Shouldn't we disable Nuclear Reactors in California?

[Drakkith]

Are the conditions between the tectonic plates at Japan similar enough to the ones at Chile to cause a 9.5 quake?

Also, I read that the 63 meter seawall at Kamaishi was insufficient to hold back the Tsunamai from the quake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_wall#Japan

 

[Pengwuino]

See, a reactor getting hit by a 100km wide chunk of the moon would be a true Black Swan event. It's never happened, it's a small probability and not really calculable. But a 9.5 "Ring of Fire" quake happened in 1960 and the 40 meter tsunami happened in 1933. Those are calculable.

You're not understanding risk management. A 10.0 has never happened in modern times. Risk management is not about guarding against things that have never happened.

Think about my airplane talk a few posts ago. Airplanes crash, they're bombed, etc at a rate that makes it a calculable occurrence. The risk management you do in your own head when you decide to take a flight is that "Ok, there's a 1 in whatever chance of dying on this flight, but I still need to get myself from point A to B so I am accepting this risk". In fact, most things in life are built off of this kind of risk assessment analysis. I accept the risk involved in driving to my university even though there's a chance I could die on the way. I accept investing in certain stocks even though there's a chance the company may be hiding billions of dollars of loss and are 10 days from being informed of a grand jury investigation of them. There exists no alternative that is 100% safe other than never leaving my house and stuffing my money in my mattress (although maybe my mattress will catch fire?).

The idea with a nuclear reactor is the same. It's likely a 7.0 earthquake will hit, build against it. It's less likely an 8.0 earthquake will hit, but it's still reasonable to build against it. A 9.0? Ok, less likely, try to build against it. A 10.0? It's never happened, it's not reasonable to build against things that have never happened. Remember, the more extreme you get in the unlikeliness of the event in question, the amount it costs to guard against it can be ridiculous. That's why, for example, skyscrapers in San Francisco are only built to withstand a certain magnitude earthquake. As you get to higher and higher magnitudes, it becomes so costly that it doesn't even make sense to build the skyscraper in the first place. No skyscraper in SF is built to withstand a 10.0 as far as I know.

 

[Danuta]

Are the conditions between the tectonic plates at Japan similar enough to the ones at Chile to cause a 9.5 quake?

Also, I read that the 63 meter seawall at Kamaishi was insufficient to hold back the Tsunamai from the quake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_wall#Japan

Same "Ring of Fire" subduction zone.

Really, the recent tsunami breached a 63 meter sea wall? Wow, well, then, I'm changing it from a Criminally Negligent Risk Assessment event to an Insanely Negligent Risk Assessment event.

So who builds NPPs on the eastern coast of Japan, the most seismically active and tsunami prone region/coast in the world, where there have been quite a few 8.0 and greater magnitude offshore earthquakes and puts up a 5.7 meter taifun barrier?

Yes, very interesting indeed how at Kamaishi, also on the eastern coast and not too far from Fuku, they deemed it necessary to put up a 63 meter seawall(risk management no doubt, eh) but TEPCO just has a 5.7 meter taifun barrier. Thanks for the tidbit.

 

[Danuta]

You're not understanding risk management. A 10.0 has never happened in modern times. Risk management is not about guarding against things that have never happened.

That would be "robustness". A NPP doesn't only need regular risk assessment. If there's one place that needs robustness in addition to proper risk assessment, it's a NPP.

edit: And ever hear of safety design with margin? At Fuku the probabilities were abysmally underestimated and the consequences, for a country with very little arable land and a dense population, even more so.

 

[zapperzero]

As you get to higher and higher magnitudes, it becomes so costly that it doesn't even make sense to build the skyscraper in the first place. No skyscraper in SF is built to withstand a 10.0 as far as I know.

We're thinking of building a new NPP on the coast of Japan. We know that a huge earthquake+tsunami could happen and it might wipe out the plant. We don't know the probability of it actually happening. Do we secure against this known unknown, at enormous cost, or do we not build it in the first place?

You're going to say "Your question is flawed! We do our best within the budget and hope nothing bad happens." I'm fine with that, as long as you can prove to me that the cost of failure is acceptable. In my book, an exclusion zone cutting the country in half isn't acceptable. That outcome was and still is a possibility with Fukushima.

