26 Nuclear Power Plants In Hurricane Sandy's Path

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

26 Nuclear Power Plants In Hurricane Sandy's Path

Posted by samzenpus on Monday October 29, 2012 @07:25AM from the perfect-storm dept.

pigrabbitbear writes "Hurricane Sandy is about to ruin a bunch of people's Mondays. In New York City alone, the storm has already shut down public transportation, forced tens of thousands to relocate to higher ground and compelled even more office jockeys to work from home. (Okay, that last part might not be so bad, especially for the folks that don't actually have to work at all.) But if it knocks out power to any of the 26 nuclear power plants that lie directly in its path, the frankenstorm of the century will ruin Tuesday, too. Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem."

39 of 392 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I hope it gives me super powers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-29 07:27 · Score: 5, Funny

I could call myself The Hurricane!
1. Re:I hope it gives me super powers by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-10-29 07:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Sorry, "Storm" already owns the IP for that. See if your superpowers can protect you from a billion dollar IP lawsuit!
  Hmmm . . . maybe comics need an IP Lawsuit Super Villain . . . ?
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
2. Re:I hope it gives me super powers by Joce640k · 2012-10-29 08:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Will we get the same sensationalist headlines when nothing happens?
  "The plants performed as designed! No meltdown!!!"
  
  --
  No sig today...
3. Re:I hope it gives me super powers by Grayhand · 2012-10-29 08:25 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I could call myself The Hurricane!
  The scary scenario is two radioactive Presidential candidates. I see a Godzilla style grudge match on Tuesday with 200' tall candidates fighting over Ohio.
Took you long enough, Slashdot by EmagGeek · 2012-10-29 07:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

To publish an insanely sensationalistic FUD piece from the Anti-Nuclear crowd scaremongering the most densely populated area of the world over something that is a complete and utter non-issue.
1. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by WilyCoder · 2012-10-29 07:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Exactly. While people are dealing with the *real* effects of the storm right now, these people want to talk about nuclear meltdowns? Stupid ass hyperbole if you ask me...
2. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by ShanghaiBill · 2012-10-29 07:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  While people are dealing with the *real* effects of the storm right now, these people want to talk about nuclear meltdowns?
  Do you mean real effects like damaged windmills and solar panels ripped off roofs?
  On the other hand, the extra rainfall should be good for hydroelectric.
3. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-29 07:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I live 12 miles, doesn't bother me one bit, nor did it when I lived 5 miles, nor worked 1 mile. Heck, in my 20's I used to water ski just offshore from the plant. Hmmm, maybe that's why my hair got curly? chuckle
  BTW, NONE of the evacuation plans take into account there being a bad storm while attempting an evacuation from a nuke plant...they just don't consider it likely.
  And, btw, the original call for an evacuation plan was for 50 miles...I was at that meeting, but we all agreed that it would be impossible to evacuate 50 miles, as it includes all of NYC. Then we cut it down to 25 miles, and it still included too much of NYC to be doable. Finally, we went down to 10 miles, which everyone felt was more realistic to evacuate. But the 10 mile evacuation zone isn't based on science, it's based on what is doable in the NY area. 10 miles wasn't enough at Fukishima.
4. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by pitchpipe · 2012-10-29 07:52 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem.
  By golly, it'll be even worser if it opens the hell-mouth.
  
  --
  Look where all this talking got us, baby.
5. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by fm6 · 2012-10-29 08:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Oh please. I've read both stories, and neither of them is the least bit sensationalistic. They present issues and facts, and neither of them is clearly anti-nuke. But of course anybody who suggests that there are safety issues with nuclear power must be "scaremongering".
  What's weird to me is that people get all religious about nuclear power. At best, fission plants will never provide more than a fraction of the power we need. You may think that the benefit-versus-risk equation argues that we shoud build them (not that I agree) but is that really sufficient reason to treat nuclear power like the Second Coming?
6. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by echusarcana · 2012-10-29 08:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm getting tired of all the anti-nuclear stuff on Slashdot as well. Enough of this. If you are some sort of anti-science luddite go comment on Mother Jones or somewhere like that. A nuclear station is built to withstand a hurricane with ease, including, loss of off-site power. There are multiple backups. End of story.
7. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by mooingyak · 2012-10-29 08:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  New York City isn't even in the top 50 by population density: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density
  And.. *gasp*... look at which country makes up 7 of the top 10 densest populations in the world...
  That list needs a much higher minimum population threshold.
  14 of the 50 have fewer than 100k people. Only 12 of them even crack 1M. One on the list (Union City, NJ) would get counted as part of NYC if you start looking at metro areas.
  But all that aside, I wasn't trying to argue that NYC is the most densely populated part of the world, but rather took issue with the anonymous poster's assertion that New Delhi and Beijing were moreso. The instruction to look at a map followed by a pair of examples that didn't support the argument he was making got to me.
  
