Shouldn't we disable Nuclear Reactors in California?

[NUCENG]

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"

Okay, I thought this through and North Korea, Iran and Syria come to mind as linking nuclear power to military uses. But those reactors are state owned and operated, not commercial, and I doubt whether they would be shutdown even if they were commercial failures. Can you explain why you believe commercial nuclear plants in the US or Japan, or UK or Germany are still linked to nuclear weapons? (Especially Japan?)

 

[NUCENG]

I think the problem is that most don't believe the figures are accurate regarding deaths and injuries from radiation. Dmytrys rant about something to do with underestimating the long term effects of radiation on cancer or whatever is case in point. I can't remember the term for it. And I know I've seen a few people that believe that radiation is about 1,000 times worse for our "genetic heritage" or something than anything else.

Are you thinking of Linear No Threshold (LNT)? The biggest problem there is that the nuclear industry acts on the possibility that LNT is truth. That is the basis behind ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). It acknowledges that radiation equals risk and minimizes that risk. (Note that it does not eliminate that risk). If I had to summarize Dmytry's position it is that we should reduce that risk by not allowing any extra exposure. That is not possible if you are producing nuclear power. The current industry standards seek to maintain the benefit of nuclear power while monitoring and controlling radiation exposure to a very low level. I will probably get in trouble for putting words in his mouth, but so far I still have ten fingers.

 

[NUCENG]

The impact of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory" events are minimised when using any form of energy production other than fission.

The human health impacts from Fukushima remain to be assesed, but the economic cost has been put at $250 billion, not counting the costs for evacuations outside the 20km radius.

We may be warming our planet with fossil fuels, but only nuclear power could theoretically kill millions in months, leave countries uninhabitable and 'poison the gene pool'.

Imagine an 1859 strength solar storm hitting North America tomorrow: what would happen once plants run out of diesel and battery backup? With powerlines and sub-stations destroyed the risk of multiple LOCAs would be very real.

For discussion sake, there have been a lot of improvements in protection systems for the electrical distribution system since 1859. I will have to do some research on this because I just read about the 1859 solar storm at the following link.

http://www.rense.com/general43/great.htm

The numbers in nT quoted in that article appear to indicate that the 1859 event was three times worse that the 1989 event if the relationshhip is linear. How do the level relate to radiation hardened designs now being built into satellites?

Also, have you read about the death toll of the 1917 influenza pandemic or the black death plague in the midddle ages? Geological evidence of past volcanic eruptions from the Yellowstone Park area could create world wide effects and loss of a large part of the world population. Mass extinctions due to asteroids or comets have happened before. I'm sorry, but Mother Nature can be a female dog! So we can try to find ways to better protect a plant from an earthquake or a tsunami, but I have no idea what to do if a big chunk of the moon hits that plant other than to hope I am at ground zero like Woody Harrelson in the movie "2012," or like Slim Pickens in "Dr. Strangelove." Yahoo!

 

[NUCENG]

Pass.

Ah the good old days when old age was 35 and you starved because your teeth were ground down to the gums. At least obesity wouldn't be a big prpblem

 

[daveb]

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.

Here's a great video of a plane crashing intoa concrete wall. Most plants have thicker walls around the core.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0MhOdkREQ"

 

[clancy688]

Here's a great video of a plane crashing intoa concrete wall. Most plants have thicker walls around the core.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0MhOdkREQ"

Weight of a F4 Phantom: ~13 tons

Weight of a commercial passenger plane: ~130+ tons

 

[Luca Bevil]

It means nothing: at least for Mark I BWR reactors it is sufficient for a plane to strike the turbine building to destroy the pipes making up the feedwater and fire injection lines to set-up a "Worse than Fukushima" scenario, with not even sea water emergency injection trough fire extinguisher lines possible .

OR it could be enough to disable both grid connections and EDGs, with or without attacking planes

OR it could be even simpler to attack the completely undefended (at least in many japanesse NPP) secondary pumps...

it should be more than enough for concerned governments to act immediately on strenghtening security and/or shutting down undefensible installations..

Would we see this soon enough or do we need a new apocalypse or almost apocalypse type of accident ?

 

[zapperzero]

Would we see this soon enough or do we need a new apocalypse or almost apocalypse type of accident ?

I know I was the first to bring this up here, but try to relax a bit. There are many simpler, more reliable and less expensive ways to go about creating panic and destruction. Those will almost certainly be tried first, and re-used if found successful.

They still shoot politicians, and it's been almost a hundred years since Sarajevo, no? A couple months back someone blew up in a crowded airport in Russia... many, many ways.

 

[Morbius]

I'm also concerned about world wide radiation pollution =p
If water gets contaminated world wide this way, well it won't be fun, and 2 major nuclear meltdown is good enough to cause that-correct me if I'm wrong though.

Acuben,

You said you wanted to be corrected if you were wrong - and you are 100% WRONG.

Mother Nature puts much more radioactivity into the environment as does Man, including the accidents at Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and a decade of atmospheric nuclear testing.

From the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute:

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=56076&tid=282&cid=94989

In the ocean, the largest source of radiation comes from naturally occurring substances such as potassium-40 and uranium-238, which are found at levels 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than any human sources of radiation (see illustration).

With the Fukushima accident, mankind has increased the amount of radioactivity by a very small amount.

Additionally, the Japanese have put less radioactivity in the environment than has the USA.
Those nuclear plants operated for almost 4 decades without major incident, and now they have put a marginal amount of radioactivity into the environment.

