Nebraska Nuclear Plant Flood Defenses Tested

mdsolar tips an article at the NY Times which begins: "Pictures of the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant north of Omaha, Neb., show it encircled by the swollen waters of the Missouri River, which reached a height of nearly 1,007 feet above sea level at the plant yesterday. The plant's defenses include new steel gates and other hard barriers protecting an auxiliary building with vital reactor controls, and a water-filled berm 8 feet tall that encircles other parts of the plant. Both systems are designed to hold back floodwaters reaching 1,014 feet above sea level. Additional concrete barriers and permanent berms, more sandbags and another power line into the plant have been added. The plant was shut down in April for refueling and will remain so until the flood threat is passed. 'Today the plant is well positioned to ride out the current extreme Missouri River flooding while keeping the public safe,' Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor Dricks said on an agency blog this week. But a year ago, those new defenses were not in place, and the plant's hard barriers could have failed against a 1,010-foot flood, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission contends in a yearlong inspection and enforcement action against the plant's operator, the Omaha Public Power District."

Comments

Yay!

[Lunix Nutcase]

Woot mdsolar is posting another article about nuclear power to spread more FUD!!!

Re:Yay!

[ColdWetDog]

Woot mdsolar is posting another article about nuclear power to spread more FUD!!!

OK nutcase - go find an article that paints nuclear power in a warm, rose colored blush. That's what Firehose is for. Unfortunately, nuclear power is not getting very good press and for very good reasons. The engineering isn't all that it is cracked up to be and isn't at all what it needs to be. Even with the 'new' flood guidelines, the plant in TFA is only seven feet from breaching the walls. With a billion dollar plant hanging in the balance, I'd like just a bit more breathing room.

Again, it's not the long term waste problem that's going to kill commercial nuclear power (although that is a big issue that we're not handling well). It's going to be bad engineering decisions pushed on staff because of economic considerations. Short term gain, long term pain.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

This one needed to be addressed. There have been reports all over the world that the reactor in question has been near melt-down since early this month and that the U.S. had a media black-out in place. Some small U.S. sites picked up the story including Salem News IIRC. Started in Pak from supposed Russian leak.

Anyhow, carry on.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woot mdsolar is posting another article about nuclear power to spread more FUD!!!

What's so FUD about it? Sounds like they evaluated the risk a year ago, shored up protection, and it's working.

Re:Yay!

[DaveV1.0]

No, what will kill nuclear power will be people like you and mdsolar who are idiots and don't know the first thing about nuclear power. Oh, and the firehose is feed of submissions, not a list of all stories available on the internet. I am just curious as to why you think editors like soulskill and timothy will allow a pro-nuclear story on slashdot.

Re:Yay!

[smelch]

I would just like to point out that 7 feet of flooding is A LOT as the water has more and more places to go horizontally before it has to go up. Not that that a big deal, just saying it's probably a lot more margin than it sounds like, though that still may not be enough.

Re:Yay!

[geekoid]

" The engineering isn't all that it is cracked up to be "
what the hell do you base that on? Fukashima with stood 10 times bigger earthquakes, and tsunami, and the island dropping 1 meter.

Again new designs of nuclear plants do not have a long term waste problem. Also, they can burn older waste we currently have.

I don't even think you know how little nuclear waste we have, how it's stored, or even the classifications of nuclear waste and what they mean.

You are an ignorant person whose ignorance spread FUD.

", the plant in TFA is only seven feet from breaching the walls."
so? how much more VOLUME would they need to get that extra 7 feet? THAT"S the correct question. It could be 6 inches from the top, but id it would take 1000 trillion gallons to get there, it doesn't matter.

Re:Yay!

[BJ_Covert_Action]

It's going to be bad engineering decisions pushed on staff because of economic considerations.

Well, unfortunately all of the good engineering decisions, like shutting down plants before their designed lifetime suggests and replacing them with new ones, have been blocked by public hysteria along the lines of, "No new nuclear anything ever!!!!!"

So, yeah, great thing that "wisdom of the masses."

Re:Yay!

[geekoid]

Or corporations.

I am not anti-nuclear, but corporations have a history of scrimping on engineering and safety when they can.

Personally, I'd like to see the US start building Thorium reactor to be maintained and ran by the government. remove the bonus, shareholders, board and all the profit motivation.

Re:Yay!

[MacGyver2210]

Also, a trickle over a berm or barrier is far less water than the 10-ft instant flood at Fukushima. I'm sure a simple sump pump would be adequate to remove water and keep most systems operating at full capacity...except that the plant is SHUT DOWN. As in NOT REACTING.

Re:Yay!

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, it's the evil "corporations". Individual actors or small businesses totally don't have such a history, right?

Re:Yay!

[Mr Bubble]

I would just like to point out that 7 feet of flooding is A LOT

But that is the forecast - 5-7 feet rise this summer.

Besides, TFA says that the original state of the plant was only good for 1008 above sea level - it is now at 1007 and rising - that is the thrust of the article. They were not prepared and may still not be.

Re:Yay!

[Mr Bubble]

what the hell do you base that on? Fukashima with stood 10 times bigger earthquakes, and tsunami, and the island dropping 1 meter.

By "with stood", do you mean it is still visible? Because I don't think that having melt throughs at three reactors, loss of cooling of the spent fool ponds, and huge amounts of radiation leaking into the ocean due to leaks from the external water desperately being applied to be "with stood".

Re:Yay!

[Toonol]

Woot mdsolar is posting another article about nuclear power to spread more FUD!!!

I can understand slashdot taking lame submissions from techie magazines and such; presumably they're getting something for it, whether it's cash or (more likely) simple referrals and linkbacks.

But why this crap? Mdsolar is known here. He's just a guy with a bent agenda. He's made it clear in his comments that he won't take correction, and ignores any facts that don't fit his ideology. What does slashdot get from taking his dreck? Do they just want the flurry of posters calling out the submission as nonsense?

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

This nuclear plant is owned and operated by OPPD - Omaha PUBLIC Power District. It's publicly owned. No corporations, shareholders, or profits. The plant is literally owned by the local governments in the surrounding area.

Re:Yay!

[Toonol]

There have been reports all over the world that the reactor in question has been near melt-down since early this month and that the U.S. had a media black-out in place.

Source? Oh, right, media black-out. The absence of confirmation is clear proof.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been reports all over the world that the reactor in question has been near melt-down since early this month and that the U.S. had a media black-out in place.

Nice trick. The summary says it's been shut down since April for refueling.

Anyhow, carry on.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

As in "Spent fuel pond", as in "Needs constant cooling", as in "Fukushima reactor #4 was shut down and still caused big problems", as in "Spent fuel pond in Fukushima reactor #3 is in critical condition". As in, anything within two or three orders of magnitude of this is grossly unacceptable.

As someone who lives in a city that had two "500 year floods" 15 years apart, and watched the city to our north crest over 11 feet over its previous record, I find the concept of having such little margin absurd. And that's *assuming* that your never-tested flood defences hold. We live in a time where major rainfall events are trending upwards at the same time when rivers are increasingly forced into tight channels with nowhere to go during floods.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

How did two people respond to the above AC this way?

OP:This is an anti-nuke troll article;
GP: No, it is useful because people have been claiming all sorts of FUD about the plant;
Both AC Parent Posts: Accuse GP of spreading FUD about the plant.

What a bunch of fucking morons.

Re:Yay!

[Ihmhi]

I agree with that, the whole cost-cutting thing really is stupid and short-sighted.

Honestly though, we have power plants that are 30-60 years old and are full of highly dangerous material, and we've had a handful of accidents. I think that's a tribute to the engineering of the time. I don't see why we can't build plants just as good, if not better. It should be highly criminal to do otherwise.

Re:Yay!

[KlomDark]

Oh you anti-nuke people are friggin stupid.

I live in Omaha, 11 blocks from the river, about 20 miles south of the plant, and am not concerned in the slightest about the OPPD nuke plant causing issues. I get far more radiation every day from the coal-fired generator plant about five miles away. I like that even less. With the insane amount of water in the river right now, even if it did breach the spent fuel pools (fool pools as another poster mistakenly said), the radioactive material would be so diluted within seconds that it would have less radioactivity that your standard concrete block wall.

Go worry somewhere else, you big pussies. The amount of deaths caused by all the nuclear accidents ever is insignificant compared to the lung cancer deaths resulting from the radioactivity released by coal-burning that we all breathe every day.