  --
  William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
8. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by AmiMoJo · 2012-10-29 12:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ha, I was getting tired of all the pro-nuclear stuff on Slashdot as well. Every time there is a story about nuclear power, or even worse about any kind of non-nuclear power, the nuke-u-like brigade come out and accuse everyone of being irrational anti-nuke anti-technology anti-progress tree-hugging hippies.
  Rational debate becomes impossible.
  
  A nuclear station is built to withstand a hurricane with ease, including, loss of off-site power.
  Fukushima was built to withstand a large earthquake and tsunami with ease, including, loss of off-site power. Turns out the design was flawed and contingency plans inadequate. If you would like to debate the actual, technical issues here I would be glad to.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by CastrTroy · 2012-10-29 12:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, if we're talking 10 mile radius vs 50 mile radius, then it' actually a lot less than 1/5 the size. A 10 mile radius is an area 314 square miles, whereas a 50 mile radius is 7850 square miles. So a 10 mile radius is really only 4%, or 1/25th the size of the 50 mile zone.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. by blind+biker · 2012-10-29 07:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you want to be as safe from the hurricane as possible, you should then find shelter in one of those nuclear plants. They\re the best built structures by a very large margin.
Only thing is, I don\t believe you'll be lucky enough to be let in.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
1. Re:Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. by dgatwood · 2012-10-29 09:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Because power plants are designed to generate a lot of power, and most are not designed to be able to generate a small amount of power. When the mains goes offline, they can't dump the power anywhere, and without that load to keep the generator speed regulated, the turbines would spin up to an unsafe speed and would damage themselves, so they have to shut down the reactor. Thus, if the plant is an older design that requires active safety systems after a SCRAM, they have to provide a backup power source to power those safety systems.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
2. Re:Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. by fm6 · 2012-10-29 09:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm sorry, where are these magic plants that don't need backup power? I did some googling and couldn't find any.
3. Re:Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. by QuantumRiff · 2012-10-29 09:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Then I guess I would be glad they were built several DECADES after the ones in Japan. I also guess I would be glad that the generators are located above the floodplain. Then, I would be glad that the spent fuel isn't stored with the reactor, but in another building. Lastly, I think I would be glad that after Fukishama, enough attention has probably been paid to the very, very, very unlikely event that they could probably get emergency generators air-lifted in by the US military in a big hurry, if they were required.
  
  --
  
  What are we going to do tonight Brain?
My god, this has never happened! by greg_barton · 2012-10-29 07:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

These plants have NEVER been hit by a storm before! Whatever will we do??
Around here by camperdave · 2012-10-29 07:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Around here, the nuclear power plants are designed to survive a 747 flying into them. I'm sure a little bit of a breeze isn't going to be any trouble

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
1. Re:Around here by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-29 07:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If there's a storm surge on the Eastern seaboard big enough to damage a nuclear power station, millions of people are going to be having a REALLY bad day before they start worrying about the nuclear plant.
Unsubstatiated Claim by Jonah+Hex · 2012-10-29 07:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Human Error has caused more nuclear incidents than Weather. That said, I want one of those backyard mini nuclear plants. - HEX

--
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
And when the storm has passed... by greg_barton · 2012-10-29 07:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

So when the storm has passed, if nothing happens, will the fear mongering anti-nuke folks admit that nuclear power is safe?
*crickets*
1. Re:And when the storm has passed... by greg_barton · 2012-10-29 08:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Absolutely.
Re:It's not fair by dkleinsc · 2012-10-29 07:36 · Score: 3, Funny