The USA has been operating coal plants for the same 40 years, and each year has been putting thousands of tonnes of radioactive materials into the environment due to the burning of coal. Courtesy of Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

The plants in California meet much stricter safety requirements than did the Fukushima plant.
Take Diablo Canyon, for example. The fault lines near Diablo Canyon are lateral faults that produce sideways motion which doesn't give you big tsunamis. The fault lines off of Japan by Fukushima are subduction faults which give large vertical movements, and hence large tsunamis.

The tsunami that destroyed the backup power system at Fukushima was about 40 feet high, or a factor of 2 greater than the 20 foot wall Fukushima had to protect itself.

Diablo Canyon sits on a bluff that is 85 feet high, or a factor of 2 greater than the Japanese tsunami that took out Fukushima. Additionally, Diablo Canyon has reserve cooling water in reservoirs on the hills above that plant that can flow via gravity to the plant.

If a foreign airliner crashed because of poorer maintenance and a less skilled pilot than that required in the USA; would that crash mean that we have to shutdown our airliners?

Dr. Gregory Greenman

 

[Morbius]

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"

Bodge,

That's complete HOGWASH.

The anti-nuke organizations tell you that in order to try to get you to dislike nuclear power, but that doesn't make it true.

The companies involved in designing and building nuclear reactors are NOT the same as the ones involved in nuclear weapons development.

The main designers of nuclear reactors are Westinghouse, General Electric, B&W, Combustion Engineering, Toshiba, Hitachi...

Can you name the organization that employed all the nuclear weapons designers for the USA's nuclear weapons stockpile? I'll give you a hint - it's not even a company - it's a
University.

Dr. Gregory Greenman

 

[clancy688]

Bodge,
That's complete HOGWASH.

Let's delete the "still" then and stay with the "was". Nobody can deny that nuclear power plants are children of the nuclear weapons programs.

The first nuclear power plants were built not with energy generation but with plutonium and tritium production in mind.

The plants in California meet much stricter safety requirements than did the Fukushima plant.

Keep thinking that. I'm pretty sure the japanese said something similar in june 1986.

Those nuclear plants operated for almost 4 decades without major incident, and now they have put a marginal amount of radioactivity into the environment.

Marginal enough for 150.000 people to permanently lose their homes. You do realize what, I quote, complete HOGWASH that statement is?
That's very insensitive. Go to these 150.000 people and tell them that they are lucky because it's only a marginal amount of radioactivity.

 

[Morbius]

Let's delete the "still" then and stay with the "was". Nobody can deny that nuclear power plants are children of the nuclear weapons programs.

The first nuclear power plants were built not with energy generation but with plutonium and tritium production in mind.

Clancy,

SO WHAT. The first major uses for airplanes were for fighters and bombers. Does that mean that there is something "unholy" about airplanes that we shouldn't use them for civilian transport?

Your type of "logic" really DISGUSTS me. You want to label a technology as bad ( or good ). Technology is amoral. ( Not immoral - amoral. ) There's nothing "bad" about a technology. The only thing that is bad or good is the use one makes of it.

It matters not a whit what nuclear reactors were first used for. Knives were probably first used for killing; so does that mean one should omit this useful utensil from the dinner table?

How a technology was first used means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when it comes to how we are currently using the technology.

BTW, the people that are homeless are homeless due to the earthquake and tsunami.

Just like with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were more heavily contaminated than the area around Fukushima, the Japanese will rebuild the area in fairly short order.

This reminds me that every so often I run into some dummy on line that says that if a nuclear weapon were dropped on New York or Washington, or where ever; that the city would be a "no man's land" for 24,000 years or something like that. I have to remind them that we have two cities that actually did get hit by atomic bombs. They were not devastated for thousands of years. They were rebuilt in just a few years.

Dr. Gregory Greenman

 

[clancy688]

How a technology was first used means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when it comes to how we are currently using the technology.

Indeed. I don't deny that at all. It's just that you replied to "NPPs were tied to nuclear weapons programs" with "that's ********" and I corrected you. No need to get emotional.

BTW, the people that are homeless are homeless due to the earthquake and tsunami.

Oh, sure? A 20km radius around the plant is an exclusion zone. Plus the north western area around Iitate. It's an exclusion zone, so, as the name suggests, everyone has to stay out of it. If someone has his home inside the zone, he can't get in and therefore is homeless.
And there's a six digit number of people living inside that zone NORMALLY. Not anymore.
And the japanese government has often enough stated that the evacuation probably will be permanent.

Just like with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were more heavily contaminated than the area around Fukushima, the Japanese will rebuild the area in fairly short order.

[...]

I have to remind them that we have two cities that actually did get hit by atomic bombs. They were not devastated for thousands of years. They were rebuilt in just a few years.

I'd be interested in actual I131 and C137 contamination leveles (Curie or Bq / m² or radiation dose / year) for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I didn't find anything regarding that matter. At least for C137 I can't believe your statement. There are areas with an annual dose of 100-500 mSv (with temporary building shielding) up to 25 km away from the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were even more heavily contaminated, several parts of the cities would still be giving dose rates of several hundred mSv per year.
I don't think that's the case in a country which evacuates people when they are exposed to 20 mSv/a and more.

But if you're interested in actual Fukushima contamination levels, here:

http://www.irsn.fr/EN/news/Documents/IRSN-Fukushima-Report-DRPH-23052011.pdf

 

[Danuta]

BTW, the people that are homeless are homeless due to the earthquake and tsunami.

