US Nuclear Industry Plans "Rescue Wagon" To Avert Meltdowns

Hugh Pickens writes writes "AP reports that if disaster strikes a US nuclear power plant, the utility industry wants the ability to fly in heavy-duty equipment from regional hubs to stricken reactors to avert a meltdown providing another layer of defense in case a Fukushima-style disaster destroys a nuclear plant's multiple backup systems. 'It became very clear in Japan that utilities became quickly overwhelmed,' says Joe Pollock, vice president for nuclear operations at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobbying group that is spearheading the effort. US nuclear plants already have backup safety systems and are supposed to withstand the worst possible disasters in their regions, including hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes. But planners can be wrong. The industry plan, called FLEX, is the nuclear industry's method for meeting new US Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules that will force 65 plants in the US to get extra emergency equipment on site and store it protectively. The FLEX program is supposed to help nuclear plants handle the biggest disasters. Under the plan, plant operators can summon help from the regional centers in Memphis and Phoenix. In addition to having several duplicate sets of plant emergency gear, industry officials say the centers will likely have heavier equipment that could include an emergency generator large enough to power a plant's emergency cooling systems, equipment to treat cooling water and extra radiation protection gear for workers. Federal regulators must still decide whether to approve the plans submitted by individual plants. 'They need to show us not just that they have the pump, but that they've done all the appropriate designing and engineering so that they have a hookup for that pump,' says NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said. 'They're not going to be trying to figure out, "Where are we going to plug this thing in?"'"

Comments

Here's a better idea.

[Black Parrot]

Don't build them in areas subject to storms, earthquakes, etc., and don't cut corners on the design, construction, maintenance, and inspections in order to save costs.

I happen to think that nuclear power is a good idea, but if our species isn't mature enough to do the above, we've got no business using it.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[BenSchuarmer]

does such a place exist?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[captaindomon]

And where would you consider to be a "safe" area in the US that has no storms, no earthquakes, etc? And is also somewhat accessible and relatively close to a large population center?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[captaindomon]

And to what extent do you avoid cutting costs? Avoid 99% of failure scenarios? 99.9%? 99.9999%? How would you justify where you cut the line? It's not a simple answer.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[ColdWetDog]

And where would you consider to be a "safe" area in the US that has no storms, no earthquakes, etc? And is also somewhat accessible and relatively close to a large population center?

Why, your back yard. Of course.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[SJHillman]

To be fair, maybe we shouldn't be putting large population centers in those areas that are dangerous to nuke plants. I'll let you know if I find a safe place for them.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[icebike]

Don't build them in areas subject to storms, earthquakes, etc., and don't cut corners on the design, construction, maintenance, and inspections in order to save costs.

There exist no such areas on earth. Every place on the planet can have storms and earthquakes. Plus, you need a large quantity of water available. That limits the geographical areas by quite a lot. Almost all nuke plants are near bodies of water. That alone makes for possible flooding issues.

As for cutting corners, that is largely a myth. Design requirements change over time, and older plants don't all meet current standards. But nothing short of a rebuild would change that. We wouldn't build the plants we build 30 years ago today. But that doesn't mean they cut corners back then. If anything, they overbuilt in the face of uncertainty.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds great if you don't pay attention to anything regarding nuclear power construction.

At least in Western models (I don't know much about Soviet designs), very rarely are corners cut. All fo the reactors that have had problems were Generation 1, even Fukushima. We are currently building Generation III+ designs and working on Gen 4 designs, which all have significantly enhanced safety features. What they should be doing is retiring the Gen I reactors and replacing them with modern designs; a Westinghouse AP1000, of which 4 are being built in China so it is in a production ready state, would have withstood the tsunami that wiped out Fukushima.

There is no place on earth not subject to adverse natural conditions, not to mention that . The best you can do is play the odds and build them so they get damaged only in a highly unlikley event. To support Fukushima (after bashing it), they suffered a greater than 9.0 earthquake and then a massive tsunami; there are few facilities in the world that can do that.

Also, unfortunately you can't just plop down a nuclear reactor anywhere. They have to be placed in areas that are near large bodies of water to assist with cooling; said bodies of water are often near fault lines or coastlines which are always subject to storms, earthquakes, etc.

Also, what do you do in a country like Japan? Japan has no natural resources; they import all of their energy. They are shifting away from nuclear now thanks to Fukishima, but now instead they are reliant upon oil and natural gas from the Middle East and coal from the US and China. Prior to Fukushima they were actually moving towards MORE nuclear energy, because their power needs are high and growing and they imported thier uranium from Australia, a much easier to deal with trading partner. I suspect that they will go back to nuclear once they see what a disaster economically and environmentally using coal and oil is going to be. However, Japan is subject to constant and numerous earthquakes and tsunamis. So what do they do? What options do they have?