Re:Yay!

[Mass Overkiller]

I live in Alliance Nebraska and the 1.5 mile long coal trains give off visible coal dust all the time. There are 10 trains that run though town daily plus the local train depot. So the dust in the air from these trains are FAR MORE DANGEROUS than any nuclear powerplant, I am more afraid of the pollution from the train's diesel engines and coal dust than any nuke plant. Too bad people are morons about nuclear power.

Re:Yay!

[KlomDark]

You are using the WRONG term to make your point: "Publicly Owned" means that there are stockholders; anyone from the public can buy their stock.

However, OPPD is a privately-owned company, although you can invest with them by buying OPPD bonds. See http://www.oppd.com/InvestorsFinance/index.htm for more info.

Just like the confusion caused by the term "non-profit company" - the only thing that means is that they cannot be "publicly owned", which is a confusing term simply meaning that publicly-traded stocks cannot be sold for a non-profit. But they are allowed to make what the common person would call "profit", but just not have stockholders that profit from the non-profit organization. It just means that any money that exceeds total expenses does not have to be shared with stock holders, instead they can put it towards buying a bigger building, put it in a bank account, paying their employees more, or, as usually happens, giving monster bonuses to the top dogs of the "non-profit" so they can get their new Porsche for the year. Don't be fooled into thinking that a non-profit is a "everything at cost" organization.

You've been sold a large pack of lies by the media, time to start waking up and seeing thru the illusion. Fuck guys, I'm only a GED student and I know this stuff. What's your excuse?

Re:Yay!

[putaro]

No, OPPD is owned by the state of Nebraska. From their web page (http://www.oppd.com/AboutUs/Company/22_000593):

On Dec. 2, 1946, the state legislature created the Omaha Public Power District, a political subdivision of the State of Nebraska, which acquired the properties operated by the Nebraska Power Company.

They sell bonds to borrow money as do many other government agencies.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey it works for atheists.

Re:Yay!

[KlomDark]

Amen brother! I grew up in Kearney, blocks from the busiest rails in the world (At least the country, not fully sure on that), Lost several friends and relatives to odd cancers. (Does the same line go through Alliance? I'm not sure to tell the truth, but I've been there and there's a lot of tracks there too.)

Re:Yay!

[KlomDark]

Huh, interesting. I did not realize that. You have indeed taught me something, thank you. I always thought the "Public" part of the name was because it provided power to the public.

But, I became myopic while trying to make my point about "Publically Owned" companies. So we both get to share half a point on that one. :)

Dammit, I can look out my window now and see the OPPD building from here. But that still doesn't make me right, just embarrassed about what I thought was true about OPPD. Big duh for me...

Re:Yay!

[ultranova]

OK nutcase - go find an article that paints nuclear power in a warm, rose colored blush. That's what Firehose is for. Unfortunately, nuclear power is not getting very good press and for very good reasons.

Yeah: "nuclear power plant working perfectly fine as planned" doesn't make the news.

You know, as the majority of them do, year after year, decade after decade. It's just not very exciting, you know? Not like Three-Mile Island, or Chernobyl, or Fukushima? Except, of course, that Three-Mile Island didn't blow up and hurt nobody, Chernobyl blew up (because of a chemical reaction) and hurt a few hundred to few thousand people and is rabidly turning into a de facto natural reservoir, Fukushima has this far not hurt anybody, while coal power (the alternative) kills 100,000+ people a year and nobody bats an eyelash.

The engineering isn't all that it is cracked up to be and isn't at all what it needs to be.

You do realize that "the fourt-biggest earthquake in human history hitting a nuclear plant might have cause a leak that may or may not cause any harm to anyone" is not exactly a deal-brealer, right? Especially when the plant has delivered who-knows-how-many terawatt-hours already?

Again, it's not the long term waste problem that's going to kill commercial nuclear power (although that is a big issue that we're not handling well). It's going to be bad engineering decisions pushed on staff because of economic considerations. Short term gain, long term pain.

No, it's the short-term hysteria of idiots. That's going to doom us all to either climate change or to "green" (energy-deprived) future or both.

Oh well. At leat I don't have children to subject to the Green Hell.

Re:Yay!

[mdsolar]

The problem has been the cost. No one will invest in nuclear power because half the projects default. They just get into cost overruns and that is it. The NRC will approve a power plant anywhere at anytime but you can't get a bank to lend.

Re:Yay!

[ColdWetDog]

Yep. The engineering isn't all that hot. Engineering decisions to leave the generators vulnerable to flooding. Engineering decisions to continue running a reactor well past design life. Engineering decisions to ignore new geologic data suggesting that both earthquake risks and tsunami risks were higher than originally thought. Engineering decisions to not upgrade the hydrogen containment / escape devices.

Between Fukashima and Monju, the Japanese nuclear industry seems to have some long term, pervasive, structural problems.

Re:Yay!

[dunkelfalke]

Also these new designs mainly exist on paper. It is not certainly known for most of these designs if they are working in a commercial size nuclear power plant. For many of these designs (like TWR) it is even not known if they are working in reality, not just in the head of a few engineers, because up to now not even a research size reactor of that type exists. So why bother with that particular kind of pipe dreams and not go directly for fusion?

Re:Yay!

[SnowZero]

"Fukushima reactor #4 was shut down and still caused big problems"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_heat#Power_reactors_in_shutdown

Read up on decay heat; there's a huge difference between "shut down an hour ago" and "shut down a month ago".

Re:Yay!

[putaro]

I'm not in Nebraska so I don't have any first hand dealings with them. A lot of "publicly owned" or "non-profit" entities seem to be operated for the benefit of the management, not the public. It would be interesting to compare how OPPD works compared to, say, Pacific Gas and Electric (they cover Northern California), which is a for-profit utility owned by stockholders (but regulated as a utility). We used to like to call them Pigs Greed and Extortion.

Re:Yay!

[riverat1]

No, what is really killing nuclear power is the cost and the fact that it can't be built (at least in the US) without government subsidies. When you include the lifetime costs nuclear is one of the more costly ways to generate electricity.

Re:Yay!

[phayes]

Your ignorance & bias is showing...

There were no melt throughs at Fukashima, there were melt downs of the core but these all were contained. See the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log.

Re:Yay!

[drinkypoo]

Yeah: "nuclear power plant working perfectly fine as planned" doesn't make the news.

You know, as the majority of them do, year after year, decade after decade.

There are plenty of nuclear failures all the time, but of course they are not publicized. America reactors are known to contain unreported defects. Meanwhile areas around threatened reactors in the USA have been declared no-fly zones. You don't do this unless it's actually dangerous, or you have something to hide, or both. You know, like when they declared the entire gulf to be a no-fly zone in an attempt to hide the extent of the devastation... and of the spraying of dispersants, which occurred at a level vastly above what it should be. No-fly zones are for hiding malfeasance, barring long-running ones above airports and test sites.

Re:Yay!

[ultranova]

There are plenty of nuclear failures all the time, but of course they are not publicized.

No, of course not. If there are failures, it means nuclear power is unsafe, and if there aren't any failures, it means that they are kept secret. Perfect logic.

Greenpeace has zero credibility concerning nuclear power, and frankly anything else either nowadays. Don't bother linking there; they've been caught lying too many times. Even their own founder thinks they've gone nuts.

America reactors are known to contain unreported defects.

And yet, oddly, this doesn't seem to cause any drama. Strange. It's almost like they were... safe.

Meanwhile areas around threatened reactors in the USA have been declared no-fly zones. You don't do this unless it's actually dangerous, or you have something to hide, or both.

Or you think some nut might be planning to ram an airplane into the plant. Which seems more likely than someone trying to hide what goes on under a roof from airplanes.

You know, like when they declared the entire gulf to be a no-fly zone in an attempt to hide the extent of the devastation... and of the spraying of dispersants, which occurred at a level vastly above what it should be. No-fly zones are for hiding malfeasance, barring long-running ones above airports and test sites.

And this has to do with nuclear power exactly what? Apart from, you know, us not needing oil so badly if we relied more on nuclear power, so the entire Gulf oil spill might not have happened.

But it's nice to know that this operation was a failure, since apparently you know exactly what went on there. Good work, agent Poo.

Re:Yay!

[drinkypoo]

And yet, oddly, this doesn't seem to cause any drama. Strange. It's almost like they were... safe.

Almost, but not quite. Remember how we treated DDT or thalidomide before we admitted they were evil?