Most people living in the radiation exclusion zone/s had houses that were habitable, pets that were perky, livestock that was living, crops that were productive...etc.

Before Shimizu(TEPCO CEO) resigned, he and some of his cronies visited the radiation exclusion zone homeless shelters where they did some deep "special reserve" bowing and heavily worded apologizing to the very angry displaced. So TEPCO execs took time out of their hair raising NPP disaster management schedule in order to go around apologizing for the earthquake and tsunami?? And the displaced were angry about Mother Nature's dirty business and just took it out on the TEPCO dudes? Yeah. Whateva.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Would yoy care to compare the amount of Terabq released by each of the two A-bombs with th amount released by the fukushima accident ?

 

[Danuta]

There are many simpler, more reliable and less expensive ways to go about creating panic and destruction.

You're right. Why would any terrorist even have to lift a finger when there is a company like TEPCO running things.

 

[NUCENG]

It means nothing: at least for Mark I BWR reactors it is sufficient for a plane to strike the turbine building to destroy the pipes making up the feedwater and fire injection lines to set-up a "Worse than Fukushima" scenario, with not even sea water emergency injection trough fire extinguisher lines possible .

OR it could be enough to disable both grid connections and EDGs, with or without attacking planes

OR it could be even simpler to attack the completely undefended (at least in many japanesse NPP) secondary pumps...

it should be more than enough for concerned governments to act immediately on strenghtening security and/or shutting down undefensible installations..

Would we see this soon enough or do we need a new apocalypse or almost apocalypse type of accident ?

In the US your warning was timely 10 years ago. But after 9/11 you might find those targets you list to be challenging or more likely fatal.

 

[Luca Bevil]

In the US your warning was timely 10 years ago. But after 9/11 you might find those targets you list to be challenging or more likely fatal.

Fatal ?
Fatal for who ?

Terrorist would be attackers ?

So SAM missile batteries have actually been put on those sites ?

I would be very relived to learn about this security development...

 

[NUCENG]

Fatal ?
Fatal for who ?

Terrorist would be attackers ?

So SAM missile batteries have actually been put on those sites ?

I would be very relived to learn about this security development...

Fatal for a terrorist who follows your plan. Sorry, I will not let you goad me into discussing specific security capabilities and responses. But while the Japanese response to terrorism is discussed in my post #80, US plants have taken significant and expensive steps to prepare for possible attacks. You are welcome to pull out the standard rhetoric that I'm hiding behind security, but if you believe a nuclear plant is an easy target, my advice is that you don't test it. Otherwise there will be another Luca that sleeps with the fishes. ;-}

 

[Luca Bevil]

Well I am not a terrorist, but a 46 yrs old electronic engineer, masters degree, automatic controls as degree thesys, MBA a couple of years later.
I am interested in the topic only since I have 2 children that I 'd like to see grow up, in the safest possible world.

I am very happy to read about your expert confidence about those added security gizmos that would eventually kill all would be suicidal attackers, before thay can put NPPs (and the world by the way, not just the US) in danger.

Only I hope you will allow me, as an engineer with some 23 yrs + experience, to keep a rather skeptical attitude towards any unproved and undiscussed claim.

In any case if the gizmos that must be in place are in fact so effective, we need not to bother checking resistance of concrete to airplane impact that would not matter and hence it proves my point that the Phantom video is in fact irrelevant.

What is more appropriate it would be hopeful for the US government to share such measures with (not me of course that may be suspected of being a dangerous extremist) but with allied european governments.
You will have probabably noticed that AREVA is marketing increased impact resistance of EPR 3G+ reactors has an important safety feature.
Since they carry a quite significant price tag for it, some european country could save a couple of millions euros, to begin with.

I, in the meantime, will adopt a somewhat more radical stance toward nuclear security.
For what is worth, in my home country, having watched the attitude toward nuclear security in Europe, with episodes like France and UK opposing anti-terrorist response to be thoroughly included in "nuclear stress test", I am just going to go today (better yet, immediately after finishing writing this) to cast my ballot to BAN nuclear energy from Italy.


Thanks for having reinforced my opinion on the specific matter.

Regards

 

[clancy688]

But while the Japanese response to terrorism is discussed in my post #80, US plants have taken significant and expensive steps to prepare for possible attacks.

I'm relieved to hear that at least one nation did something like this. Here in Germany, we did it the typical german way.
We realized that NPPs may be danger, we discussed it, we did studies, we got proof that NPPs are in danger and meanwhile ten years went past without any improvements to the plants.
At least they are turning them off now.Regarding the Hiroshima Cs levels:

I have found two studies, but I can't access them... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1762121 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8698576

And I found a US military report about contamination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

http://www.dtra.mil/documents/ntpr/relatedpub/DNATR805512F.pdf

On page 58 they calculate surface contamination rates for several isotopes at a location one mile east of and 45 days after the blast. The location was shielded, so there's no neutron activation, only surface deposition.
They get 0.37 uCi/m², or ~14.000 Bq/m² Cs-137. In Fukushima, large areas are contaminated with 1.000.000 to 30.000.000 Bq/m2...

 

[NUCENG]

Well I am not a terrorist, but a 46 yrs old electronic engineer, masters degree, automatic controls as degree thesys, MBA a couple of years later.
I am interested in the topic only since I have 2 children that I 'd like to see grow up, in the safest possible world.