Seriously, do some research before even forming an opinion. One would think the Slashdot crowd would be better than that.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's probably the best place, your backyard.

Everyone's backyard.

Put a small reactor in each neighbourhood. Scale down the energy required, scale down everything, reduce the transmission costs to nearly nothing, and use smaller pebblebed style systems.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you can't find a place then perhaps it would be wise not to build any more nuclear power plants and it would be even wiser to eliminate all existing nuclear power plants. Use solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro instead as they are far safer than the other solutions.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[SirGarlon]

I think that's the point. Give up on nuclear power. Given the consequences of an accident, the safety record of nuclear power is appalling. The costs per megawatt are high even without counting the externalities of contamination. The only thing nuclear reactors can do, that can't be done more safely and cheaply with coal or wind, is create weapons-grade fissionable material. A bomb-making reactor can be built out in the middle of the freaking desert where it belongs.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[CanHasDIY]

does such a place exist?

Sure; about 100 km above the surface.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Small Modular Reactor (SMR) is where it's at. B&W and Westinghouse have plans to design/build these in the near future.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[h4rr4r]

How about not fill the air with pollution?

Coal needs to go away. Burn natural gas all you like, but coal should not be allowed to dump garbage into the air or store it in ponds that break and ruin peoples lives.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[jhoegl]

Arizona/New Mexico/Texas

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Charliemopps]

The problem is that most were build 30 to 40 years ago and environmental protesters stop just about every plan to build or upgrade them. They're basically trying to make their own predictions come true. Modern reactor designs simply can not meltdown. It's physically impossible, natural disaster or not. We need to be replacing our old reactors with these new designs... sadly we are not.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't build them in areas subject to storms, earthquakes, etc., and don't cut corners on the design, construction, maintenance, and inspections in order to save costs.

While we're at it, how about we also replace 25+ year old designs with things that are updated with the knowledge we've learned over the last few decades.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[jeffmeden]

And where would you consider to be a "safe" area in the US that has no storms, no earthquakes, etc? And is also somewhat accessible and relatively close to a large population center?

I know this was just snark but here goes: There is a significant variation in the US when it comes to disasters. Everyone likes to think that disasters are truly random, but then again everyone (in general) is terrible at assessing risk. You don't have to look very hard to find areas that receive significantly fewer damaging hurricanes, damaging tornadoes, damaging earthquakes, damaging floods/tsunamis, damaging wildfires, etc. Do you really think that everywhere in the US is as prone to calamity as, say, Southern California? Give me a break.

And why should it matter how close they are to population centers? The nationwide grid is pretty good at getting energy from one state to another.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

The safety record is appalling?

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-sources

(The estimates are neither the highest nor the lowest for nuclear power to give it the least death toll. Check the comments if you want the worst, in which case it will no longer be the absolute best but it'll still be a very good option up there with all the other non-burning tech).

The problem isn't that nuclear safety is bad, the problem is it's very very easy to see the results of nuclear safety failures compared to other safety failures because nuclear plants are so compact relatively speaking that you get a "holy fuck" disaster that kills a bunch of people every few decades instead of thousands of isolated one-offs. And while it's possible nuclear deaths are under-reported, I'm not convinced that it's more likely than other energy forms -- it's relatively easy to look for things that can be attributed to a nuclear accident because again, it's so concentrated by comparison.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI a smaller pebblebed would require the use of weapons grade material

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

does such a place exist?

Sure; about 100 km above the surface.

Does "etc" include "meteorites and space debris that haven't yet burned up in the earth's atmosphere"? If not, then your answer's golden, solely on technicalities.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[jeffmeden]

Given the consequences of an accident, the safety record of nuclear power is appalling.

If you have any concept of critical thinking, this sentence is appalling. What does the safety record (which is still 0 fatalities, 0 health side effects, 0 long term ecological disruptions) have to do with the potential outcome of an accident? The same can't be said for any other form of large scale energy production in the US, let alone almost every other human pursuit. Coal kills, and that is appalling.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

God Edison, why don't you just switch us to DC and stop killing those Elephants?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[aaarrrgggh]

Given the consequences of an accident, the safety record of nuclear power is appalling.

Well, we actually have enough time to have real statistics and not fear-mongering. There have been ~4,000 deaths due to nuclear power accidents, with all but 60 being long-term cancers. Maybe Fukishima will prove to cause an additional 2,000 deaths in 20 years, so lets call it 6k.

In the US in the past 100 years there have been over 100k coal mining deaths. China alone had 6k coal mining deaths in 2004! Wind power (based on available records) has actually had more deaths in the past 20 years (80) than direct deaths related to nuclear power. On a per-GWh basis, wind power would be considerably worse than nuclear, for the exact fact that the long-term safety record is well understood.