And when I say proof, I mean scientific proof, a sound theory validated with experiments. Until then, no go. Oh and you're going to have to prove that the experiments are themselves safe enough before proceeding.

 

[Pengwuino]

You're going to say "Your question is flawed! We do our best within the budget and hope nothing bad happens." I'm fine with that, as long as you can prove to me that the cost of failure is acceptable. In my book, an exclusion zone cutting the country in half isn't acceptable. That outcome was and still is a possibility with Fukushima.

And when I say proof, I mean scientific proof, a sound theory validated with experiments. Until then, no go. Oh and you're going to have to prove that the experiments are themselves safe enough before proceeding.

This is exaggeration. Plus that's not the point! We KNOW something bad MIGHT happen, but you can't never ever do anything because of stuff that may possible happen if all the planets align and the correct butterfly flaps it's wings. It's not that the cost of failure is acceptable or not, it's about whether the RISK of failure and associated cost is acceptable. Is it acceptable for a building in san francisco to collapse and killing 10,000 people? What does acceptable even mean in that case?

If you have no idea what it risk means, I suggest you live inside a bomb shelter for the rest of your life as everything in the world is far too dangerous to take part in.

I'm done with this nonsense. You guys need to learn what risk actually means before going off about risk management.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Needless to say it takes much less than a 10R earthquake to get in trouble most NPPs in the world.

As a case in point the japanese march 11th earthquake was a 9.0R intensity quake but one with an epicenter located at 200 + km from Fukushima daichi and daini NPPs.

distance nothwithstanding the resuling ground accelerations were at maximum design level, ore in some cases exceeding them by 10 or 15 % above them.
In fact it appears likely that damage was suffered by unit 1 of daiichi, BEFORE the tsunami struck.

The Hamaoka NPP put on shutdown on PM Kan's request, had similar quake design resilience capabilities, but this one is at risk of being hit by a much closer epicentre quake of 8R+.

Risk estimates is just what are being consistently performed on the side of insufficient caution for NPPs, fact that, given the appalling potental of major incidentes is just simply unacceptable.
The US is no exception to this.
10 yrs after the appalling tragedy of september the 11 2001, many US NPPs still have completely vulnerable Mark I containments AND rooftop located pools loaded with spent fuel, Both can be possibly struck bt a determined terrorist attack, and would result in a much worse scenario tahn Fukushima.
such a tragic attack has been put in place no one but fur times only ten years ago, but no one seems to remember, apparently.

In spite of any logic these installation are not being protected by batteries of SA missiles, at least not that I know of.

That would be, short of shutting down the reactors altogether and relocating the spent fuel in less exposed structures, the only credible chanche of withstanding an air attack that I can think of.

Yes reactors in California should be shut down. They definitely should.
So should reactors reaching 40 yrs of service and of particularly unsafe containment.

The sooner the better.

 

[clancy688]

Ahh, so are you talking about a specific argument on the forum?

My general experience is "I saw the movie China Syndrome and Hiroshima happened. That's enough for me" with people.

It's rather assessments versus assements. There are assessments which conclude that Chernobyl only accounts for ~100 deaths so far, possible 4000 additional long term cancer deaths and many non-lethal thyroid cancer cases.
And there are assessments which conclude 100.000 to 1.000.000 deaths because of Chernobyl.

There's all kind of published research data. Pro-nuclear people will find research which concludes that effects and dangers of nuclear technology are negligible compared to the benefits. And contra-nuclear people will find research data which states the opposite.

Now both sides keep waving with their favourite field study and don't acknowledge the other's. That's the current situation.

That's my observation, and NO, I certainly DON'T want to start any discussion regarding which research data now really really really is the correct one.

 

[zapperzero]

We KNOW something bad MIGHT happen, but you can't never ever do anything because of stuff that may possible happen if all the planets align and the correct butterfly flaps it's wings. It's not that the cost of failure is acceptable or not, it's about whether the RISK of failure and associated cost is acceptable. Is it acceptable for a building in san francisco to collapse and killing 10,000 people? What does acceptable even mean in that case?