I am very happy to read about your expert confidence about those added security gizmos that would eventually kill all would be suicidal attackers, before thay can put NPPs (and the world by the way, not just the US) in danger.

Only I hope you will allow me, as an engineer with some 23 yrs + experience, to keep a rather skeptical attitude towards any unproved and undiscussed claim.

In any case if the gizmos that must be in place are in fact so effective, we need not to bother checking resistance of concrete to airplane impact that would not matter and hence it proves my point that the Phantom video is in fact irrelevant.

What is more appropriate it would be hopeful for the US government to share such measures with (not me of course that may be suspected of being a dangerous extremist) but with allied european governments.
You will have probabably noticed that AREVA is marketing increased impact resistance of EPR 3G+ reactors has an important safety feature.
Since they carry a quite significant price tag for it, some european country could save a couple of millions euros, to begin with.

I, in the meantime, will adopt a somewhat more radical stance toward nuclear security.
For what is worth, in my home country, having watched the attitude toward nuclear security in Europe, with episodes like France and UK opposing anti-terrorist response to be thoroughly included in "nuclear stress test", I am just going to go today (better yet, immediately after finishing writing this) to cast my ballot to BAN nuclear energy from Italy.

Thanks for having reinforced my opinion on the specific matter.

Regards

Surprise, surprise, I doubt that you were really on the fence about your vote anyway. You want your children to be safe and because you get mad at me you'll vote to ban a baseline generation source that doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Hope you don't live in Venice. Believe me or don't. I won't miss any sleep if Italy goes either way.

I didn't need your bio, I have no reason to believe you are a terrorist or Mafia, I aplologize if you think otherwise. But, did you ever consider that you can't know everything? People probably trust you to not design unsafe electronics and if you work in a private company you aren't allowed to put all your proprietary information on a web blog. The same limitation applies about security to those of us working in the US nuclear industry. My claim has to remain unproven and undiscussed. Even if I was involved in international discussions and information sharing on intelligence or security, I wouldn't be able to discuss it here.

 

[NUCENG]

I'm relieved to hear that at least one nation did something like this. Here in Germany, we did it the typical german way.
We realized that NPPs may be danger, we discussed it, we did studies, we got proof that NPPs are in danger and meanwhile ten years went past without any improvements to the plants.
At least they are turning them off now.


Regarding the Hiroshima Cs levels:

I have found two studies, but I can't access them... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1762121 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8698576

And I found a US military report about contamination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

http://www.dtra.mil/documents/ntpr/relatedpub/DNATR805512F.pdf

On page 58 they calculate surface contamination rates for several isotopes at a location one mile east of and 45 days after the blast. The location was shielded, so there's no neutron activation, only surface deposition.
They get 0.37 uCi/m², or ~14.000 Bq/m² Cs-137. In Fukushima, large areas are contaminated with 1.000.000 to 30.000.000 Bq/m2...

Germany announced they would shut all plants down in the next few years. Does that get voted on like Italy or does the Chancelor have that authority?

 

[clancy688]

Germany announced they would shut all plants down in the next few years. Does that get voted on like Italy or does the Chancelor have that authority?

Historically, there are four big partys in Germany: CDU (conservative), FDP (liberal), SPD (socialists) and the Greens. You need at least 50% of all seats in the Bundestag to have a stable government, and no party achieves this alone. So they build coalitions.
It's nearly always a CDU-FDP or SPD-Greens coalition. While CDU-FDP was pro-nuclear (until March 13th...), SPD-Greens was always contra-nuclear.
In 2000, the SPD-Greens introduced a "nuclear consens" which basically declared the shutdown of every nuclear power plant after a certain amount of power generated.
This consens was abolished in 2010 by the now governing CDU-FDP coalition. Most germans were against this new lifetime extension.

Now, nearly everybody here is against nuclear power. Every ruling and non-ruling party. There will be no vote. The chancelor will propose a law to abolish nuclear power by 2021 and that's how it's done.
There was no vote to decide on the lifetime extension (of course not, the population would have voted against it for sure) and there'll be no vote for the shut down either.
Plebiscites in Germany are very rare. It's a consequence of World War II. It was feared that plebiscites are a tool for populism.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Surprise, surprise, I doubt that you were really on the fence about your vote anyway. You want your children to be safe and because you get mad at me you'll vote to ban a baseline generation source that doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Hope you don't live in Venice. Believe me or don't. I won't miss any sleep if Italy goes either way.

I didn't need your bio, I have no reason to believe you are a terrorist or Mafia, I aplologize if you think otherwise. But, did you ever consider that you can't know everything? People probably trust you to not design unsafe electronics and if you work in a private company you aren't allowed to put all your proprietary information on a web blog. The same limitation applies about security to those of us working in the US nuclear industry. My claim has to remain unproven and undiscussed. Even if I was involved in international discussions and information sharing on intelligence or security, I wouldn't be able to discuss it here.

Well I can assure that I was actually quite convinced already.
Altough I do not have your specific experience so I do enjoy all of you technical post, in the technical 3d, however I do have more than enough technical proficiency to grasp all the basics, to become convinced that at Fukushima there would have bee total meltdowns at the very first clear news about the accident.
In short I think i recognize each and every aspect of the nuclear risk.

