Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
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
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.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
This from nrc.gov: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2011/11-025.iv.pdf
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.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
When I want reliable news, I go to nation.com.pk
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."
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
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.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
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".
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
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.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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.