Shouldn't we disable Nuclear Reactors in California?

[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.

 

[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