstein though it was madness long term.

Ummm. You do realize the your linked article is about the stations having emergency plans in place and correctly implementing them resulting in no risk to the public?

 

[Farang]

The southern hemisphere would be spared a good part of the fallout, but yes, not long after humans (a few hours) these plants would have no cooling. -Like Japan.

There are plants in the southern hemisphere (South Africa if I remember correctly) but sooner or later a good part of life would be affected, the stuff is very long lasting and a lot of it travels up the food chain to accumulate at the top. Tuna for example being predatory get a big amount.

To say our 300 something power plants would kill everything is a bit much. Some surface dwelling species (Tardigrades for example) are naturally resistant. Or plain live somewhere where the fallout would not rainout or be exposed. New Zealand would be pretty safe.

That's awful. I have a really hard time supporting nuke plants because of this, it seems morally wrong.

 

[Steeplerot]

Ummm. You do realize the your linked article is about the stations having emergency plans in place and correctly implementing them resulting in no risk to the public?

That is not the point. No, no one is glowing thanks to Sandy. Luckily.

 

[Steeplerot]

That's awful. I have a really hard time supporting nuke plants because of this, it seems morally wrong.

Its mind boggling when you think about what a solar storm would do. There is no plan at all for something that would wreck all these safety systems and we know happen every so often.

Personally, its not a partisan thing to me, it is a moral issue. (and I dig physics)

I may wisecrack about the south and Texas but losing any state in the union pretty much forever is not worth the price.

 

[Agent11]

So for those that fret about these very old but still running nuke plants, would you be OK with the Gen III or IV plants being built to replace them?

Yes, I would love for that to happen. I would volunteer my backyard, but it isn't large enough

 

[Paratus]

IF the plant is totally intact and no critical systems are harmed. But then a plant should never go critical anyhow, that is unless the unforeseen happens, (like...oh a few half-assed maintained to cut corners pipe bends) which always does.

The nuke industry is probably the worst about buying out regulation and cutting corners/secrecy of all of them.

If they were honest people wouldn't put up with it. The reality is nuts when you look into how the USA runs these plants.

So what is it about nukes you hate the most?

The radioactive waste?

The industry?

What?

 

[Paratus]

wtf?

What exactly is a "anything else" that turns places like Northern Japan or Belsarus into wastelands?

All out nuke war?

More false equivalence, but this is par for the course with you guys.

How much land is at stake again? Any links?

 

[Agent11]

The intelligent thing to do would be to decommission plants in high risk areas and build new plants using modern technology in geologically stable areas not prone to disaster.

Like it or not nuclear energy is the best bet we have for energy production. Like fracking? Like acid rain? I didn't think so.

 

[nehalem256]

That is not the point. No, no one is glowing thanks to Sandy. Luckily.

Luck had nothing to do with it.

There were so minor "problems" that were easily handled by the safety protocols in place.

 

[Paratus]

This is why there are 3 smoking husks of blown up and china syndrome plants leaking radiation into the populations of Japans children/Pacific ocean like discarded cigarette butts.

And what has the industry done? They have no plan except hope suckers like you keep misleading folks for them.

And repeating the same tired false equivalency about coal of course.

Keep you head in the sand Steeplerot Keep you head in the sand.....


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

Luckily neither is all that bad.

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

The Koch brothers thank you!

And now I've had to agree with QP and Cad so thanks for that too....

 

[Wreckem]

NG boom has made coal and nuclear less economical. It is questionable how long NG prices will stay at these levels though.

The Fukushima accident physically could not have happened to a GenIII/GenIII+ plant.

Natural gas will stay at fairly low levels for the foreseeable future. They will start to go up as oil becomes more and more scarce. We have a huge supply of untapped natural gas in the US, enough to be energy independent. But prices will have to go up for oil & gas companies to start production on most of it. Most natural gas wells aren't profitable right now. Many are shut in. If they started to replace(they won't) coal with natural gas, gas prices would naturally rise, but probably not to the point where it is more expensive than nuclear or clean coal.

 

[Steeplerot]

The Koch brothers thank you!

And now I've had to agree with QP and Cad so thanks for that too....

Which is a good sign that you need to look again.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So if there were no subsidies, only say low interest loans, and they were responsible for maintaining a fund to deal with their waste long term, you'd have no financial reason to be against nuke from a buildout and disposal perspective?



What have the US done wrong with regard to nuke that would continue with a modern Gen III/IV design?



Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm talking US, not Japan or anyone else.



Madness? What do you mean by this? So if the utility was not allowed gov assistance except for low interest loans, would not that take care of your unprofitable concerns?

Chuck

The funny part about his post is that he talks about removing subsidies are proof that nuke is not viable market options but then fails to realize that the same can be said about solar and wind.

 

[Steeplerot]

The funny part about his post is that he talks about removing subsidies are proof that nuke is not viable market options but then fails to realize that the same can be said about solar and wind.

When solar or wind turns a countryside into a wasteland let us know.