I will spare you the embarrassment of discussing the overall tone and quality of your post.

To the points you make: yes, it's true we can't sit on our hands while population is increasing. We need power, food, shelter, and lots. All of that power is going to come with associated costs, in terms of lives and money. This is a given.

You state "it's not that the cost of failure is acceptable or not, it's about whether the RISK of failure and associated cost is acceptable". Let us discuss this for a bit.

NPPs in the United States are uninsured. This is because they are not insurable. That is, absolutely no-one who cares about their money is prepared to bet that the risk of a NPP failing and the subsequent associated cost is smaller than any insurance premium a NPP operator might reasonably pay. That, to me, is the very definition of unacceptable risk.

Let's approach this from another angle. We now have enough data to say that for a population of about 400 NPPs, we will get one total failure every twenty years or so. That's the risk. Now for the associated cost. A lower bound estimate for Fukushima is 250 billion dollars, so far. But what does this "so far" mean? Well, we know that some land will become unusable for decades if not centuries. The economic cost is, thus, unbounded.

You ask "Is it acceptable for a building in san francisco to collapse and killing 10,000 people? What does acceptable even mean in that case? " Let's talk about this from a systemic risk perspective.

Yes, it is acceptable for one building to collapse, out of all the similar buildings that have been built. HOWEVER, if I find out that all buildings which house 10000 people or more in them share a common failure mode and thus will ALL fail in an earthquake, well then, I don't think that's acceptable anymore.

No BWR can survive a total loss of coolant accident . That's a common failure mode. Furthermore, most BWRs would suffer meltdowns if offsite power becomes unavailable and remains unavailable for more than eight hours. That's two common, catastrophic failure modes. Furthermore, all BWRs in existence store "spent" fuel onsite, in non-hardened buildings, with little security and ZERO contingency planning for loss of coolant, loss of power, missiles of any sort (yes, meteorites and errant turbine blades do count), earthquakes disturbing the geometry of close-packed fuel racks... That's three, no, make that six or seven common, catastrophic failure modes.

No need for the butterfly's wings to resonate with the orbital irregularities of Jupiter I'm afraid.

 

[zapperzero]

In spite of any logic these installation are not being protected by batteries of SA missiles, at least not that I know of.

Don't think planes. That was yesterday's threat. Post-Fukushima, you can bet every reasonably-educated, hate-filled wannabe Islamic terrorist (I am describing Mohammed Atta here; there are many Mohammed Atta types in the world, or so the US gov't tells us) is checking out pictures on Google Earth and thinking:

"Oooohh... so if we blow up this transformer station here, and block these two road intersections there and there with IEDs, this NPP here goes kablooey in eight hours' time? Wow. Osama, you shall be avenged. In style."

Take that and plug it in your risk assessments, Pengwuino.

 

[NUCENG]

Both plants use pressurized water reactors, which are much safer than the boiling water reactors at Fukushima. I'll leave more technical details to Astronuc to explain...

There is no reason to shut the plants down.

Actually the BWR has greater margin to fuel damage from temperature limits than a PWR. A BWR is designed to boil. A PWR is never allowed to have boiling so the PWR operates at higher pressures and temperatures.

 

[Drakkith]

Don't think planes. That was yesterday's threat. Post-Fukushima, you can bet every reasonably-educated, hate-filled wannabe Islamic terrorist (I am describing Mohammed Atta here; there are many Mohammed Atta types in the world, or so the US gov't tells us) is checking out pictures on Google Earth and thinking:

"Oooohh... so if we blow up this transformer station here, and block these two road intersections there and there with IEDs, this NPP here goes kablooey in eight hours' time? Wow. Osama, you shall be avenged. In style."

Take that and plug it in your risk assessments, Pengwuino.

Umm, you'd have to add in there the part about destroying the backup generators and keeping anything from land AND air from getting there.

 

[daveb]

Umm, you'd have to add in there the part about destroying the backup generators and keeping anything from land AND air from getting there.