Nothing is "safe." You prepare for contingencies and understand acceptable losses. The problem right now is that we aren't building newer reactors from the lessons of the old designs and phasing out aging plants.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[alexander_686]

But then it’s subject to orbital decay. And if I learned one thing from ST:TOS, without power things in orbit deorbit fast.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[dunkelfalke]

So how come you compare mining with power station accidents? Do you think uranium magically appears out of rainbow unicorn farts?

Hint: you have to mine for uranium ore (pitchblende). And since it is not a widespread as coal, you have to move through a lot of rock to collect enough.

Uranium mining is not a particularly healthy occupation, that's why, for example, the USSR used prisoner labour for that - prisoners were considered expendable.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear power kills 0.04 per TWh. Hydro is next safest at 0.10. Coal is the most deadly at 161 (world average) killed annually per TWh.

Interestingly, solar has a 0.44 fatality per TWh rate. Falls during installs, mainly. Solar is also 0.1% of the world's electricity supply, nuclear is 5.9%. Statically, solar panels are 11 times as likely to kill you than a nuclear reactor. In reality, obviously, only roofers and electricians tend to die.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Sentrion]

Where did you get your information? Many SMRs are designed to lessen the danger of materials being stolen or misplaced. Nuclear reactor fuel is low-enriched uranium, or has a concentration of less than 20% 235U. This low quantity, non-weapons-grade uranium makes the fuel less desirable for weapons production. Once the fuel has been irradiated, the fission products mixed with the fissile materials are highly radioactive and require special handling to remove safely, another non-proliferation feature.
Reactors designed to run on alternative thorium fuel cycle offer increased proliferation resistance compared to conventional uranium cycle. The modular construction of SMRs is another useful feature. Because the reactor core is often constructed completely inside a central manufacturing facility, fewer people have access to the fuel before and after irradiation.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[cheesybagel]

Nah. The problem with Fukushima was that the pumps got flooded and stopped working. The solution is to simply use a passive cooling system that doesn't need pumps in an emergency like the system on the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[cheesybagel]

Oh and if you want the reactor to be resistant to earthquakes you simply bury it underground. There are GE nuclear reactors like that.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[dunkelfalke]

No way Westerners would cut corners on something like a nuclear reactor. Especially not in a modern third generation one.

Serious problems first arose over the vast concrete base slab for the foundation of the reactor building, which the country's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority found too porous and prone to corrosion. Since then, the authority has blamed Areva for allowing inexperienced subcontractors to drill holes in the wrong places on a vast steel container that seals the reactor.

In December, the authority warned Anne Lauvergeon, the chief executive of Areva, that "the attitude or lack of professional knowledge of some persons" at Areva was holding up work on safety systems.

firstly, in autumn 2010, detection of a large number of defects in the adapters' welds located on the vessel closure head;
secondly, in June 2011, during repair operations to correct the previous defects, detection of insufficient thickness in the buttering metal layer located under these welds.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[PNutts]

Given the consequences of an accident, the safety record of nuclear power is appalling.

What does the safety record (which is still 0 fatalities, 0 health side effects, 0 long term ecological disruptions) have to do with the potential outcome of an accident? /p>

Really? You must live in Washington or Colorado because you're definitely smoking something.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Uberbah]

That sounds great if you don't pay attention to anything regarding nuclear power construction.

You're not paying attention if you think the criticism of nuclear power is based on plant construction, fanboi.

At least in Western models (I don't know much about Soviet designs), very rarely are corners cut.

You mean like turning off earthquake sensors or cutting back on emergency and evacuation drills?

We are currently building Generation III+ designs and working on Gen 4 designs, which all have significantly enhanced safety features.

And the new roof you put on your house will use greatly improved construction methods and materials compared to a roof put up in the 70's. Doesn't mean your new roof doesn't share the same basic hazards as the old one: heat, cold, and precipitation.

Your new nuclear plants can be stuffed with fanboi pedantry to the rafters, but they will still face the same problems as reactors built in the 70's: meltdown, dealing with disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes, and the greatest flaw of all, the profit motive. 40 years from now, future greedy corporations will be demanding that they be allowed to run the "new, safe" designs of 2012 for another twenty years past their lifespan. They will still be cutting costs on "unnecessary" measures like earthquake monitors, backup power supplies, and preparing for disasters.

Also, what do you do in a country like Japan? Japan has no natural resources; they import all of their energy.

You mean what country can afford nuclear power, the most expensive energy source ever invented by humans?

You have billions in construction and refining costs. Billions in operation costs. Hundreds of billions in long term storage costs of nuclear waste - which will be with us for hundreds of years. Billions in insurance costs, most of which are born by the taxpayer as opposed to the for-profit corporation running the reactor. For a fraction of that cost you can put up solar panels on every public building in the country. Germany gets the same amount of solar energy as Alaska, but that hasn't stopped them from investing in solar power.

Seriously, do some research before even forming an opinion.

