Slashdot Mirror


26 Nuclear Power Plants In Hurricane Sandy's Path

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."

26 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. I hope it gives me super powers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I could call myself The Hurricane!

    1. Re:I hope it gives me super powers by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

  2. Took you long enough, Slashdot by EmagGeek · · 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 ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    2. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by pitchpipe · · 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.
    4. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by fm6 · · 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?

    5. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by echusarcana · · 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.

    6. Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot by AmiMoJo · · 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
  3. Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. by blind+biker · · 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 · · 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.

  4. My god, this has never happened! by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These plants have NEVER been hit by a storm before! Whatever will we do??

  5. Around here by camperdave · · 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!
  6. Unsubstatiated Claim by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

  7. Re:It's not fair by ClippyHater · · Score: 5, Funny

    You all got a river to catch fire, I think you're ahead.

  8. Storm of the century?? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is a cat 1 storm. Yawn.

  9. Heck, a Godzilla attack would be a bigger problem. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    >> Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem.

    Heck, a Godzilla attack would be a much bigger problem.

  10. Re:It's not fair by fredprado · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, I thought Haven was there. How much more excitement do you need?!!! :P

  11. Interesting Fact by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  12. Re:Give me a break by captaindomon · · 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.
  13. Re:And when the storm has passed... by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Funny

    Absolutely.

  14. Re:Just wait until Wednesday... by Sarten-X · · 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.
  15. Because. Frankenstorm. by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  16. Re:It's not fair by isorox · · 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!