Meanwhile areas around threatened reactors in the USA have been declared no-fly zones. You don't do this unless it's actually dangerous, or you have something to hide, or both.

Or you think some nut might be planning to ram an airplane into the plant. Which seems more likely than someone trying to hide what goes on under a roof from airplanes.

Nobody said anything about airplanes figuring out what went on under a roof, but since you don't know what you're talking about you jumped straight there. I'm talking about atmospheric monitoring. Have a nice day in lackofimaginationland.

You know, like when they declared the entire gulf to be a no-fly zone in an attempt to hide the extent of the devastation... and of the spraying of dispersants, which occurred at a level vastly above what it should be. No-fly zones are for hiding malfeasance, barring long-running ones above airports and test sites.

And this has to do with nuclear power exactly what?

You're not really this dumb, right? You're just trying to make it look like I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about? The point was to prove that our government uses no-fly zones to hide malfeasance, and I did this thing.

Apart from, you know, us not needing oil so badly if we relied more on nuclear power, so the entire Gulf oil spill might not have happened.

False dichotomy between nuclear and nothing. When you have a valid point to make, then make it. Until then, why don't you try a little harder?

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

More like "we can't afford this!", even with government funding and insurance it is still costly to build/upgrade/repair nuclear plants.

Re:Yay!

[ultranova]

Almost, but not quite. Remember how we treated DDT or thalidomide before we admitted they were evil?

They aren't evil, they are potentially dangerous chemicals, and both are still being used.

Nobody said anything about airplanes figuring out what went on under a roof, but since you don't know what you're talking about you jumped straight there. I'm talking about atmospheric monitoring. Have a nice day in lackofimaginationland.

Atmospheric monitoring? And, pray tell, what did these supposedly monitor that couldn't be more easily monitored from the ground?

You're not really this dumb, right?

This, from someone who named himself after Tubgirl?

You're just trying to make it look like I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about?

No, that appearance is entirely your own doing.

The point was to prove that our government uses no-fly zones to hide malfeasance, and I did this thing.

There are numerous potential uses for no-fly zones, and you've done exactly nothing to prove these nuclear no-fly zones were about hiding malfeasance.

False dichotomy between nuclear and nothing. When you have a valid point to make, then make it. Until then, why don't you try a little harder?

Okay: if you want to keep using energy - and that means staying alive, not just keeping the lights on - that energy needs to be generated somehow. The two alternatives now and in the foreseeable future are nuclear power and fossil fuels. Refuse to use nuclear, and you need more fossils, increasing the chances that's there an accident related to them.

Now did I express myself clearly enough?

Re:Yay!

[DaveV1.0]

You do know that much of the cost is caused by over-regulation and challenges by anti-nuclear people. Please provide a source for your claim. And, make it a reputable one.

Re:Yay!

[Mr Bubble]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8565020/Nuclear-fuel-has-melted-through-base-of-Fukushima-plant.html

Re:Yay!

[riverat1]

When the technology has the capability of rendering tens to hundreds of square miles uninhabitable in the case of a major malfunction I'd rather err on the side of over-regulation.

Fortuitously here is a recent analysis of why the nuclear industry hasn't built any new plants since the 1970's. It's not peer reviewed but it does reference authoritative sources.

I'm not your stalker :) DaveV0.1952

Re:Yay!

[phayes]

Ah so it was your ignorance showing.

If you're getting your news filtered through the brain of a journalist just pulled off stories of cats in trees to report on Fukashima you suffer from their inability to understand the technologies involved. The first lines of your link are: "The nuclear fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has melted through the base of the pressure vessels and is pooling in the outer containment vessels, according to a report by the Japanese government.". The "outer containment vessel" the "journalist" referred to is part of the pressure vessel. The fuel is still in the pressure vessels so there have been melt-downs but no melt-throughs.

Re:Yay!

[AmiMoJo]

island dropping 1 meter.

Not picking on you in particular but I don't buy that. If Japan really did drop 1m then vast areas would be under water right now. The tsunami was a wave that rushed in and then back out again, and beaches are pretty much were they were before.

Similarly the idea that the whole place moved 8m horizontally doesn't seem to stack up because in the days afterwards I was able to get an accurate position from the GPS in my phone. I don't recall my friends having to update their sat-nav software either. The margin of error for my phone's GPS is claimed to be 5m BTW, but I find usually it is 2m.

Re:Yay!

[oursland]

Much of your post appears to be business decisions, not necessarily engineering decisions.

1010-ft flood?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean a flood 1010 ft above sea level?

Re:1010-ft flood?

[alostpacket]

Yeah I wondered that myself. If I was really worried about 1010ft flood I think it better to build a boat and try and get 2 of every animal on board. And Anna Torv. That should be a good enough safeguard

Re:1010-ft flood?

[Korin43]

I don't see how saying the "above sea level" water height is useful at all. Maybe to make the article sound scarier? When I sell my house I should market it as "able to withstand floods of up to 5000 ft above sea level!".

Re:1010-ft flood?

[BitZtream]

It's how engineers speak, in absolute, Globally discrete values, not localized relative ones. Well, except the ocassional NASA engineer, and we know how it turns out for them.

Sea level is used so everyone is on the exact same page.

Three feet over flood stage at location A maybe 9 feet above flood at Location B, just a few miles down stream. 1010 feet above sea level however will be 1010 feet above sea level anywhere on the globe.

Our local rivers and lake operate at 216 feet above sea level normally, and at 247 feet you hit flood stage and it starts going over the spill way bypass.

No, I didn't have to go look that up, I already knew it as I boat on that resevoir rather often so I know it's numbers so I know what to expect when go out there during spring flooding or late summer dry spells, and which boat ramps will still work... Which are also marked by high and low altitude relative to MSL.

You can't measure it relative to anything else and have a meaning that's useful.

Pretty much all measurements of bodies of water are measured relative to MSL, Mean Sea Level.

As long as you know YOUR altitude above MSL, you know where you stand. Rather than 6 feet above normal at Joes Ferry Bridge, which is only useful if you know where the bridge is, how it's elevation relates to yours, and what they are considering 'normal'

Re:1010-ft flood?

[HiddenCamper]

all floors in nuclear power plants are posted by elevation. there isnt a 'first floor' 'second floor' 'basement'.

NOT SAFE

[Anonymous Coward]

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/18-Jun-2011/US-orders-news-blackout-over-crippled-Nebraska-Nuclear-Plant-report

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2vxm-cRkNo

Re:NOT SAFE

[atrain728]

When I want reliable news, I go to nation.com.pk

Re:NOT SAFE

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the Paki report is based on authoritative Russian news sources. I mean, "Pravda" MEANS "Truth", so you have to believe it!

In other related news, I'm posting from the Afterlife, because I live under the radioactive plume of that awful nuclear release event that the horrible government covered up so well. I died an agonizing death of acute radiation poisoning.

The good news? You atheists were WRONG. XD

Re:NOT SAFE

[blind monkey 3]

One article.
Another.
The story from the plant operator
The root cause of Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - especially in this case is the lack of information. The reactor is apparently on level 4 alert (accident with local consequences - this alone should have made the news at least in Nebraska), has had a fire, has had a no-fly zone extended over it since June 6 - the reason given is "the flooding". The first I heard of this was on June 17th - stumbled across it by chance while looking up information on nuclear plants and was suspicious of it (Russian source so WTF would they know was my first thought). Found lots of youtube stuff, people screaming "why haven't we been told". It has only recently hit slashdot and mainstream news - this has been going on since June 6 (the fire was June 7).
Knowledge stops FUD and builds confidence, the authorities should have at least informed people instead of people calling in ("by the hundreds" as on shock jock put it) and complaining that something is wrong.
Instead of being "condescending", it would help the nuclear cause if facts were given to counter the shock jocks - before they get a foot hold.
It wasn't until June 17 that the plant operator actually deemed to give any information (the answers look a little shaky imo - the water level does not constitute an accident with local consequences). I hope they are truthful because this should have been a story of conservative precautions - see, FUD is working - I doubt them.

just because

[publiclurker]

you don't want to hear the truth doesn't mean the rest of us want to make it easy for you to stick your head into the sand. We are still busy trying to clean up from the last few "perfectly safe" disasters

Re:just because

[Anonymous Coward]

Disasters like blacklung and mountain-top-removal mining?

Re:just because

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, who likes mountains ?
You have to slaver all the way to the top and once you reached it, you go down again.
I mean what's the point ?