Whereas I understand that there may be safety measures that is better not to disclose in a public forum, I am sure you realize that this add to the conclusion that the sector is highly militarised, that the measures are of an "active" nature and might be compromised if enough is known about them, that nations using nuclear power (the US in this case) are basically asking other other nations people to trust such measures on an unchallenged and undisputed basys.

I am sure you are a patriot and a giant morale stature but some other people that like you has had some exposure to such measures might not be.
Some of them may get depressed, may get swamped by terrorist propaganda, may fall in love with an islamist goddess that makes them think they and not us are in fact right and being oppressed, may get kidnapped and tortured.

The tought that such measures are to be kept secret to be effective and relied upon on a blind basys is not reassuring.
In any case all this exchange of ideas was especially referred to the stress resilience of concrete to impacts.

In more general political terms while I may decide to thrust the US on the effectiveness of such measures, and in any case more than discussing the issue with Us citizens cannot, I do think that Italy in particular does have issues of its own in dealing with nuclear safety.

Suffice it to say that the renewed nuclear pronge began in Italy with vast amount of technical disinformation.
You may or may not have noticed that Silvio Berlusconi has endorsed the nuclear energy choiche on bases that are completely false such as that:
1) 1987 Italy referendum was an error that deprived Italy from a world leading nuclear sector (you certainly know that Italy had installed 4 reactors, of which just 1 Mark III BWR reactor was rated at any significant power output + 2 other MARK III were being finished), had no reactor design worth of commercial selling of any kind, the most significant contribution having given to the nuclear sector being the CP1 Fermi's work
2) that AREVA EPR are so strong as to withstand "nuclear" terrorist attack (this unbelievable stupidity was announced to our people while having Sarkozy at his side the French president stood imbarassed by the enormity but he did rather keep quiet that further embarasse Berlusconi)

3) the "to be" equivalent to NRC was "set up" and given as a responsability to an oncologist (Veronesi9 that understands absolutely nothing about any tecnhical issue related to nuclear safety, the guy given the vast majority of antinuclear sentiment prevalent in Italy bagan immediately to act as a sponsor rather than a a controller

Apparently the claim about NPP security will have in fact to remain undisclosed and undisputed and in a democratic nation that need will be enough to highlight the critical nature of the nuclear option in that aspect.

best regards again

 

[Morbius]

Indeed. I don't deny that at all. It's just that you replied to "NPPs were tied to nuclear weapons programs" with "that's ********" and I corrected you. No need to get emotional.

Clancy,

I'm NOT emotional - I'm just for scientific ACCURACY.

You did NOT "correct" me - because you are WRONG

It's an oft quoted MYTH among anti-nukes that nuclear power programs beget nuclear weapons programs; but the history is to the contrary.

The USA, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, China, Israel, and North Korea, ALL had nuclear weapons in their possession before they built their first nuclear power plant, for those in the list that have power plants. India and Pakistan had nuclear weapons programs in existence before they build their first nuclear power plant, but those programs did not yield a working weapon until after the power plant was in operation.

So it is illogical to say that there is a causal link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Nations build nuclear weapons for various reasons, but NONE of those reasons is because they have nuclear power plants.

You didn't "correct" me; because it is you that is 100'% WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

Dr. Gregory Greenman

 

[clancy688]

Clancy,
You didn't "correct" me; because it is you that is 100'% WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

Where did the plutonium for the first nuclear bombs come from? Nuclear reactors, of course. Hanford, Windscale... those were nuclear reactors. No civil reactors. But still nuclear ones.

I'm lazy, so I'll quote wikipedia:

Eventually, the first artificial nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile-1, was constructed at the University of Chicago, by a team led by Enrico Fermi, in late 1942. By this time, the program had been pressured for a year by U.S. entry into the war. The Chicago Pile achieved criticality on December 2, 1942[8] at 3:25 PM. The reactor support structure was made of wood, which supported a pile (hence the name) of graphite blocks, embedded in which was natural uranium-oxide 'pseudospheres' or 'briquettes'.
Soon after the Chicago Pile, the U.S. military developed a number of nuclear reactors for the Manhattan Project starting in 1943. The primary purpose for the largest reactors (located at the Hanford Site in Washington state), was the mass production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Fermi and Szilard applied for a patent on reactors on 19 December 1944. Its issuance was delayed for 10 years because of wartime secrecy.[9]

[...]

The first nuclear power plant built for civil purposes was the AM-1 Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant, launched on June 27, 1954 in the Soviet Union. It produced around 5 MW (electrical).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor#Early_reactorsAs for your scientific accuracy, do you mind replying on the other topics of our previous discussion?
Such as evacuations out of mountain villages because of tsunami damages and Fukushima prefecture C137 contaminations (magnitude: 10^7) which are not as high as the ones in Nagasaki (magnitude: 10^4)...?

But it would probably be better to outsource that in the right thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=501637

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Weight of a F4 Phantom: ~13 tons

Weight of a commercial passenger plane: ~130+ tons

Would you rather have a 1 lbs rock dropped on you or 100 lbs of foam? Any military plane (F4 included) is incredibly dense, any civilian plane is just a hollow tube. If the wall can survive a military plane it can survive a commercial plane.

 

[clancy688]

If the wall can survive a military plane it can survive a commercial plane.

German scientists obviously think otherwise. Some of the nuclear engineers in this forum referred to our plants as "one of the safest in the world", so I don't think they are worse than anything in the US (which are also way older than our german plants).
And as I already stated, the reinforced concrete and hardened elevator shafts at WTC and Pentagon could, apparently, not.
Moreover, mass is mass. I remember an often quoted joke way back in kindergarten. "What's more mass? Ten kg iron or ten kg feathers?"