And the on-site armed security forces, emergency procedures for dealing with these kinds of incidents, etc. Nuclear plants have to create numerous scenarios for dealing with energency situations, and the NRC has begun re-examining our plants to determine if procedures in place can adequately deal with similar situations. You can read up on things here.http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/category/emergency-preparedness-and-response/"

 

[zapperzero]

And the on-site armed security forces, emergency procedures for dealing with these kinds of incidents, etc. Nuclear plants have to create numerous scenarios for dealing with energency situations, and the NRC has begun re-examining our plants to determine if procedures in place can adequately deal with similar situations. You can read up on things here.http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/category/emergency-preparedness-and-response/"

I'm very glad the NRC has "begun re-examining" things. Now let's hope the combined NRC/operators/security OODA loop is shorter than that of your average terrorist cell.

 

[zapperzero]

Umm, you'd have to add in there the part about destroying the backup generators and keeping anything from land AND air from getting there.

I'm sure you can think of something. Let's not take this any further than is actually needed.

EDIT: on second thought this is all idle talk anyway. There are much easier targets with similar potential for destruction and terror.

 

[uart]

Many people are claiming that the Japanese tsunami was about a one in 1000 year event. Consider however that Fukushima NPP had been operating for over 40 years and would almost certainly operated for another 10 years had the disaster not have happened. So in that context it had a 1 in 20 probability of happening over the operational lifetime of the reactor. Seriously, is a 1 in 20 chance that small that it is a "black swan" event? I think not.

 

[russ_watters]

Agreed and I think the preliminary report on it said the design criteria for the generators was wrong.

 

[NUCENG]

Many people are claiming that the Japanese tsunami was about a one in 1000 year event. Consider however that Fukuphima NPP had been operating for over 40 years and would almost certainly operated for another 10 years had the disaster not have happened. So in that context it had a 1 in 20 probability of happening over the operational lifetime of the reactor. Seriously, is a 1 in 20 chance that small that it is a "black swan" event? I think not.

Can they do anything about that probability? Can they turn off their section of the "Pacific Ring of Fire"? 1/20 per year probability of an earthquake/tsunami is the probability of an event. The consequence of this event so far is roughly 25,000 prompt deaths due to non-nuclear causes (1250 deaths per year risk) and 0 prompt fatalities from nuclear aspects (0 prompt deaths per year).

There will be latent deaths from both sources. Injuries, economic impacts, suicides, exposure to non-nuclear contaminants and carcinogens will cause further deaths as time passes. And if Japan fixes the problems with their remaining nuclear plants, and improves defenses against tsunamis and earthquakes both risks will decrease.

Unfair to just consider deaths, do the math for injuries and you see the same result. Calculate the economic impact. Damages and dislocation due to non-nuclear impacts far exceed damages and dislocation from the nuclear accident. Duration of that damage and dislocation will potentially become worse for contaminated areas from radiation over time (and for a heavily popolated country with such small land area, this is a vital issue in Japan.)

The accidents at TEPCO Fukushima plants made the consequences of an already terrible disaster worse. Somebody needs to go to jail (no death penalty in Japan) and a whole lot of things need to be done so that never happens again.

What can Japan do? Their coal reserve is inadequate, they have little or no oil reserves. Importing energy is expensive and would put Japanese industry at a big disadvantage. They currently have only 17 of 52 reactors operating and are looking at massive disruptions until they can replace or restart generation. There is no country that has solved the problem of operating stable electric grids with a large portion of generation from wind and solar energy. Coal, oil, gas, and biomass all generate greenhouse gases. Japan has thermal and hydro resources, but it would take time to develop.

What they should have done (protecting against tsunami and extended station blackout) is important, but what do they do now? What can be done to change that 1/20 per year probability into a statistic with no consequence?

 

[mheslep]

...They currently have only 17 of 52 reactors operating and are looking at massive disruptions until they can replace or restart generation. ... but what do they do now?...

Restart some/many of the reactors.

 

[Bodge]

Cheap solar energy for all!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

"Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co"

 

[Bodge]

If we pile in 1/4 of the money that is invested in nuclear power, GE's ambitions will be realized.