Re:just because

[MacGyver2210]

This isn't 'the truth'. That doesn't exist in the world of governments and nuclear technology. At least not to us peons.

What this is, is nothing but another attempt to assuage brain-dead, Fox News-fueled, unfounded fears of a nuclear disaster at home.

The fact is, the plant is SHUTDOWN. There is no reaction occurring. There is undoubtedly hot material, but it's under control. This is never going to turn into a situation like Fukushima Daiichi. Ever. It just can't.

Also, a couple feet of water leaking into a plant over barriers is far from the same as a 40-ft wall of water spontaneously cresting a 30-ft protective barrier, inundating the whole thing with 10ft of water pretty much instantly.

Re:just because

[Mr Bubble]

The fact that the plant is shutdown is irrelevant. The real danger is the spent fool pools which require active cooling - which relies on the constant availability of electricity. The river is at 1007 feet above sea level - expected to rise another 5-7 feet this summer. The NRC approached the plant a year ago and told them their flood contingency measures were not up to snuff. They argued for quite awhile, but finally relented and installed some, IMHO, barely adequate measures that may or may not save the plant from disaster as the water is, literally, lapping at the door of the plant.

How is this article FUD? Did you even read it? Nothing in the article is speculative or untrue. Please, get you head out of your ass.

Re:just because

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are selective about the "truths" they report.

You hear every sordid detail about everything nuclear, but not so much about, say, heavy metal contamination from the annual production of hundreds of thousands of tons of coal ash.

Or for example, you hear glowing reports of how green wind energy is, but nothing about the enormous amount of highly toxic waste produced by refining neodymium used in the magnets for the generators.

Re:just because

[Anonymous Coward]

The real danger is the spent fool pools which require active cooling - which relies on the constant availability of electricity.

No no no.. FAIL!

Spent fuel ponds only require that they have water in them. You can do that with a freaking dingy and a portable pump if you want to.

The real danger is if you have a flash flood and the plant is running or has been recently running (eg. within a few days). So, what is the chance of a 1020ft. flash flood in the location when water levels are less than 1000ft.?? Exactly.

The river is at 1007 feet above sea level - expected to rise another 5-7 feet this summer.

So if it rises to 1020 level then what??

This is FUD because it attempts to compare Fukushima and a 50 ft. tsunami vs. a flood that "expected to rise another 5-7 feet this summer".

Seriously, you can build an earthen dike 100 ft. high in this time frame.

Re:just because

[Anonymous Coward]

Neodymium Usage Across Industries:

Following table provides the breakup of Neodymium usage across Industry verticals

Glass polishing and ceramics 34%
Automotive catalytic converters 30%
Rare-earth phosphors for computer monitors, lighting, radar, televisions, and x-ray-intensifying film 14%
Chemicals and petroleum refining catalysts 11%
Ceramics, 3%
Pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical equipment 3%
Permanent magnets 2%
Metallurgical applications and alloys 1%
Laser and scintillator crystals 1%
Other 1%

Can you say "smear"? Just ignoring that most of *that* 2% is probably industrial motors having nothing to do with wind turbines, next-gen wind turbines use no permanent magnets (the same smear is applied to electric cars; AC synchronous motors like used in the Tesla Roadster and most upcoming EVs have no permanent magnet).

At the heart of this smear is a particularly nasty trend: the assumption that anything cleantech must be tarred by the environmental costs of its production, but anything oldtech gets a free pass. I'm sorry, but have you seen what a Chinese steel smelter does to the environment to make the steel for your 8 cylinder? I can't even imagine what a Chinese hex plant is like.

This tactic of reaching that far to try to find *some* way to smear cleantech just reeks of desperation. The reality is that the emissions from operation (of a power plant, of a vehicle, etc) generally utterly dwarf that of production. That doesn't mean that production's consequences are low; it means that decades of use are way worse. Hence the focus should almost always be on pollution created during operation.

Re:just because

[nigelo]

It gets you closer to the Guy in the sky?

Re:just because

[Anonymous Coward]

Neodymium Usage Across Industries [rare-earth-tech.com]:

China produces 97% of the world's neodymium, so what's your point, that the problem is even worse than I thought? Or to just ignore it?

At the heart of this smear is a particularly nasty trend: the assumption that anything cleantech must be tarred by the environmental costs of its production,

As opposed to the long time trend to smear anything oldtech?

but anything oldtech gets a free pass.

You must be reading a different internet than I am.

The reality is that the emissions from operation (of a power plant, of a vehicle, etc) generally utterly dwarf that of production.

So we should build more nuclear plants, since the emissions of even conventional reactors consist of >90% recyclable fuel rods. We don't recycle them, but that's another problem.

Re:just because

[ae1294]

It gets you closer to the Guy in the sky?

So does blacklung.. RETURN;

Re:just because

[ultranova]

We are still busy trying to clean up from the last few "perfectly safe" disasters

"Last few"? Apart from Fukushima, which was caused by the combination of Japanese "safe-the-face" morality and one of the biggest earthquakes to ever hit the human race, just what are you referring to? A disastre which has killed, this far, one Chinese man for overdosing on Iodine tablets in a panic, and two from the tsunami, and none whatsoever from actual radiation - that is, the nuclear plant itself.

You fearmongers want us to get all our power from the Sun and the wind, but that's not possible, so we end up getting it from coal instead. You are the reason why we're having a problem with global warming. You are the reason why hundreds of thousands of people die each year due to both coal production and emissions. Shame on you. A shame on you, you damn Greenpeace murderer.

God damn you and all like you to Hell... So that the rest of us might still surive, by switching to clean and plentiful nuclear power, while we still can.

Re:just because

[Anonymous Coward]

Earthen dikes can leak or (even worse) be undermined. One of the most famous examples would be the Mississippi River flood of 1927, in which levees stretching all along the lower Mississippi failed catastrophically, with the result that the river's waters were over 100 miles wide at points.

If you've got Google Earth, search for "Mound Crevasse". The little lake that it points to is the site where the earth was gouged out when the levee failed. Look a bit north and south, and you'll see that the current levee has spurs extending to the west - those are the levees that were present in 1927. If you look at this map, every piece of flooded land in the state of Mississippi was a result of that single levee failure.

Re:just because

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of moron reporter and slack jawed editor would discuss the flood in feet above sea level? That's like talking about the weather in Kelvin. It completely obscures information like how high can the water can get at the plant.

Try this...if the river gets to be 30 feet above normal, we are all fucked.

It's about communication, not proving you know what seal level is.

Re:just because

[phayes]

<sarcasm>
Of course If it happened in 1927 there is no way of avoiding it close to a century later as there's no way anyone could have learned any lessons. No, if there is ANY chance of the worst occurring, IT WILL HAPPEN!!!
</sarcasm>

Child of the cold war

[Anonymous Coward]

I am definitely a child of the cold war. Every time I read nuclear regulatory commission, I see it as nuclear retaliatory commission.

Shoddy Japanese work...

[Anonymous Coward]

Showing the Japanese how its done right and safely.

Yah, yah, its just a slow flood not an earthquake and tsunami, but at least they planned.

Re:Shoddy Japanese work...

[BitZtream]

No, actually they didn't ... Until the goverment started fining the ever living shit out of them about a year ago ... Had this happened last summer, the plants barriers would already be underwater and it's still rising.

I'm not anti nuke, I'm pro actually, but had they not have been spanked hard over the last year, they'd be in trouble.

Just Shut Them Down

[BJ_Covert_Action]

You know, if I made the decisions at any of the major power companies in the U.S., I think I would just tell my techs and engineers to shut down every single nuclear power plant on my portion of the grid. Don't demolish them or anything, but just take them off line for a little while. I would let the activists and nuclear power opponents see what life in the U.S. is like without a real, modern, green energy source available for a little while. They might learn something.

Re:Just Shut Them Down

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't notice anything, except the massive overcharges from the other companies, which they'd likely blame on you anyway, not on the people really responsible for it.

Re:Just Shut Them Down

[geekoid]

They won't, because they don't want to.

Re:Just Shut Them Down

[Eponymous Hero]

'ello! wot's this 'ere? the anonymous coward is a jeenyous!! 'ow di' tha' 'appen 'eh?

Re:Just Shut Them Down

[Anonymous Coward]

They cannot do this.

You cannot shut down a power plant without reason. This is to prevent price manipulation and to prevent supply deficiencies.