 

[daveb]

I am very happy to read about your expert confidence about those added security gizmos that would eventually kill all would be suicidal attackers, before thay can put NPPs (and the world by the way, not just the US) in danger.

The security measures in place in NPPs are very stringent. I don't work at an NPP, but if I did, I couldn't tell you about them anyway, since it would be a crminal act to discuss specifics of security measures. However, other licensees that possesses large activities of radionuclides (called quantities of concern) are required to have stringent security measures. Since NPPs pose an even greater security concern, I imagine their measures are even tighter than those used by hospitals and irradiator facilities.

Here are the details of increased controls requirements. http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/orders.html"

 

[Luca Bevil]

The security measures in place in NPPs are very stringent. I don't work at an NPP, but if I did, I couldn't tell you about them anyway, since it would be a crminal act to discuss specifics of security measures. However, other licensees that possesses large activities of radionuclides (called quantities of concern) are required to have stringent security measures. Since NPPs pose an even greater security concern, I imagine their measures are even tighter than those used by hospitals and irradiator facilities.

Here are the details of increased controls requirements. http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/orders.html"

I am happy to learn that.

I am even happier to announce you that at this very moment the Italian people is reaching the required quorum to ban nuclear energy from Italy.

It is a great signal that security must be put before anything else and the italian people are not satisfied with the perceived level of nuclear safety, and even more with the completely incompetent attitude of the italian Berlusconi government in front of the issue.

iI'll keep you up to date as soon as the result is final

 

[daveb]

And as I already stated, the reinforced concrete and hardened elevator shafts at WTC and Pentagon could, apparently, not.

The design of the WTC and Pentagon and the design of a containment structure are two completely different things. You can't really compare them.

Moreover, mass is mass. I remember an often quoted joke way back in kindergarten. "What's more mass? Ten kg iron or ten kg feathers?

Yes, mass is mass, but it also depends on the structure of what's hitting it. I'd rather be hit by 1000 pounds of feathers falling on me than 100 pounds of lead.

 

[clancy688]

Yes, mass is mass, but it also depends on the structure of what's hitting it. I'd rather be hit by 1000 pounds of feathers falling on me than 100 pounds of lead.

The 100 pounds of lead probably kill you by squashing your head and nothing else. The 1000 pounds of feathers will kill you by squashing everything. Not only your head...

Let's take the Columbia disaster for example. The thermal shield got a hole punched in through a part of foam hitting it at high speed.


Either way, I've said it often enough. German scientists researched commercial plane crashes on NPPs and came to the conclusion that the impact would penetrate the walls.

 

[Danuta]

I'm mentioning the jet fuel again -- an airliner has a larger capacity for fuel.

No one really knows what would happen if a large airline passenger plane hit a reactor building. In the U.S. the NRC and IAEA have said that U.S. reactors were not designed to withstand the impact of a large airline passenger plane loaded with jet fuel because when the reactors were built there was no anticipation of such an event(before 9/11).

 

[daveb]

Either way, I've said it often enough. German scientists researched commercial plane crashes on NPPs and came to the conclusion that the impact would penetrate the walls.

Can you provide a source for that one? I spent a while doing a google search, and the worst I found was this:

One year after 9/11, the International Committee on Nuclear Technology (ILK), an investigative body set up by the German states of Bavaria, Hesse and Baden-Württemberg, reached a devastating conclusion. According to the classified ILK study, "severe to catastrophic releases of radioactive materials could be expected in the event of a crash against the reactor building" in all but three nuclear power plants.

- http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,753158-2,00.html" . I found the report they referred to (I think) but it's written in German. I'm wondering what the article means by "severe to catastrophic releases of radioactive materials could be expected in the event of a crash against the reactor building".

 

[clancy688]

Can you provide a source for that one? I spent a while doing a google search, and the worst I found was this:

- http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,753158-2,00.html" . I found the report they referred to (I think) but it's written in German. I'm wondering what the article means by "severe to catastrophic releases of radioactive materials could be expected in the event of a crash against the reactor building".

Here you are:

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/623/2007-163-de.pdf

But it's in german... and I don't think that I'll be able to find any english sources. Perhaps you can try translating it via google.
On page 30ff you can see several plume scenarios for "major releases". The maps are displaying the areas which would need to be evacuated.

 

[clancy688]

Addendum: Arg, I should've known better, I shouldn't trust anything the german mass media write about technical issues.

They read about an accident probability and then kept rumbling about the nightmare scenario. And me idiot assumed the same without checking the facts. I'm very sorry.

So, a quick summary of the studies conclusion:

Bei neueren deutschen Anlagen besteht aufgrund der vorhandenen Auslegung ge*
gen den Absturz einer schnellfliegenden Militärmaschine ein hoher Schutz auch
gegenüber dem Aufprall eines zivilen Großflugzeugs. Dabei kann jedoch auch bei
diesen Anlagen nicht für alle Flugzeugklassen und Aufprallgeschwindigkeiten eine
Beherrschung des Ereignisses nachgewiesen werden. Insbesondere bzgl. der mög*
lichen Folgeschäden aufgrund von induzierten Erschütterungen I am Inneren der An*
lage bestehen hier Ungewissheiten, die eine sichere Aussage zur Beherrschbarkeit
eines solchen Ereignisses verhindern.