Historically, civilian nuclear power was and still is linked to pursuit of "the bomb"

 

[Drakkith]

If we pile in 1/4 of the money that is invested in nuclear power, GE's ambitions will be realized.

Historically, civilian nuclear power was and still is linked to pursuit of "the bomb"

What does that even mean?

 

[NUCENG]

Except what happened at Fuku is not a Black Swan event. NPPs built on a coastline that is earthquake and tsunami central getting hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami would, in fact, not be a small probability and definitely calculable. This is more a case of a Stupid Negligent Risk Assessment event, not a true Black Swan event.

I think TEPCO considers the black swan designation is correct here.

A Black Swan event:

• Is a surprise, a rare or unlikely event
• Is serious, unforseen by the "experts"
• Has been rationalized to explain why they didn't see it coming.

I agree this is not a true black swan event for many of us because:

Earthquakes and tsunamies are not exactly rare or unexpected in Japan.
Experts in Japan knew of the eathquakes and tsunamis 1100 years ago and 2200 years ago. They even tried to get TEPCO to adress these enents in the last 5 years.
Risk Assessment could have pointed out the high "worth" value of station blackouts and EDGs if regulators had been regulating and not making "suggestions.".

I think you can insert "criminal" before "negligence." I reject the term black swan on all three criteria.

 

[clancy688]

The accidents at TEPCO Fukushima plants made the consequences of an already terrible disaster worse. Somebody needs to go to jail (no death penalty in Japan) and a whole lot of things need to be done so that never happens again.

I believe there was an assessment which assumed the economical damage of the nuclear disaster at ~250 billion, nearly the same sum as the damage following the tsunami.

And offtopic:

Japan has a death penalty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan

 

[Luca Bevil]

I'm sure you can think of something. Let's not take this any further than is actually needed.

EDIT: on second thought this is all idle talk anyway. There are much easier targets with similar potential for destruction and terror.

I generally share most of your opinions.

Not in this case however.
I can conceive no targets that offer more potential than an NPP for terror, detruction, long term damage, economic consequences.

Let's hope thay are going to get somewhat protected.. before it's too late

 

[clancy688]

Not in this case however.
I can conceive no targets that offer more potential than an NPP for terror, detruction, long term damage, economic consequences.

Thank god Al-Quaida didn't realize the potential of an airplane attack on a nuclear reactor.
I can't imagine what would've happened if they guided the hijacked planes into Indian Point instead of the WTC and the Pentagon.

Or maybe they did realize the potential but didn't try it since hitting a nuclear reactor with a passanger plane is way more challenging than hitting a skyscraper (and even there plane #2 nearly missed it).

 

[NUCENG]

Cheap solar energy for all!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

"Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co"

That will be wonderful! I honestly hope that is right. However, if Wishes was Fishes we could feed the world!

 

[Bodge]

What does that even mean?

I thought I was clear enough, but I can explain if you like:

If a small fraction of the (historical) global investment in nuclear power is made in solar power research, it may only be 3 years before solar power becomes cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power has been given unprecedented government support due to its military applications, i.e. nuclear submarines, ships and weapons.

see Russia, USA, UK, N.KOREA, IRAN, FRANCE, ISRAEL, SYRIA, IRAQ, etc, etc.

Without government guarantees, no NPP could operate due to the fact that no insurer would cover them.

Fukushima Daiichi cleanup ans compensation costs = $250 billion+.
Chernobyl = "hundreds of billions of dollars." - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf"

 

[Danuta]

I think you can insert "criminal" before "negligence."

I did. But finally I changed it to "insane".

 

[NUCENG]

I generally share most of your opinions.

Not in this case however.
I can conceive no targets that offer more potential than an NPP for terror, detruction, long term damage, economic consequences.

Let's hope thay are going to get somewhat protected.. before it's too late

Let's think about that, on 9/11 they got 19 men to hijack 4 jet liners. They were successful in three of their attacks. It will take a lot more than 5 suicidal people to penetrate a nuclear plant and get anywhere near the vital equipment. Even if they do somehow create an accident it will probably be similar to Fukushima - no prompt fatalities. Panic and Fear? Certainly, these would exist, no doubt amplified by the media. On the other hand there is a good chance there would be no result other than some dead terrorists. A football stadium on Saturday or Sunday is a much better target if you are looking for body count.

