Shouldn't we disable Nuclear Reactors in California?

[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 address 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.