Now, nuclear power plants are shut down if they are even remotely at risk of flooding. It happened a few times already.

What can be done is people can buy power based on its source. Then we have a power free market. You know, you can buy solar @ $0.60/kWh or nuclear @ $0.09/kWh or whatever. Then it would be quite clear what the actual demand for unrealistic PV solar actually is.

Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Two weeks ago people on the Internets here (in other forums) were talking about how the plant had basically already melted down and that Obama had ordered a news blackout of the plant to conceal mass evacuations that apparently had already begun! All of this to protect his "green jobs" initiative.

Well, guess what? I live in Omaha. There's no meltdown. No evacuation. No flooding at the site.

OPPD's official rumor control page:

http://www.oppd.com/AboutUs/22_007105

OPPD flood blog:

http://www.oppdstorminfo.blogspot.com/

OPPD's Twitter page:

http://twitter.com/#!/oppdcares

Feet above sea level?

[Pope]

That's a bit of a bizarre measurement for river waters, no? Makes it sound at first glance that it's under 1,007 feet of water. Why not the height above the normal crest? It would make it a bit easier to visualize that's for sure.

Re:Feet above sea level?

[DaveV1.0]

Well, a 1,007 foot flood sound a lot more dangerous than a 7 foot flood and mdsolar is a little anti-nuke bitch who is spreading F.U.D.
 
The entire Omaha, NE area is above 1,000 sea level.

Re:Feet above sea level?

[BradleyUffner]

That's a bit of a bizarre measurement for river waters, no? Makes it sound at first glance that it's under 1,007 feet of water.
Why not the height above the normal crest? It would make it a bit easier to visualize that's for sure.

Saying that the flood is at 1007ft of 1014ft capacity of the walls makes it sound a lot more scary that saying its at 7ft of the 14ft walls. It's nothing but anti-nuclear fud. The whole story is designed to make it hard to visualize to make it scarier.

Re:Feet above sea level?

[jc42]

That's a bit of a bizarre measurement for river waters, no? Makes it sound at first glance that it's under 1,007 feet of water.

Yeah; my first thought was "WTF sort of measurement is that? Maybe I should rewrite it giving the elevation above the Moho." Anyone know offhand how deep that is below Omaha?

I've seen other uses of "height above sea level" for locations in the middle of a continent. I always wonder what they're trying to hide/distort/exaggerate with they do that. I tend to doubt that the writer's original sources used that base.

Re:Feet above sea level?

[blair1q]

Someone says the flood will reach 1010 feet. Your foundation is at 1009 feet. You know what to do.

Someone says the river will crest 8 feet above normal. You go "what's normal? at what time on what day do they measure normal? how high is 8 feet above that where I am?"

I like their idea better. It's a lake in the middle of town, that's all you need to visualize.

Re:Feet above sea level?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole story is designed to make it hard to visualize to make it scarier.

Agreed. The fact is this event is a success for nuclear power. The regulator, in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers, determined the original design basis was insufficient and changed the design basis. The utility did due diligence and pushed back, but ultimately the utility complied and improved the flood defenses. Today the plant is dry and will resume generating clean base-load power when the refueling operation is complete.

Guess that's what happens when your regulators aren't sniffing coke off asses (MMS) or browsing porn all day (SEC). Those regulators gave us Deepwater Horizon and Madoff, respectively.

BTW, the Pakistani paper 'The Nation' is trash. Pakistan doesn't have credible media.

Re:Feet above sea level?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

A sane measurement system wouldn't make it as scary sounding.

Re:Feet above sea level?

[maxume]

The NRC uses that notation:

http://wba.nrc.gov:8080//ves/download.jsp?actionId=view&docId=%7B%22docId%22%3A%22102800284%22%2C%22repoId%22%3A%22pu_adams%22%7D&tabId=advanced-search&docTitle=EA-10-084+-+Final+Significance+Determination+for+a+Yellow+Finding+and+Notice+of+Violation%2C+NRC+Inspection+Report+05000285-10-007%2C+Fort+Calhoun+Station.&action=view&viewText=undefined&isTbar=false

Re:Feet above sea level?

[maxume]

Nicer link:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1028/ML102800342.pdf

Re:Feet above sea level?

[HTH NE1]

It could be worse. They could say it was 3,069 decimeters over sea level. Not only is it a bigger number, but it also gets stupid people to associate it to the word "decimate".

(Remove 10% of the population 3,069 times and... you're left with a population far closer to zero than to one.)

Re:Feet above sea level?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's confusing either way. Most people WON'T just magically know what to do because they don't know what elevation thier foundation is. I don't. Only one person around here I've asked in the past 5 mins even has a clue and that's because he just dug his foundation out. You assume it is common knowledge. It is not.

Re:Feet above sea level?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a common way to describe the vertical position of spillways and other civil engineering type things as well as things like airplanes and spacecraft, for exactly the reason you state. It's a datum that is known. Yes, it's not the most intuitive thing. Yes, an article for the lay reader could have written it better. But just because it's outside of your common experience, doesn't mean it's bad.

I thought this was a site for nerds. Why should you be scared of a big number?

Re:Feet above sea level?

[celtic_hackr]

Actually, the plant itself sits at 1004 ft above sea level making the wall 10 ft high and they used to be less than 10 ft. So saying the water is at 3 ft up a 10 ft wall is a bit different still. But since most all of Nebraska is at 900-1000 ft above sea level, there's lots of room for the muddy Missouri to spread out rather than up. Nebraska is THE flattest state I have ever seen. Not that 10ft walls really inspire confidence in me when it comes to Nuclear power plants.

Re:Feet above sea level?

[riverat1]

They've got to measure it against some baseline. MSL is commonly used in civil engineering for all sorts of things. It's not someone trying to make it sound scary, it's just a common usage.

Re:Feet above sea level?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Tuscaloosa, AL, and flood stage for the Black Warrior river here is around 125 ft above sea level and peak flood level is about 155 ft. There are signs up indicating these heights around town. I think sea level measurement is common, probably because it's a fixed figure.

NYT article fails to mention recent incident

[memorycardfull]

This from nrc.gov: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2011/11-025.iv.pdf

Re:NYT article fails to mention recent incident

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like everything worked as designed.
A fire happened an automated fire suppression system put it out.

Re:NYT article fails to mention recent incident

[blair1q]

and the fuel being cooled in a pool whose circulation was controlled by that switch never got hot before they restored circulation

Re:NYT article fails to mention recent incident

[Anonymous Coward]

The NYT article I read was all about this current situation, and it said it was under control. But that if they hadn't been forced to make upgrades, they would be facing a different scenario.

It should be getting some coverage in the media though, even though it shows how the systems are supposed to work. It might help restore people's confidence in engineering and regulations.

Re:NYT article fails to mention recent incident

[girlintraining]

The main story can be basically summarized as;

Engineers internally and externally saw a trend of rising flood waters, and went to work on a plan to strengthen defenses. Plant management and the regulatory body had a difference of opinion, and so they lobbed paper back and forth for awhile before deciding on the current plan, which is working. Naturally, everybody has a problem with the system working and the plant remaining safe.

*headdesk*

Sea level? Really?

[DaveV1.0]

That entire area is over 1,000 feet above sea level. What is the big deal? It is a 7 food flood.

Re:Sea level? Really?

[blair1q]

If your house is at 1006 feet above sea level, you want to know the water's getting to 1007. Just saying "it's a 7 foot flood" without saying the baseline is pointless. And in a flood, a few inches makes a big difference. One more course of sandbags can be the difference between zero loss and total loss.

Re:Sea level? Really?

[CrimsonAvenger]

If your house is at 1006 feet above sea level, you want to know the water's getting to 1007.

So, do you know anyone who actually knows how high above sea-level their house is? Other than people who live along the beach, I mean....

Re:Sea level? Really?

[blair1q]

Google Earth is your friend. So is the Army Corps of Engineers. Who have a lot of rivers to deal with, so letting them work in absolute units makes their days easier.

Re:Sea level? Really?

[DaveV1.0]

Really? Have you watched the news lately? They never say "The flood crested at 1007 feet above sea level", they say "The flood has crested at 7 feet. That is 3 feet above flood stage."
 
Using sea level as a reference for localized flooding in the interior of the continent is pointless. The reason is obvious when one considers the fact that the surface of the continent is not smooth nor regular. Omaha, NE is at about 1000 feet above sea level. Nashville is about 580 feet above sea level. Death Valley is BELOW sea level. A flood that crests at 1001 feet above sea level is minor in Omaha and utterly catastrophic in Nashville. And, doesn't even register in Salt Lake City.
 