The Japanese government answered questions to the Convention on Nuclear Safety in 2002.

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/internationalcooperation/conventions/cns/pdf/2ndAnswers.pdf

See if you can wrap your head around this:

Question:
Protection against terrorism. It is stated that Japan is a stable
country with a very low terrorism threat. Did the terrorist attacks
in the Tokyo subways (SARIN gas) change this view? Were the
atrocities of September 11 2001 in the USA, where the
destroying effects of a crashing Jumbo-jet full of kerosene were
dramatically demonstrated, a reason for design re-evaluations
and/or design changes of the operating plants? Were there
changes regarding the new designs?

NISA Answer:
Since the terrorist attacks in Tokyo subway using Sarin gas, the Government has
been continuously considering implementing necessary protections against
Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical terrorism. We still understand that terrorist
attacks are few in Japan and that Japan is a rather stable country. As for the
terrorist attacks on 9/11, NISA does not re-evaluate current designs of our
nuclear power plants [boldface added]

Does that attitude say anything about "overlooking" tsunamis?

 

[clancy688]

Solar Energy alone won't help much. It can't compensate peak loads and it can't provide base load. We still need conventional plants for a stable energy supply. Or very effective techniques for energy storage, so that we could store unused energy during the day and recall it in the night when there's no sun.

Currently, the only effective energy storage technique is a pumped storage hydro power station. And we need the right geography for it to work. Here in Germany, nearly every location suitable for such plants are used. And they still can only provide a fraction of the storage capacity needed.

 

[Danuta]

I can conceive no targets that offer more potential than an NPP for terror, detruction, long term damage, economic consequences.

I agree. Nothing better instills terror in people's minds than a blown up, steaming, smoking and out of control radiation spewing reactor with a blob of fubarium smouldering in the dry well. Well, maybe three such reactors(or more). Not even going to mention the SFPs.

A terrorist's dream. Potentially the biggest dirty bomb ever now that they know all you have to do is knock out power and backup on vintage reactors.

 

[NeoDevin]

Thank god Al-Quaida didn't realize the potential of an airplane attack on a nuclear reactor.
I can't imagine what would've happened if they guided the hijacked planes into Indian Point instead of the WTC and the Pentagon.

Most likely the plane would be destroyed, with relatively minor damage to the NPP.

 

[clancy688]

Most likely the plane would be destroyed, with relatively minor damage to the NPP.

Here in Germany we had plants which, according to official government studies, wouldn't even withstand a Cessna.
And I'm pretty sure these ones were newer than Indian Point for example.

Don't underestimate the force of 150 tons moving at several hundred miles. The 9/11 planes in New York totally smashed through reinforced concrete and elevator shafts.

 

[Danuta]

Let's think about that, on 9/11 they got 19 men to hijack 4 jet liners. They were successful in three of their attacks. It will take a lot more than 5 suicidal people to penetrate a nuclear plant and get anywhere near the vital equipment.

Disable backup generators weeks if not months before the event. Nobody would have noticed this at Fuku. When was the last time they tested their backup generators?? Probably years ago. They just fudged it on the safety report as usual, eh. And no need to penetrate the nuclear power plant to knock out main power.

 

[Danuta]

Here in Germany we had plants which, according to official government studies, wouldn't even withstand a Cessna.

*&^%$#@ unbelievable. I did not know that.

 

[clancy688]

*&^%$#@ unbelievable. I did not know that.

Hm, I researched that. Apparently, the study stated that no german NPP would withstand a normal passenger airplane. And a few (of the older ones) won't even withstand "small passenger airplanes". Somehow the media thought that means something similar to a Cessna.
Sorry for that misleading comment of mine.

 

[Bodge]

How about we start by dismantling every existing NPP on its 35th birthday?

Anything else is akin to Russian Roulette IMHO.