Seriously, get over yourself and your pedantry, fanboi. You can talk about the safety of nuclear power when every plant is run by the U.S. Navy, all profit is taken out of the equation, and plant managers and regulators are forced to live on plant grounds.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[fan777]

Would the back yard really be the best place? If disaster struck that might potentially result in more widespread contamination... even if a small percentage of reactors along the fault line or in a hurricane's path were to fail, this would still encompass a larger area compared to some power plant in a remote location.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Uberbah]

I know this was just snark but here goes: There is a significant variation in the US when it comes to disasters. Everyone likes to think that disasters are truly random, but then again everyone (in general) is terrible at assessing risk. You don't have to look very hard to find areas that receive significantly fewer damaging hurricanes, damaging tornadoes, damaging earthquakes, damaging floods/tsunamis, damaging wildfires, etc. Do you really think that everywhere in the US is as prone to calamity as, say, Southern California? Give me a break.

Wait, who needs a break? As if disasters only happen in Southern California. Fukishima was just fine, until it was hit by a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster. Well, how many once-in-a-thousand-years disasters are you going to have in one year in a country of moderate size? How many in 10 years? 50 years?

So you build your reactors in Minnesota, which has plenty of fresh water and no hurricanes. What if your reactor gets hit with a once-in-a-thousand-years tornado, flood, or earthquake? Or the plants in Minnesota don't get hit with it, maybe your plant in Oregon does. Or Vermont. Or Indiana.....

Re:Here's a better idea.

[CanHasDIY]

But then it’s subject to orbital decay. And if I learned one thing from ST:TOS, without power things in orbit deorbit fast.

A) I was just using that as an arbitrary delineation for space.

B) Good point; I mean, where the hell would an orbiting nuclear power plant get power from?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[cheesybagel]

You have to move a lot of rock... do you even know the energy density of uranium vs coal?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

does such a place exist?

Sure. Bury it deep, like a military command bunker. There are no underground storms, and it is bomb-proof as a bonus. As for earthquakes, a bad one could kill the reactor but it'll still be contained deep underground. Even if some extreme act of sabotage results in a complete meltdown or the almost impossible nuclear explosion, it'll be contained underground. Similiar to underground nuclear testing.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[SirGarlon]

So Chernobyl had zero deaths and zero health side effects and zero long-term ecological disruptions? I'd be interested in knowing your sources for that because they conflict with the news reports I was listening to when it happened.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[TheEffigy]

And where would you consider to be a "safe" area in the US that has no storms, no earthquakes, etc? And is also somewhat accessible and relatively close to a large population center?

It's not wirelessly transmitted, with appropriate infrastructure and interstate collaboration then it could be anywhere!

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Zalbik]

Fukishima was just fine, until it was hit by a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster. ...
tornado, flood, or earthquake? Or the plants in Minnesota don't get hit with it, maybe your plant in Oregon does. Or Vermont. Or Indiana.....

WTF? Fukishima was not "just fine", nor was it hit by a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster. It was a poorly maintained plant, with a history of safety issues. Heck, in 2007 and 2008, TEPCO and the AEC released reports citing concerns over how the plant would handle a tsunami, or an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or higher.

Fukishima was not a natural disaster. It was a man-made one due to mismanagement, self-interest, and greed.

Oh yeah, and if there are 7.0+ earthquakes or tsunami-type flooding in Minnesota or Indiana, we have much more serious concerns than a nuclear meltdown, as apparently the Apocalypse has occurred.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[lessthan]

Off the top of my head, Yucca Mountain?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[slinches]

How about in the desert to the west of Phoenix, AZ? It's about as safe an area as I can think of from natural disasters and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is located there.

The desert around Las Vegas would also be a good place geographically, but may not be cost competitive against Hoover Dam.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Zalbik]

And if I learned one thing from ST:TOS, without power things in orbit deorbit fast.

Yep....that's the real reason the Apollo astronauts went to the moon. Replace the batteries.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you build your reactors in Minnesota, which has plenty of fresh water and no hurricanes. What if your reactor gets hit with a once-in-a-thousand-years tornado, flood, or earthquake?

As someone who lives in Minnesota:

a) A thousand-year tornado is laughable, and makes you sound like you believe the bullshit weather movies on the Syfy channel. F5 is as high as they go, and they happen pretty routinely. Fortunately, they also usually happen out in the middle of nowhere. In any case, all of the existing nuclear plants in Minnesota had to have been built to withstand an F5 already.

b) Don't put your reactors in a flood plain. We have maps for those. They don't change that quickly.

c) Earthquake? You've got me there. The last earthquake in Minnesota hit in the neighborhood of 100 - 150 years ago and was a 6.something. Do you nutters in California even feel 6's anymore?