It is positively idiotic to use sea level as a reference, which is why the only people who do it are those being disingenuous. From news organization, to emergency management organizations, to the Army Corps of Engineers, to people stacking sandbags, all people seriously involved in a flood refer to the height of a flood in relation to localized normal levels.
 
You are right that a few inches can make a difference in a flood. That is why people don't reference a standard that has no bearing on their current situation and location.

Re:Sea level? Really?

[DaveV1.0]

Really? So, find me a video of the Army Corps of Engineers discussing a flood in an interior state and referring to the flood height in feet above sea level. Hell, find me a report on a flood that uses feet above sea level that doesn't involve a city at or near sea level.

Re:Sea level? Really?

[blair1q]

where do you suppose TFA got its data? would anyone other than the CoE pay any attention to sea level in Minot, North Dakota?

or you could google for it. i did. it's all over the summaries of the links:

http://www.google.com/search?q=corps+of+engineers+flood+feet+sea+level

Re:Sea level? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The recent floods on the lower Mississippi always had their worst-case scenarios quoted in feet above sea level. River stages were often in the popular media but USACE briefings related everything to altitude above sea level in order to let people know what property was at risk. Few people know their altitude offhand, but it's quite easy to find out.

Re:Sea level? Really?

[riverat1]

I do, 487 feet.

The real question that no one has answered yet...

[Pollux]

Is this press release just a response to a rather damning report last week released by Pakistan's The Nation?

Granted, I understand that most people here would view a newspaper in Pakistan as not the most credible source for news, but I believe this newspaper to be a credible one, and they do not appear to be in the business of conspiracy theories. Putting that issue aside, why has this report not received more discussion?

Sure doesn't put the power station in as nearly a glowing light as the NY Times article does.

Which isn't nearly as dim as...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

designing a power plant that fails because grid power is down, with no automated method of switchover to internally generated power.

Eyeroll please!

Re:Which isn't nearly as dim as...

[geekoid]

Explain.

Re:Which isn't nearly as dim as...

[blair1q]

That didn't happen at Fukushima, either. They lost both grid power and their internal diesel generators.

Nuke plants should have bicycle-powered pumps as a third source of coolant flow.

Re:Which isn't nearly as dim as...

[im_thatoneguy]

Maybe not Bicycle per-say but I did think after Fukishima that they should have a giant gear and clutch system somewhere.

Tear apart your nearest semi-truck, rip out its drive shaft and weld it in. Assuming the clutch wasn't knocked out (or assuming you couldn't beat it with sledge hammers until it engages) it seems like an easier fix than getting particular electrical systems to talk to one another.

Sometimes a mechanical solution seems like it would be the best most warranted solution just as a final last failsafe.

Re:Which isn't nearly as dim as...

[HiddenCamper]

a main generator of a NPP (and any other large base load plant) cannot handle small or transient loads. when you lose offsite power, you have no load, and the generator has to shut down, otherwise you could damage the generator or destroy the turbine catastrophically. equate it to riding a bike. if you are going 20 mph on a bike in first gear and you are pedaling as fast as you can it is very unstable. (there isnt enough load for the energy your legs are producing). if you are in 6th gear you'll be fine because there's enough load to counter what your legs are trying to put in. anyways...this is why there are at least 2 qualified AC circuits plus at least 2 diesel systems per plant.

Re:Which isn't nearly as dim as...

[riverat1]

It might take 10 semi engines to drive the necessary generating power.

How long?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

As I understand it, the issue in Japan was that, while the reactor scrammed automatically when the earthquake was detected, the rods still need time to cool down before they cool enough to no longer require power to cool.

How long does that cooldown process take? Or do even "cool" rods still require power to remain cool?

Re:How long?

[Hatta]

The Ft. Calhoun nuclear plant has been offline for some time now.

Re:How long?

[blair1q]

Weeks, when the rods are somewhat depleted and due to be replaced. Months, if they're new. And after those weeks, they're still not cool enough to be moved offsite, which is why there's a cooling pool (not a static pool but one that circulates its water to cooling towers) nearby the reactor to hold them for months (after they're swapped out for fresh fuel rods) while they decay to a level of self-reactivity that doesn't generate enough heat to damage themselves if they aren't continuously cooled.

Re:How long?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Weeks, when the rods are somewhat depleted and due to be replaced. Months, if they're new.

It takes less time to cool them down when they're new than when they're old.

Big issue for cooldown is the fission products that build up in the fuel rods from normal use. Some of them are short-lived, some long-lived, some in between.

The long-lived stuff doesn't produce much in the way of decay heat.

The short-lived stuff produces a lot of decay heat, but not for long.

The medium-term stuff is what comes into play when considering new vs old rods - the more the rod has been used, the more medium-term stuff is there (up till it reaches steady state - it's being produced as fast as it decays), so the longer it takes to cool the rods down after a shutdown (when production of all that stuff stops).

Re:How long?

[RockDoctor]

The medium-term stuff is what comes into play when considering new vs old rods - the more the rod has been used, the more medium-term stuff is there (up till it reaches steady state - it's being produced as fast as it decays)

... which would be of the order of the half-life of the product involved.

So, if iodine-131 (? on the isotope mass) with a half-life of 30-odd days were the main producer of heat, you'd anticipate thermal equilibrium after a month or two, but if it's caesium-137 that's the problem, it'll take around 50 years to equilibrate.

Same maths, different chemistry : uranium thorium dating. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/ecol438/uthdating.html

Useful tool.

QQ

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear power is scary. QQ. Make it go away. QQ I rather we burn wood again than take a chance at getting radiation poisoning. QQ.

Wrong, original article by known nutbag...

[Anonymous Coward]

Enter Sorcha Fall, whom the Pakistani paper quotes verbatim...

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/

Re:Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this

[BJ_Covert_Action]

But, but, how can you trust the official page of the power companies? Don't you know that they all conspire to hide the truth about how evil electricity actually is while simultaneously using the profits they reap from us poor, victimized sheeple to purchase gallons of children's tears to wash their baby seal skinned boots in?

My major concern....

[plsenjy]

Does this pose a threat to my Bitcoin wallet? How does this affect the Bitcoin economy on the whole? I didn't see anything in the article about that.

Re:Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this

[blair1q]

The aquadams are cool. And they were probably filled by using the plant's own electricity to pump the water's own water from the river's own river to negate the flood's flooding ability.

Nuclear power FTW!

Re:Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this

[Anonymous Coward]

I live within 15 miles of the plant. Nothing to see here. Move along. Omaha TV said last night that the NRC chief would be out today to visit the Ft. Calhoun plant run by OPPD and the Brownsville plant run by Nebraska Public Power District. (NPPD). If he starts shouting and waving his arms, then you'll have a story.

Bluestrain (who can't get his login reset)
     

Re:The real question that no one has answered yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I tend to agree normally, you must be aware that Pakistan is pretty pissed at us about that whole Osama thing. This would be precisely the type of FUD that I expect.

Re:Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this

[Hatta]

Yep. Doesn't worry me in the least.

Others reported worse about this Nuclear Plant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I read that this plant had the beginnings of a nuclear meltdown because the flooding interrupted it's colling supply for some odd reason.

I also heard the direct order by Pres. Obama to KEEP THIS OUT OF THE NEWS. Reported thoroughly over on AmericanVoiceRadio and on /new/ in 4Chon.net so maybe we are just a little quicker than Yahoo News.

What is with all the bad news recently? Fed. Res. is not as important now?

Re:Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this

[h4rr4r]

Those are the only kind of boots that fit the reptilians, what do you want them to do?

OK for now

[stabiesoft]

While I expect they have the flood thing handled, what gives me pause is when I looked up how many nuclear sites there are (440 roughly) and how many major disasters have occurred (chernoble, TMI and now Fukishima). So a quick calculation says if I have a plant within a few miles of me, there is roughly a 1% chance in a typical lifetime that my home will be un-inhabitable for the next 100 years or so. I'm not a big pro or anti nuke guy. Actually I was sort of positive on them until I considered the probabilities. I mean, some people may be NIMBY about turbines, but man, I am definitely NIMBY for a nuke plant now.

Re:OK for now

[Toonol]

Do you make the same calculation for the danger of a major flood, tornado, or earthquake, which would destroy your house and have a much more likely chance of immediately killing you and your family?