 

[NUCENG]

I thought I was clear enough, but I can explain if you like:

If a small fraction of the (historical) global investment in nuclear power is made in solar power research, it may only be 3 years before solar power becomes cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power has been given unprecedented government support due to its military applications, i.e. nuclear submarines, ships and weapons.

see Russia, USA, UK, N.KOREA, IRAN, FRANCE, ISRAEL, SYRIA, IRAQ, etc, etc.

Without government guarantees, no NPP could operate due to the fact that no insurer would cover them.

Fukushima Daiichi cleanup ans compensation costs = $250 billion+.
Chernobyl = "hundreds of billions of dollars." - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf"

Military uses and support for nuclear power development is historical fact, like the development of aviation. But a Boeing 747 is a transport, not a fighter or bomber. A commercial nuclear plant, absent reprocessing, has no military applications.

And right now solar and wind energy require even larger government subsidies per kilowatt to make it possible to produce electricity and sell it in competition with coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. I don't object to subsidizing research to improve solar and wind power so it can become competitive. Government guarantees of construction loans only cost the taxpayers if the utilities default on their loans. Government funded insurance for accident effects above a liability limit is a more direct subsidy, but again, no accident, no extraordinary costs. It has been stated erroneously that nuclear plants do not have any insurance costs. That is not correct, they are insured for employeee injuries, liabilities and many other normal industrial insurance categories. They are insured for accidents up to the federal limit on liability.Decommissioning funds are maintained as well. Rate payers, not taxpayers) have paid for a geological repository through taxes on nuclear plant power production. Regulatory costs that involve direct support or reviews of plants are billed to the plants and they don't work cheap.

So this whole idea about investing a small fraction of nuclear subsidies in alternative energy is a smoke screen. They are already getting a large fraction, at least here in the US.

Go ahead, check out the federal budget to reinsure nuclear loan guarantees, and other insurance. Add in the DOE costs for the portion of DOE and NRC that support commercial nuclear power.

Then add up the subsidies for ethanol, solar power, wind power, oil shale, thermal energy, biomass energy, tidal energy and all the other potential sources of energy. Remember to add in the environmental costs of greenhouse gases and other fossile plant emissions which are defacto subsidies. Add the ratepayer funding for Yucca mountain that won't benefit the nuclear industry at all. See what the facts are.

By the way GE is a multiple billion dollar company that paid zero income taxes. Any bets about government funding for GE development of competitive solor research? That company does nothing that doesn't generate profit. And if they solve the energy problem, that is OK by me.

 

[Drakkith]

How about we start by dismantling every existing NPP on its 35th birthday?

Anything else is akin to Russian Roulette IMHO.

Sure. I hope you have a plan for replacing them with something else to generate power. Both dismantling old plants and buliding new ones will cost money, so I hope you can find the funds to do so as well.

 

[NUCENG]

Disable backup generators weeks if not months before the event. Nobody would have noticed this at Fuku. When was the last time they tested their backup generators?? Probably years ago. They just fudged it on the safety report as usual, eh. And no need to penetrate the nuclear power plant to knock out main power.

Don't know about Japan rules for testing EDGs but in the US they are tested monthly and the required reliability is 0.975 to start and carry loads for an hour.

 

[Bodge]

Thanks for your detailed reply NUCENG.

re. "They are already getting a large fraction" [of investment]

Not of historical investment levels.

But, I agree, the current subsidies for the expensive and inefficient solar panel installations are a waste of money. Wind is also underwhelming.

The breakthrough will come when solar cells become cheap enough to put everywhere.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-swiss-cheese-enables-thin-silicon.html" recent story is one example of the kind of thing nano technology may bring to the equation.

The Japanese and Germans, who are abandoning nuclear power due to Popular Opinion, will figure out the renewable energy storage problems.

Technology advances and economies of scale will hopefully make this a reality...

 

[NUCENG]

That would be "robustness". A NPP doesn't only need regular risk assessment. If there's one place that needs robustness in addition to proper risk assessment, it's a NPP.

edit: And ever hear of safety design with margin? At Fuku the probabilities were abysmally underestimated and the consequences, for a country with very little arable land and a dense population, even more so.