So mostly your post is fear-mongering.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Zalbik]

B) Good point; I mean, where the hell would an orbiting nuclear power plant get power from?

Who cares about that? Where is the moon getting it's power from?!?!

Re:Here's a better idea.

[DerekLyons]

And the new roof you put on your house will use greatly improved construction methods and materials compared to a roof put up in the 70's. Doesn't mean your new roof doesn't share the same basic hazards as the old one: heat, cold, and precipitation.

No shit Sherlock. Of course the new roof faces the same hazards - that's why I put the new roof on in the first place. What an idiot you are -pretty much all of your "criticisms" amount to the same thing, ignorant hand waving, bible thumping, and name calling.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean what country can afford nuclear power, the most expensive energy source ever invented by humans?

You have billions in construction and refining costs. Billions in operation costs. Hundreds of billions in long term storage costs of nuclear waste - which will be with us for hundreds of years. Billions in insurance costs, most of which are born by the taxpayer as opposed to the for-profit corporation running the reactor. For a fraction of that cost you can put up solar panels on every public building in the country. Germany gets the same amount of solar energy as Alaska, but that hasn't stopped them from investing in solar power. ...

Seriously, get over yourself and your pedantry, fanboi. You can talk about the safety of nuclear power when every plant is run by the U.S. Navy, all profit is taken out of the equation, and plant managers and regulators are forced to live on plant grounds.

You just shot your own argument in the foot, dumbass. There are two reasons nuclear power costs an arm and a leg:

1) Excessive over-regulation by the NRC.
2) Lack of large-scale deployment to achieve economies of scale.

Granted, I'm not inclined to have a bunch of Type 1 reactors all over, but you can drop a Fujitsu thorium traveling-wave reactor into my backyard any day - and it shouldn't be subjected to the same regulations as the Type 1 reactors, since it's a completely different reaction chamber/model.

Also, I'd be totally ok with the US Navy running nuclear power plants in the US. They have proven that it doesn't cost a significant amount of cash to operate them, and they have an unparalleled safety record running Type 1 reactors. It should be a piece of cake for them to run modern designs cheaply and safely.

And if not nuclear, then what? Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power *combined* cannot ever account for more than about 1% of the total US electrical demand - it's fundamental physics. So should we burn coal for the last 99%, or start phasing in safer nuclear designs, instead?

Get some edumucation on modern nuclear designs, bozo, instead of spouting that Greenpeace FUD sheet to everyone that pretends to listen.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Uberbah]

WTF? WHOOSH much?

Fukishima was not "just fine"

It was "just as fine" as other for-profit nuclear power plants run around the world. You came sooooo close to cigar of the real problem with nuclear power: the profit motive. As long as there is a buck to be made, corners will be cut, especially when you put the industry in charge of it's own oversight....like what's happened in the U.S. and Japan.

nor was it hit by a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster.

It's been around a thousand years since an earthquake of that magnitude hit that area. Is our children learning?

It was a poorly maintained plant, with a history of safety issues.

Which is no different from plants in the U.S. that have cut earthquake sensors and drills to save that buck. The difference between those plants and Fukishima? The American plants weren't hit with a once-in-a-thousand-years disaster.

Oh yeah, and if there are 7.0+ earthquakes or tsunami-type flooding in Minnesota or Indiana, we have much more serious concerns than a nuclear meltdown, as apparently the Apocalypse has occurred.

There was a 5.0 earthquake in Minnesota in 1975. There were four earthquakes above 7.0 across Arkansas and Missouri in 1812. That's within the last 200 years...what about a once-in-a-thousand-years earthquake or storm?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[eth1]

And where would you consider to be a "safe" area in the US that has no storms, no earthquakes, etc? And is also somewhat accessible and relatively close to a large population center?

I would think earthquakes are the only one of those disasters that are really hard to deal with. Floods? Pretty much anywhere has a few local high spots that won't flood. If not - make one. Storms? You can always follow the "add more concrete" school of engineering, I guess, but I'm guessing nuclear plants normal construction probably makes them all but immune to wind already.

So really, find a geologically stable area, and you can deal with the other problems.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[jeffmeden]

So Chernobyl had zero deaths and zero health side effects and zero long-term ecological disruptions? I'd be interested in knowing your sources for that because they conflict with the news reports I was listening to when it happened.

This discussion is specific to the US, which despite having many more nuclear plants than the former USSR, never had an incident remotely similar to Chernobyl. So no when we are talking about US plants and US responses, you don't get to include that.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Uberbah]

No shit Sherlock. Of course the new roof faces the same hazards - that's why I put the new roof on in the first place.

Then why is your head buried so deep in your ass, Watson? Too busy engaging in four-letter projection to notice that the point was to debunk the "ohhh but new reactors are soo much safer!" canard - which you just agreed with?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[jeffmeden]

Thank you for providing the textbook demonstration of the human nature of completely fucking up risk assessment. I couldn't have said it better myself. You pointed out all the things that are wrong with demand driven disaster planning, right down to the complete misunderstanding of what terms like "once-in-a-thousand-years" means. Kudos!