Re:OK for now

[TheSync]

While I expect they have the flood thing handled, what gives me pause is when I looked up how many nuclear sites there are (440 roughly) and how many major disasters have occurred (chernoble, TMI and now Fukishima). So a quick calculation says if I have a plant within a few miles of me, there is roughly a 1% chance in a typical lifetime that my home will be un-inhabitable for the next 100 years or so.

TMI did not make any private property "uninhabitable".

Be that as it may, yes, a 1% per lifetime risk of major nuclear accident is not crazy, but I can assure you a 99% risk of death from some other cause in your lifetime.

Re:OK for now

[Solandri]

I looked up how many nuclear sites there are (440 roughly) and how many major disasters have occurred (chernoble, TMI and now Fukishima). So a quick calculation says if I have a plant within a few miles of me, there is roughly a 1% chance in a typical lifetime that my home will be un-inhabitable for the next 100 years or so. I'm not a big pro or anti nuke guy. Actually I was sort of positive on them until I considered the probabilities. I mean, some people may be NIMBY about turbines, but man, I am definitely NIMBY for a nuke plant now.

Well yeah, that's what happens when you consolidate production. Comparing accident rate per plant (implicitly equating one nuclear plant to one coal plant), is basically the same as saying hundreds of people die when a plane crashes while only a few people die when a car crashes, therefore cars are safer. You're ignoring the fact that planes move a lot more people in fewer trips / there are a lot fewer homes around the perimeter of nuclear plants than other types of power plants for an equivalent amount of power generated. If you correctly account for the amount of power generated:

The U.S. has just 65 nuclear plants (104 reactors) with 101 GW nominal capacity. That's an average of 1550 MW per nuclear plant. Nuclear capacity factor is about 90%, for an average 1400 MW production per plant.

The U.S. has 1493 coal plants with a nominal capacity of 335.8 GW. That's an average of 225 MW per coal plant. Coal has a capacity factor of 60%-70%, for an average 135-158 MW production per plant. A single nuclear plant is equivalent to 9-10 coal plants.

If you assume 1 MW wind turbines @ 20% capacity factor, that's an average 0.2 MW production per turbine. A single nuclear plant is equivalent to 7000 1 MW wind turbines.

If you assume 15% efficient PV panels (nominal 125 W/m^2) with 18% capacity factor (typical for desert southwest), you get 22.5 W/m^2 average production, or an average 22.5 MW production per square km. A single nuclear plant is equivalent to 62 square km of solar panels.

So if you want to compare cost, risk, and environmental impact equally, you need to compare a single nuclear plant, to 9-10 coal plants, to 7000 1 MW wind turbines, to 62 sq. km of solar panels.

Re:OK for now

[phayes]

great post!

Re:OK for now

[AmiMoJo]

Comparing accident rate per plant (implicitly equating one nuclear plant to one coal plant), is basically the same as saying hundreds of people die when a plane crashes while only a few people die when a car crashes, therefore cars are safer. You're ignoring the fact that planes move a lot more people in fewer trips / there are a lot fewer homes around the perimeter of nuclear plants than other types of power plants for an equivalent amount of power generated.

So nuclear is safer because it when it goes wrong radioactive material is released so no-one wants to live near it?

Nuclear power stations are run for profit, and like every other area of business that means that sometimes safety isn't the number one priority. That was the problem at Fukushima, they defences should have been better and TEPCO was told that, but failed to act. Air France didn't replace pitons quickly enough when advised to and they lost an aircraft. Railtrack didn't do proper maintenance and a train crashed. Why would a brand new nuclear plant be any different?

Your numbers for wind and solar are way off. The Rice Solar Energy Project in California is going to produce around 150MW in 5.7km squared. It works 24/7 too BTW, so accounting for maintenance capacity will be at least 90%, probably more since the system is much simpler than nuclear. 150MW per plant might not be that impressive next to a modern reactor but on the other hand they are simple, cheap, don't need any fuel, don't create any waste and if one goes catastrophically wrong you end up with some steam and molten salt leaking out. They last longer than nuclear plants and you can re-use the site with minimal clean-up, there is no need to situate them a long way from civilisation and in the US you have more than enough space for lots of them.

Lorem Ipsum

[Anonymous Coward]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. In volutpat mi id eros bibendum fringilla. Proin luctus nulla at magna rutrum dapibus. Phasellus at mi ligula, vel aliquet nibh. Pellentesque eget purus tellus. Proin adipiscing malesuada pharetra. Quisque enim diam, rutrum eu ultrices ut, euismod vitae augue. Nullam non rhoncus tellus. Duis ante sapien, bibendum nec viverra id, suscipit eu ligula. Ut egestas imperdiet neque vel volutpat. Mauris non nibh non lectus mollis tincidunt sit amet id nisi. Donec feugiat pulvinar nisi. Integer nec dolor magna. Mauris sollicitudin facilisis congue. Vivamus viverra justo dolor, ac fringilla libero. Duis eu molestie diam. Praesent dapibus turpis augue.
Proin neque neque, sollicitudin vestibulum lacinia vitae, imperdiet vitae erat. Praesent cursus, orci ac tincidunt iaculis, libero felis sodales est, fringilla dictum augue mi vitae mauris. Nunc lectus odio, aliquet id lacinia at, vehicula et turpis. Nunc felis urna, pharetra vel ornare sit amet, euismod non leo. Nulla in varius justo. Morbi semper vestibulum turpis, sit amet volutpat elit iaculis sed. Sed ac pharetra augue. Suspendisse potenti. Maecenas eu lobortis massa. Proin blandit tempus interdum.
Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Nunc convallis tempus ante, eu interdum lectus semper sit amet. Suspendisse feugiat pellentesque facilisis. Sed augue risus, placerat at aliquet ac, rutrum vitae lectus. Pellentesque ullamcorper elit quis mauris lacinia fringilla. Nulla facilisi. Donec hendrerit sapien sollicitudin ligula pulvinar non rutrum massa vulputate. Sed nisi ligula, vulputate quis pulvinar nec, porta eget felis. Praesent et arcu id neque iaculis adipiscing. Vivamus ac bibendum arcu. Suspendisse potenti. Donec pharetra vulputate nibh, et tempor lectus auctor nec. Maecenas non quam lorem. Nullam imperdiet risus nec nisi vestibulum consectetur. Praesent tincidunt consequat pulvinar. Suspendisse potenti. Proin accumsan tincidunt arcu nec hendrerit. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Vivamus mollis risus tempor dolor fringilla vestibulum. Praesent malesuada ipsum tincidunt sem consequat sagittis.
Praesent non diam diam. Ut in elit a lorem auctor posuere in dignissim ipsum. Donec ut ligula vitae sapien congue faucibus et ut magna. Integer iaculis tempor posuere. Ut metus diam, posuere vitae vulputate et, porta non lectus. Cras leo sapien, viverra euismod iaculis in, pulvinar et tellus. Praesent tempor, arcu non vestibulum lacinia, mi mauris placerat tortor, id luctus felis nunc ut enim. Ut dui libero, viverra sit amet iaculis vitae, mollis in tortor. Morbi vel est vel nibh malesuada feugiat. Aenean risus erat, condimentum et aliquam eget, eleifend nec felis. Donec varius felis a libero malesuada interdum. Vivamus non dolor nibh, et tristique quam. Nulla vehicula orci a nisi lacinia luctus. Donec pulvinar iaculis sem, ut elementum elit ullamcorper egestas.
Praesent ac lorem ante. Phasellus a risus orci. Integer blandit tempor ipsum, vulputate fermentum enim tempus id. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Nam a nunc nisi, nec mollis ligula. Etiam pharetra laoreet convallis. Quisque interdum fringilla dolor, in dignissim erat vestibulum et. Donec at magna nisi. Curabitur tempus, nibh vitae dignissim lobortis, ante ligula semper elit, a varius metus lacus eu nisl. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce odio metus, fringilla ut auctor vitae, luctus ac nunc. Vestibulum aliquet semper elit ut dictum. Fusce et augue leo, ut lacinia sem. Proin posuere mauris quis metus tempor vitae vulputate nunc aliquam. Nam elementum varius placerat. Suspendisse mollis quam vitae enim tempus in iaculis augue blandit. Phasellus vulputate, massa at fermentum tincidunt, arcu tellus cursus massa, vitae pharetra orci tortor et odio. Cras pretium, ante ac imperdiet ornare, dolor urna malesuada lacus, ut dignissim dui mauris sit amet eros. Nam ipsum erat, dictum sed luctus non, condimentum

I'll bet Nebraska's tsunami defense is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Just sayin'

Re:Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this

[Mr Bubble]

"people on the Internets" have said a lot of things. Who cares? I didn't read that the plant had meted down and I have been following this closely.