You think that's unfair? How about those of us in Ohio who have never been hit with a hurricane? I mean, Gloria came and wrecked most of New England in 1985, and Ohio got nothin'.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:It's not fair by ClippyHater · 2012-10-29 07:42 · Score: 5, Funny

You all got a river to catch fire, I think you're ahead.
Storm of the century?? by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-29 07:43 · Score: 5, Informative

It is a cat 1 storm. Yawn.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Heck, a Godzilla attack would be a bigger problem. by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2012-10-29 07:43 · Score: 5, Funny

>> Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem.
Heck, a Godzilla attack would be a much bigger problem.
Re:It's not fair by fredprado · 2012-10-29 07:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Hey, I thought Haven was there. How much more excitement do you need?!!! :P
Give me a break by samantha · 2012-10-29 07:45 · Score: 3, Informative

A) Sandy has average winds less that 80 mph so the major danger is heavy rainfall (or perhaps snow) only.
B) "Nuclear meltdown" is largely a media myth. Real nuclear plants do not melt down in the way the popular mythology claims.
C) Real nuclear plant are designed to push in the control rods if anything like a power drop happens.
So stop with the 70s anti-nuclear FUD.
1. Re:Give me a break by captaindomon · 2012-10-29 07:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You should probably do some research on Fukushima. The control rods did drop when the earthquake hit, as part of the emergency shutdown, the chain reaction did stop as designed, and there was enough residual heat from fission by-products that the entire fuel assembly melted anyway.
  
  --
  Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
Interesting Fact by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-29 07:49 · Score: 4, Informative

The title is an interesting fact (previously unknown to me), but the article has no real point. It has a lot of fearful speech and reads like religious propaganda. If it were calling for increased preparedness, then that would be one thing. It doesn't do that, though -- it's just appears to sound scary by using scary bullet points.
TL;DR: Crap article.
Re:Nuclear Technology by Chibi+Merrow · 2012-10-29 07:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

The WTC towers did survive an aircraft flying into them.
What they didn't survive was the jet fuel fire after the crash knocked the insulation off the girders.
This is stupid fear-mongering, plain and simple.
Fukushima didn't fail until AFTER a catastrophic earthquake, AFTER a catastrophic tsunami, AFTER the reactor was run past its design lifetime, and AFTER the company in charge of it did not make the manufacturer's recommended safety upgrades. Do you have any evidence we're facing anything remotely similar to those circumstances with the 26 nuclear reactors in the storm's affected area?

--
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Critical fact missing from TFA by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-10-29 07:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

And they're all rated for much more severe storms than Sandy. Not sure why the fearmongering article, which goes out of its way to imply that meltdown is imminent...
Coming soon, on SyFy by MrLizard · 2012-10-29 08:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Nuclear Wind! Atomic Tide! Nukestorm! Windpocalypse! Radioactivecane! Frozen Meltdown! Atomic Hailstorm! Nukenami! Any other ideas for the inevitable SyFy movie?
FUD by confused+one · 2012-10-29 08:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sorry... This is a bunch of FUD. These plants have all seen impact of large storms before. Other nuclear plants along the Atlantic coast have been impacted by larger storms than Sandy. Despite this, the U.S. Mid Atlantic coast is not a radioactive wasteland.
Re:Just wait until Wednesday... by Sarten-X · 2012-10-29 08:22 · Score: 4, Funny

That's not the only danger. That asteroid could be carrying mutagenic microbes from space, which could cause abnormal growth among local sea life, which could make all the fish and crustaceans into biological bombs, filled with microscopic cysts of nerve gas that will explode when ruptured, turning several thousand regional seafood restaurants into diners of death, crippling patrons and releasing airborne poisons into the jet stream to encircle the Earth with a toxic halo literally raining morbidity down on half the planet.

If you're gonna fearmonger, go big or go home.
...and have some imagination, please.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Because. Frankenstorm. by sl4shd0rk · 2012-10-29 09:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Shut up. Panic. Run Amok. We need footage.
Sincerely,
The Media

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Re:It's not fair by isorox · 2012-10-29 09:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way... well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't!