Yes, I have heard of it and included it in my analyses and designs every day in the nuclear industry. One of the best examples of margin in nuclear power is evident if you want to research calculations for safety-related instrument and controls setpoints. Two potential searches include NRC regulatory RG 1.105 and TSTF-493 which is a recent rework and enhancement for this area.

 

[NUCENG]

I believe there was an assessment which assumed the economical damage of the nuclear disaster at ~250 billion, nearly the same sum as the damage following the tsunami.

And offtopic:

Japan has a death penalty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan

Oops, should have checked that. I lived there for three years and never heard of it being used. Probably won't be invoked here unless somebody proves it was murder.

 

[Danuta]

Hm, I researched that. Apparently, the study stated that no german NPP would withstand a normal passenger airplane. And a few (of the older ones) won't even withstand "small passenger airplanes". Somehow the media thought that means something similar to a Cessna.
Sorry for that misleading comment of mine.

I'm assuming(but shouldn't anymore) that they calculated weight, velocity and angle. Yeah, I don't see how a vintage reactor could withstand the dive bombing of a medium or jumbo sized passenger plane right into it at a steep angle. Especially if the engine was cut some time before. But it would have to be a freak accident because you'd have to be a damn good commercial airline pilot to hit the smallish target purposefully at a steep angle, which most terrorists aren't. You'd still have to be a pretty good commercial airplane pilot to come in low and parallel. Imagine jet fuel ignition on impact.

I'd like to consult my alias, Dmytry, on this one.

 

[clancy688]

But it would have to be a freak accident because you'd have to be a damn good commercial airline pilot to hit the smallish target purposefully at a steep angle, which most terrorists aren't.

The webmaster of the often recited www.tec-sim.de[/URL] homepage wrote (somewhere on the main page) that a high wall in front of every NPP would be enough to stop every airplane.

That's because a commercial airliner is only able to fly a controlled descent angle of 15 degrees.

[PLAIN][URL]http://tec-sim.de/images/stories/eibl.jpg[/URL]

 

[Drakkith]

The webmaster of the often recited www.tec-sim.de[/URL] homepage wrote (somewhere on the main page) that a high wall in front of every NPP would be enough to stop every airplane.

That's because a commercial airliner is only able to fly a controlled descent angle of 15 degrees.
[/QUOTE]

Are you sure that doesn't mean a "safe and controlled" descent? During 9/11 the air traffic controllers for the airport near the pentagon commented on the manueverability of the plane with "Commercial planes don't fly like that. It isn't safe". Could it be that you can control an airliner at a steeper angle, but it is extremely unsafe and could likely result in a crash during normal circumstances?

 

[clancy688]

Well, I found this very very nice pdf:

http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT17/J03-6.pdf

"Airplane Impact on Nuclear Power Plants"As for the angle, I don't know. tec-sim only writes that 15 degrees is the maximum descent angle for a commercial airplane.

 

[Danuta]

The webmaster of the often recited www.tec-sim.de[/URL] homepage wrote (somewhere on the main page) that a high wall in front of every NPP would be enough to stop every airplane.

That's because a commercial airliner is only able to fly a controlled descent angle of 15 degrees. [/QUOTE]

Okay, so the only way you could get a steeper angle on a commercial plane would have to be flying manual(good luck) or if something bad happened to the engines high up and the plane was in free fall. Basically, loss of control at a certain height and distance. Hmm, freak accident it would have to be.

15 degrees into the building at any building height would still do major damage, I'm quite sure.

How would the reactor buildings at Fuku have stood up to jet fuel explosion and heat?

 

[Danuta]

Could it be that you can control an airliner at a steeper angle, but it is extremely unsafe and could likely result in a crash during normal circumstances?

You can take a commercial plane out of auto/assisted pilot and put it in manual. But it is almost never done. It was discovered recently(an article I read, got to find it) that some pilots couldn't fly the plane if computer assistance was cut off. I think you need to be one heck of a commercial plane pilot to fly manual let alone hit a small target flying manual. It would be quite a feat and nothing simple like hitting huge twin towers.

Edit: But if you are a terrorist, why bother with all this complicated airplane crashing stuff when all you have to do is sabotage/disable backup and cut power at some of these vintage reactors.