Re:Here's a better idea.

[AmiMoJo]

Doesn't need to be close. HVDC gives you a 3% loss over 1000km. Problem solved.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[jeffmeden]

To be specific about how wrong you are about almost everything: yes disasters can happen anywhere, at any time. But NO, there is NOT the same chance of a major earthquake happening in Minnesota, as there is of one happening in southern California. And to that end, the list of disasters is not infinitely long, as you suggest, which is the only way that the net disaster rate for any given spot on the surface of the earth could be the same. Some places are far far far safer to live than others. Deal with it.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Uberbah]

You just shot your own argument in the foot, dumbass.

You just reinforced, it fuckwit.

Excessive over-regulation by the NRC.

You mean the NRC run by once-and-future nuclear energy execs? The NRC that just forced out it's chair because he wanted tighter (but less profitable) safety standards after Fukishima? Way to reduce your credbility to zero right out of the gate, Slick, and that's before you call the already-weak sauce oversight "over-regulation".

And if not nuclear, then what? Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power *combined* cannot ever account for more than about 1% of the total US electrical demand - it's fundamental physics.

Fundamental fuckwittery. Germany gets 3% of it's power from solar alone, despite getting the same amount of sun as Alaska. You can throw up gigawatts of renewable power for the cost of ore refinement and plant construction alone, much less the cost of insurance + waste disposal, much less the recuperated 50 year old costs of nuclear power.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[CanHasDIY]

B) Good point; I mean, where the hell would an orbiting nuclear power plant get power from?

Who cares about that? Where is the moon getting it's power from?!?!

Secret Nazi bases, duh.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Same place as the population centers. After all, nobody would be crazy enough to build in locations subject to major storms or earthquakes, would they?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[AmiMoJo]

Actually Japan has more renewable energy available than they need, they just have to capture it. A combination of offshore wind and geothermal, with solar PV on buildings, would be more than enough to meet their needs now and power EVs so they can reduce dependency on oil.

The problem is that it all takes time to set up. People are now saying that actually it is less time than was first though, especially since Japan got through the peak summer demand periods without any issues and only a few working reactors. It's the usual problem of being in a recession and faced with the choice of carry on with coal and oil for short term savings or spend those billions for long term gains.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Uberbah]

Thank you for providing the textbook demonstration of the human nature of completely fucking up risk assessment. I couldn't have said it better myself. You pointed out all the things that are wrong with demand driven disaster planning, right down to the complete misunderstanding of what terms like "once-in-a-thousand-years" means. Kudos!

Thanks for the projection. The last time Fukishima was hit with an earthquake of that magnitude was around a thousand years ago. The chances of "rare" disaster like happening to any given nuclear power plant increases with the number of plants and the area across which they are located. Arkansas and Missouri were hit by four earthquakes above a 7.0 magnitude just 200 years ago, for example.

So, when you have hundreds or thousands of plants spread across the planet, the chances of a once-in-a-thousand years disaster happening to one of them across their 30, 40, 50 year lifespans starts to get a lot higher. We're talking remedial level statistics here. And each time it happens, the nuke fanbois will run around crying that there is no problem with for-profit nuclear power, that the problems that caused the disaster at that plant were an isolated freak occurrence that wont happen again, no matter that there might be dozens of other plants that share the same problem - just like Fukishima?

So, do use a Death Star for your projection? Do you keep your head up your ass, jeff, for the warmth, or because it's a comfortable position for you, or what?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[AmiMoJo]

You have billions in construction and refining costs. Billions in operation costs. Hundreds of billions in long term storage costs of nuclear waste - which will be with us for hundreds of years. Billions in insurance costs, most of which are born by the taxpayer as opposed to the for-profit corporation running the reactor.

Don't forget decommissioning. We are currently looking at £70,000,000,000, with the caveat that it might go higher.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Spugglefink]

B) Good point; I mean, where the hell would an orbiting nuclear power plant get power from?

From puppies running around on little wheels. Obviously.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have billions in construction and refining costs. Billions in operation costs. Hundreds of billions in long term storage costs of nuclear waste - which will be with us for hundreds of years. Billions in insurance costs, most of which are born by the taxpayer as opposed to the for-profit corporation running the reactor. For a fraction of that cost you can put up solar panels on every public building in the country. Germany gets the same amount of solar energy as Alaska, but that hasn't stopped them from investing in solar power.

Until you provide all those figures as ratios of cost per unit energy generated, you're just talking out of your ass... which seems appropriate, because judging from your history, you are a complete ass-hole.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Uberbah]

But NO, there is NOT the same chance of a major earthquake happening in Minnesota, as there is of one happening in southern California.