I am as assured by OPPD's public face as I am by TEPCO.

pictures of the Ft. Calhoun plant?

[Wansu]

hmmm. I didn't see any pictures on that NY Times page.

Re:pictures of the Ft. Calhoun plant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's one taken on June 16th of this year, sourced from the US Army Corps of Engineers. That photo says it all, really.

Re:pictures of the Ft. Calhoun plant?

[Anonymous Coward]

The popup book will be out any day now.

Re:pictures of the Ft. Calhoun plant?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://bit.ly/mJIzld

Re:Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this

[Anonymous Coward]

... using the plant's own electricity ...

Actually the plant was already shut down for re-fueling.

Re:The real question that no one has answered yet.

[im_thatoneguy]

Granted, I understand that most people here would view a newspaper in Pakistan as not the most credible source for news, but I believe this newspaper to be a credible one, and they do not appear to be in the business of conspiracy theories.

âoeIf youâ(TM)re still living under the delusion that the TSA is just restricted to airports then think again. A joint VIPR âoesecurity exerciseâ involving military personnel has Transportation Security Administration workers covering 5,000 miles and three states, illustrating once again how the TSA is turning into a literal occupying army for domestic repression in America."

"But, with an already documented 35% increase in the infant mortality rate for American mothers living in the western coastal regions of the US caused by radiation blowing onto them from Japan being ignored by these people there doesnâ(TM)t seem to be much hope for them."

No they aren't paranoid, they just think the TSA is an occupying military force *cough splutter laugh* and that infant mortality is secretly up 35% in the US.

Not paranoid at all.

I desperately hope I was missing your sarcasm.

non sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA: "reached a height of nearly 1,007 feet above sea level at the plant yesterday." Is it just me or is this a really confusing way to describe the height of the flood water? It's way more useful to know how much higher the water is than normal or where it is in proximity to the design limits of the plant... but measuring it against sea level is just a total non-sequitur.

Re:non sequitur

[John117]

Read the thread. It's been established several times - mean sea level is the standard unit of measurement for level used by the plants, the NRC, and the Army Corps of Engineers. It's purpose is to supply an easily understandable common ground for technical use of the information. This doesn't mean just water level - internal floors in the plants are also designated by height above sea level.

Re:The real question that no one has answered yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I had no idea that the reactor had been melting down for almost a decade! This "media blackout" must have be super effective!

BTW, nuclear plants have been no-fly zones since 9/11.

Long term flood

[mdsolar]

I wonder about the soil turning to soup and oozing up under the water berm if this goes on for months. Will they hoist the fire truck over there and attach a mud pump or what?

soulskill posted this

[mdsolar]

soulskill posted this completely pro-nuke and idiotic thing about a thorium reactor: http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/02/1330245/Thorium-the-Next-Nuclear-Fuel The last one never worked right and had a hugely expensive clean up. You are just being silly complaining about the editors. Better to complain about the NYT paywall....

Re:soulskill posted this

[DaveV1.0]

Why should I complain about a paywall, when the editors give front page time to an anti-nuke, FUD-mongering troll like you?

Re:Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this

[Anonymous Coward]

That was traced to some kinda pakistani page quoting the russians or something...

Not sure what the hell you were reading.

What about Cooper?

[mdsolar]

The next nuke down the river is still operating at full capacity. But many roads have been cut by the flood and there may not be an adequate escape plan should there be an accident. Should we only be looking at what the flood does to the nuke or is the way it affects the surrounding infrastructure important as well?

I don't let my children

[publiclurker]

get away with changing the subject in order to avoid answering embarrassing questions. why should I let a supposed adult do the same?

Re:I don't let my children

[SnowZero]

Can your children tell the size of squares?:
    http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html
Which one is bigger? Now which one does the media talk the most about? Does that make any sense?

FWIW, even rooftop solar kills more people per terawatt-hour than nuclear. We know mdsolar has seen those stats, as he's been pointed to them many times. Yet he only posts stories about nuclear, while ignoring the coal and oil elephants. Why? Because he can profit more from overhyped fear than actual statistics. IOW, FUD in place of science. Regular readers have grown tired of this.

You need to be corrected

[mdsolar]

I respond well to well reasoned arguments. Blind loyalty to nuclear power and crap about uranium in coal ash does not count as reasoning.

Re:You need to be corrected

[SnowZero]

How about stats?: Historically, rooftop solar kills more humans per terawatt-hour than nuclear. I know you've seen the source data.

and there's another one down the river

[Anonymous Coward]

Cooper Nuclear Station is less than 75 miles down the river, and was operating at 100% today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Nuclear_Station

Sump pump?

[mdsolar]

What about water (or mud) under the berm? This flood seems like it wants to stay around all summer. Could be a problem if the soil saturates and then becomes soup.

You've been corrected

[mdsolar]

You claimed soulskill would never post a pro-nuke article. You were wrong. Why do you want to censor slashdot?

Re:You've been corrected

[Anonymous Coward]

You work with a company trying to sell solar and have a huge log of ridiculous smears in your submissions history, perhaps drawing notice to yourself isnt the smartest thing to do, unless of course you know your financial partnership with the editors is solid.

NRC chair is concerned

[mdsolar]

The NRC chair will be inspecting both flood affected plants on Monday: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304569504576406163159603654.html Perhaps there is something to fear. The situation is uncertain and doubts about the safety of nuclear power are justified.

Read Carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear Plant Food?

Ohhhhh, Nuclear Plant *Flood*.

Ad Hominem and Confirmation Bias

[JSBiff]

So, what you're saying is that, no matter what it says, you won't read any article which mdsolar links to, and anything which doesn't fit your view of the world must be FUD?

The first is the fallacy of Ad Hominem, while the second is the error of Confirmation Bias.

I'm basically pro-nuclear, but as a nuclear supporters, I think it's important for nuclear supporters to be the nuclear industry's biggest critics. Nuclear power can only be a good thing for mankind and the rest of the environment if we have a healthy respect for the dangers it holds for us, and if we always hold the nuclear industry to the highest levels of accountability.

If we're not going to do that, then I don't want nuclear power, because we're not yet evolved enough as a species to do it safely over the long term (hundreds, even thousands of years).

Only when we can be brutally honest, calling a spade a spade, and have a high level of transparency in the regulation of the nuclear plants, can we hope to have a safe nuclear industry.

I do not know whether the current high of 1014 feet is high enough or not. I readily admit I do not have the expertise. What I do see from that article is that the experts at the NRC who *should* have the expertise, had to force the power co to improve their flood defenses, and it appears it's a dam good thing they did (hey, did you see what I did there?), and that they did it just in the nick of time.

I'm not so much afraid of nuclear power, as afraid of an industry that fights every safety requirement right up till the moment they're proven wrong.

If the plant designs are such that they can't be made both safe *and* affordable at the same time, then those designs are fundamentally flawed, and need to be resigned to the dustbin of history, replaced by newer designs which can be both safe and affordable.

Re:Ad Hominem and Confirmation Bias

[phayes]

mdsolar has a history of posting articles on nuclear power filled with ignorant FUD. Why should Lunix pointing this out be a problem for you?

You are "afraid of an industry that fights every safety requirement". I've watched the US nuclear industry smother under the anti-nuke crowds avowed tactic of death by a thousand cuts. They discovered early on that by pushing as every safety regulation they could imagine onto the pile that they could block the creation of newer, safer plants. It's not a question of safety, it's a question of principle & they're using safety as a smokescreen much like the censorship crowd uses child porn to push their agenda.

Re:The real question that no one has answered yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would believe a 35% increase. The current estimate is 6.06 deaths per 1000 births. A 35% increase from there would amount to 8.18 deaths per 1000 births.

The bit about the TSA, I chalk up to idiotic-sloppy misuse of the word "literal". The TSA is certainly a tool for domestic repression.

Re:Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this

[Anonymous Coward]

"The plant was shut down in April for refueling and will remain so until the flood threat is passed."

Re:Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this

[AmiMoJo]

Talk about a classic straw man.