Newer NPP designs which are designed to withstand a 20t 800 km/h fast F-4 have a very high protection even against large and fast flying civil airplanes. Penetration is ruled out (in the main part, it's not mentioned here) but there are uncertainties regarding shock induced damages inside the reactor.

Bei den ältesten, nicht explizit gegen Flugzeugabsturz ausgelegten Kernkraftwer*
ken, zu denen die Anlage Biblis-A zählt, ist bei realistisch möglichen Absturzszena*
rien eine großflächige Zerstörung des Reaktorgebäudes nicht sicher ausgeschlos*
sen. Durch Trümmer und Wrackteile sowie Treibstoffbränden kommt es zu weiteren
Folgeschäden an der Anlage. Diese können dazu führen, dass sich ein durch die
verbleibenden Sicherheitssysteme nicht mehr beherrschbarer Unfallablauf ergibt. In
der Folge kann es zu einer Kernschmelze kommen. Aufgrund der Zerstörung des Reaktorgebäudes und des Sicherheitsbehälters bereits durch den Flugzeugein*
schlag kommt es dann zu einer frühzeitigen Freisetzung großer Mengen Radioakti*
vität in die Umgebung der Anlage.

Older NPPs which are not designed to withstand plane crashes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblis_Nuclear_Power_Plant" for example) may suffer large reactor building and containment damages, debris and burning fuel may further damage emergency systems. The exact phrasing of the german version is "it can't be safely ruled out". The widespread damages to building and containment may then give birth to widespread contamination.

 

[daveb]

Addendum: Arg, I should've known better, I shouldn't trust anything the german mass media write about technical issues.

They read about an accident probability and then kept rumbling about the nightmare scenario. And me idiot assumed the same without checking the facts. I'm very sorry.

So, a quick summary of the studies conclusion:



Newer NPP designs which are designed to withstand a 20t 800 km/h fast F-4 have a very high protection even against large and fast flying civil airplanes. Penetration is ruled out (in the main part, it's not mentioned here) but there are uncertainties regarding shock induced damages inside the reactor.



Older NPPs which are not designed to withstand plane crashes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblis_Nuclear_Power_Plant" for example) may suffer large reactor building and containment damages, debris and burning fuel may further damage emergency systems. The exact phrasing of the german version is "it can't be safely ruled out". The widespread damages to building and containment may then give birth to widespread contamination.

Danke! (The only German word I know, which is shameful since I'm of mostly German descent)

 

[clancy688]

Danke! (The only German word I know, which is shameful since I'm of mostly German descent)

Mark Twain once said: "My philological studies have satisfied me that a gifted person ought to learn English (barring spelling and pronouncing) in thirty hours, French in thirty days, and German in thirty years. It seems manifest, then, that the latter tongue ought to be trimmed down and repaired. If it is to remain as it is, it ought to be gently and reverently set aside among the dead languages, for only the dead have time to learn it." ;)

 

[mheslep]

I'm mentioning the jet fuel again -- an airliner has a larger capacity for fuel.

No one really knows what would happen if a large airline passenger plane hit a reactor building. In the U.S. the NRC and IAEA have said that U.S. reactors were not designed to withstand the impact of a large airline passenger plane loaded with jet fuel because when the reactors were built there was no anticipation of such an event(before 9/11).

No, apparently you don't know what would happen. The matter has been studied in depth by others.

According to former NRC Chairman Nils Diaz, NRC studies, which have not been released, “confirm that the likelihood of both damaging the reactor core and releasing radioactivity that could affect public health and safety is low.”

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34331.pdf

 

[clancy688]

According to former NRC Chairman Nils Diaz, NRC studies, which have not been released, “confirm that the likelihood of both damaging the reactor core and releasing radioactivity that could affect public health and safety is low.”

Very interesting. That's the same information as in the german study regarding plane crashes. The germans called it "can't be safely ruled out" and the americans called it "likelihood is low". It's exactly the same thing. Fascinating what you can do with words...

Personally I think the "likelihood is low" thinking is exactly what brought us to TMI and Fukushima.

 

[daveb]

Fukushima, yes, they may have underestimated certain events in the PRA. (I haven't seen it and probably could only understand portions of it if I did anyway). On the other hand, even if the liklihood of an event of this nature is accurately assessed at below 10^-6, the fact that it happened now, albeit very unlikely, doesn't necessarily negate the process of PRA. It's similar to a person calling heads 5 times in a row for 5 coin tosses, getting five heads, and stating with 100% certainty that there are either 2 heads, or the coin is unfair. It was highly unikely, but it could still have happened.

As for TMI, most of the fault with that was due to operators not believing their instruments.

 

[clancy688]

Hm...

There is one thing I'd like to know. It seems that most US citizens are in favor of nuclear power. But then why is the newest plant in the US from ~1980?

Why did you decide to stop building NPPs...? And why didn't you start again in the nineties and the 21st century when more and more energy was needed?

Don't misunderstand me, please. I'm just curious.

 

[NUCENG]

Very interesting. That's the same information as in the german study regarding plane crashes. The germans called it "can't be safely ruled out" and the americans called it "likelihood is low". It's exactly the same thing. Fascinating what you can do with words...

Personally I think the "likelihood is low" thinking is exactly what brought us to TMI and Fukushima.