Just how stupid are you, really? The point - the obvious one that you somehow managed to miss - is that even "safe" areas like Minnesota can still have the occasional earthquake or F5 tornado, and your plant had better be able to handle it.

"But but but those kind of disasters are soooo rare that you're a fool to worry about it" fanboys like yourself bleat - like you did five minutes ago in an awesome display of dumbfuckery.

Well, sure, the chances of such a disaster striking any one plant are pretty low. But when you have ~100 nuclear power plants like the U.S. has, the chances of such a disaster striking rise dramatically when the plants run for 40+ years. And what if we double the number of plants to phase out coal power?

It's not rocket science here, which is a good thing for you. Before you go Beliebing in how safe and awesome nuclear power is, plants need to be built to handle the sort of disasters that only come along once ever thousand years, and the profit motive removed entirely, at minimum. Plant managers and nuclear power regulators could be required to live on plant grounds, just for good measure.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[leucadiadude]

Not according to Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Someday I guess I should register for Slashdot for how much I come on here and I will stop posting AC. Excuse my lack of hyperlinks, while I'm youngish (30's) and computer literate, I'm not very web-savvy.

"..the most expensive energy source ever invented by humans?"

Your reference to Germany is naive. Germany's main source of energy is coal at 34% in 2008 (fastest available data). They have just released permits to build another 26 new coal plants. Their next primary source of energy is nuclear, at around 24%. As they phase out of nuclear, they will move more towards natural gas that they procure mainly form Russia; natural gas is around +/-20% and likely to increase as it's cheap. Renewables is around 1.5%; that's all renewables including solar and wind. So they're probably a bad example for your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates

The US Department of Energy would disagree with your assessment. Nuclear is actually slightly more expensive than coal and technically more expensive than wind in terms of system cost. Note the DOE estimates include the whole project, in particular transmission costs which if you look on the chart you will see that Wind and Solar are orders of magnitude higher than nuclear or coal or NG. The reason for this is simple: you can generate solar and wind power anywhere; they typically have to be in regions that support it. Generally those regions do not contain your market for power, so for example in Southern California where you tend to generate solar out in the desert, no one lives there so you have to run long transmission lines to get it to where it needs to go. Whereas nuclear plants such as San Onofre are built right on the coast, where you're market is. 73% of the US population lives on the coast, so you need it near the coast.

The other issue is the capacity factor. That more or less amounts to how much energy you get out of the plant, which counts both uptime and downtime, so for nuclear it's say downtime when you're doing maintenance, whereas for wind it's say when the wind isn't blowing or the efficiency rate of the PV panels. NUclear is 90%, wind and solar are 34% and 25% respectively. So there's an issue in terms of supply: if your wind farm is only generating electricy 35% of the time, what do you do the rest of the time? where you do you get the rest? You can't store excess electricity; there is no reliable electricity storage technology. Nuclear on the other hand runs all the time except for scheduled maintenance periods, which you can plan for and rely on. Wind you can't rely on; you only know within a certain forecast how much you might get. Also bear in mind that an aspect of these models is that renewables are heavily federally subsidized, although technically so is oil in a somewhat indirect way.

There's also new reserch coming out about wind power showing it in an unfavorable light. Most wind farms assume a certain level of maintenance into the operating costs, so like replacing certain parts every 5 years for example. A key component is the gear box, which directs the kinetic energy of the blades to a turbine to generate electricity. Those gearboxes are replacing them at twice the expected rate because of the tremendous wear on them; every time a blade lines up with the tower, it loses the wind it was holding on to and snaps back into place, sending that long snap all the way back up the system. This results in 3 hard snaps through the system every rotation. If you research wind turbine issues, or have been to a wind energy trade show like the AWEA Wind Energy Expo in Dallas (I have), you'll see that this is the number one technological issue to resolve for the next generation of wind turbines (many are looking at direct drive turbines and forgoing the gearbox entirely).

In regards to operators cutting corners, I do agree that that is a problem. But that's operators; I don't know much about how they work. I spent years working fo

Re:Here's a better idea.

[leucadiadude]

This study includes that, nuclear is still lower.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Re:Here's a better idea.

[afidel]

Huh? According to that wikipedia entry Palo Verde is the nuclear site with the 18th highest risk of earthquake damage, hardly what I'd call risk free.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[aaarrrgggh]

In a 10 minute search there were no records of coal power plant deaths, nor were there records of uranium mining deaths. The miners of both coal and uranium have a high rate of lung cancer, but normalizing back to deaths per GWh electrical energy will still heavily favor nuclear. The point remains, there is no perfect source of power, and we are stuck choosing between some bad sources. In the balance, nuclear is clearly no worse than coal. An honest case can even be made for nuclear being only slightly more dangerous than wind power (on a GWh base).