Remember, the important thing is that even though the probability was low, the NRC has regulated significant increases in plant security that has resulted in millions of dollars of added costs and modifications at every plant. We didn't use a low risk to justify ignoring the problem. Would utilities have done that voluntarily? Probably not, but that is why an independent regulatory body could have made a significant difference in Japan. I posted Japan's response to questions from the Convention on Nuclear Safety. TMI emphasized that lesson 32 years ago. Hopefully Japan will learn that lesson now.

 

[NUCENG]

Hm...

There is one thing I'd like to know. It seems that most US citizens are in favor of nuclear power. But then why is the newest plant in the US from ~1980?

Why did you decide to stop building NPPs...? And why didn't you start again in the nineties and the 21st century when more and more energy was needed?

Don't misunderstand me, please. I'm just curious.

Political reality is that immediately after TMI, there was little or no support for nuclear power in the US. Planned plants were cancelled, some in the middle of construction. But rather tha throwing the baby out with the bathwater and shutting down the remaining nuclear plants it was decided to operate them as safely as possible to end on life.

NUREG-0737 was kind of a summary of all the post-TMI requirements. There are too many to even list here, but that might make another useful thread.

Funny thing about us Americans, we tend to reward performance. All those investments, modifications, increased training, and analysis made the remaining plants more reliable. Nuclear generation grew even though no new plants were built. Political reality changed. Go to www.nrc.gov[/URL] and check out the applications for combined construction/operation licenses. Also look at descriptions of the new plant designs in terms of passive (Power-independent) safety design. Will the Fukushima accident put a dent in that? It already has.

Will the US follow Germany in phasing out nuclear? Maybe, when we have designed a distribution system that can service a country as large as the US, supporting wind or solar energy and still remaining stable. Maybe, when something better comes along. But probably not this week.

 

[NUCENG]

Fukushima, yes, they may have underestimated certain events in the PRA. (I haven't seen it and probably could only understand portions of it if I did anyway). On the other hand, even if the liklihood of an event of this nature is accurately assessed at below 10^-6, the fact that it happened now, albeit very unlikely, doesn't necessarily negate the process of PRA. It's similar to a person calling heads 5 times in a row for 5 coin tosses, getting five heads, and stating with 100% certainty that there are either 2 heads, or the coin is unfair. It was highly unikely, but it could still have happened.

As for TMI, most of the fault with that was due to operators not believing their instruments.

Fukushima risk for tsunami was evaluated using a method developed by the Japan Society of Civil Engineers, but only considered historical events since the late 19th century. From information I have seen on this forum. NISA had "suggested" plants revaluate seismic risk a couple of years ago. TEPCO was in the process of re-analyzing the plant to withstand a ground acceleration of 600 gal for an offshore earthquake but hadn't completed it. TEPCO had reportedly ignored appeals to reexamine tsunami risk during that process but those appeals were denied. IAEA safety standards guidance for reevaluating seismic and tsunami risks is also fairly recent. TEPCO may have completed an IPE PRA analysis (determines probability of core damage events for design basis events and equipment failures), but may not heve even started a IPEEE analysis for frequency of external events (seismic, flooding, tsunami, typhoon, etc.) In short, my interpretation is that TEPCO had never adequately performed any analysis to justify the magnitude or frequency of tsunami hazards at Fukushima or any of their other plants.


At TMI they believed some instruments that were misleading them while disbelieving other instruments that were accurate. Their training had not covered the exact scenario, even though another plant had had the same event (stuck-open PORV) shortly before the accident. Specifically they focused in on the rising pressurizer level indication that told them there was a danger of the pressurized going solid making pressure control problematic. The pressuriozer level was rising because the plant was being depressurized and they ignored indications that there was an ongoing loss of coolant accident that led to boiling in the core.
Many of the vulnerabilities that led to TMI no longer exist. Others still depend on reducing potential for human error and continuously reassessing design bases.

 

[clancy688]

NUREG-0737 was kind of a summary of all the post-TMI requirements. There are too many to even list here, but that might make another useful thread.

So in 1979 the US suddenly burned its hands with nuclear power and shuddered back? And when they recovered from that shock, safety requirements had made new reactors to expensive?

Or is there a change now, and new reactors are suddenly economical despite those expensive safety requirements? The NRC website you referred to lists over two dozen new reactors.
But as far as I know, no new reactor is being built right now.

 

[Danuta]

No, apparently you don't know what would happen. The matter has been studied in depth by others.http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34331.pdf

Obviously *I* don't know what would happen. How could I? The whole point being if we can trust what has been studied "in depth" by these others. And this "in depth" study of theirs, is it like the "in depth" study of earthquake and tsunami risk assessment done at Fukushima? Meh.

 

[NUCENG]

So in 1979 the US suddenly burned its hands with nuclear power and shuddered back? And when they recovered from that shock, safety requirements had made new reactors to expensive?

Or is there a change now, and new reactors are suddenly economical despite those expensive safety requirements? The NRC website you referred to lists over two dozen new reactors.
But as far as I know, no new reactor is being built right now.

Apparently there are over two dozen reasons to think they aren't too expensive, but we'll see.

 

[clancy688]

Apparently there are over two dozen reasons to think they aren't too expensive, but we'll see.

Well, I just wanted an explanation for over 30 years without building a new NPP. I can't believe that TMI alone was responsible for that... maybe for the first 10 years, but what's with the period after that?

Maybe they are not expensive anymore, so there are over two dozen new plants being planned. Maybe it's something else. I just want to know the reason. Don't worry, I won't give you any anti-nuclear opinions etc. I just want to know the reason for that gap.