So, are we left with burning wood for heat and light? But what will that do for air quality?!

Back to the OP, from a statistical risk perspective, fast dispatch resources can provide better safety and contingency response at a lower cost than each facility having the resources on-site where they may be damaged in the "event" that needs to be addressed, given the low frequency of events and the high level of resources to address a statistically unlikely event.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure the ad hominem attacks really got your point across, dumb shit.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[lgw]

Safety-wise, Chernobly is as about as related to a US Nuclear plant as to an atomic bomb test. It's not in any way relevent to a disucssion about power in the US.

Fukushima wasn't far form many US designs, and TFA was about addressing the safety issues "discovered" (perhaps "uncovered") by that disaster - which was still tiny compared to the damage wrought by the tsunami that caused it.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Outskirts of Phoenix, Arizona...

I say we expand the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station to be 10x its current capability. Also phase out the 3 existing generators when we can to update them to more modern designs.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[MarkRose]

Don't burn natural gas either. Have you never seen the yellow haze of nitrous oxides emitted by natural gas plants?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Beardo the Bearded]

It would be in a small bunker built to withstand all manner of hilarity. Smaller = tougher.

Buldings in my home town will be standing after a 9.0 earthquake and/or a 100+ mph storm.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[TheInternetGuy]

B) Good point; I mean, where the hell would an orbiting nuclear power plant get power from?

Who cares about that? Where is the moon getting it's power from?!?!

It is common knowledge that the moon is stealing it's power from the sun. We shouldn't let the moon get away with this anymore, I suggest a land war....err, on the moon that is.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[TheInternetGuy]

B) Good point; I mean, where the hell would an orbiting nuclear power plant get power from?

From puppies running around on little wheels. Obviously.

In a weightless environment, would those puppies be running on the outside or inside of the wheel?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[slinches]

Based on the references, it's a 1/26316 chance per year of a damaging earthquake. Seems fairly safe to me, especially when you consider that there's virtually no risk from tornados, hurricanes, flooding or volcanos.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[PNutts]

This discussion is specific to the US...

OK. Here you go. Not to be rude, but I have a hunch you have a narrow definition that you haven't disclosed. Anyway, you can look at the fatalities and ecological disruptions, e.g. tritium and strontium in local water supplies, and see if they fit into your position.

OT: The links don't include ongoing problems uranium mining like the Atlas Mine Project in Moab, UT which are eliminated if we don't consider coal mining.

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States
List of nuclear power accidents by country

Re:Here's a better idea.

[The Master Control P]

MTBF of N independent identical units in parallel scales as 1/N. Why do you think that in order to perform huge tasks engineers design a small number of giant things?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Meeni]

So over the lifetime of the station, that's 1/1000 of blowing up*. That's about 10 times more likely than you dying in a car accident of some sort in the US over the same time period. Seems pretty unsafe to me.

Anyway, you can't put a nuclear station anywhere, it needs massive amount of water for cooling, so it requires a major river or an ocean nearby.

What mesmerizes me, is that its only now that they are discussing this addition. That's an obvious need, when the station is flooded (as what almost happened to Cooper Nuclear Station last year), most on-site equipment get damaged, so there is a need to bring in undamaged equipment... And moving through flooded (or hurricane damaged) area by road is notoriously difficult. When we talk hours before a low level incident turns into a major catastrophe, such a lack of insight is criminal.

*(yeah I know, damaging earthquake will not always blow up the station, but it may provoke a release or other health hazard of some sort)

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Meeni]

"Germany gets the same amount of solar energy as Alaska, but that hasn't stopped them from investing in solar power."
Germany is 350,000 km^2m Alaska is 1.7 Mkm^2. That's pretty irrelevant statistic right there. Not that I agree with the rosy picture above, but you just make a fool of yourself and of your opinion by being so grossly partisan.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[dunkelfalke]

Energy density of uranium versus coal is absolutely irrelevant since uranium, as used in powerplants, does not exist in nature. In order to create uranium pellets usable for electric generation, pitchblende - a rare mineral - has to be mined, from which the yellowcake is extracted, at a ratio of two tons of ore to one kilogram of yellowcake. Uranium oxides are then extracted with the help of acid from yellowcake. There is further processing involved before fuel pellets can be made.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Energy density of uranium versus coal is absolutely irrelevant since uranium, as used in powerplants, does not exist in nature. In order to create uranium pellets usable for electric generation, pitchblende - a rare mineral - has to be mined, from which the yellowcake is extracted, at a ratio of two tons of ore to one kilogram of yellowcake. Uranium oxides are then extracted with the help of acid from yellowcake. There is further processing involved before fuel pellets can be made.

Additionally there are no reactors that can actually utilise the energy density of the fuel so much of it ends up as spent fuel.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure the ad hominem attacks really got your point across, dumb shit.

That's what it takes to get through the, mostly skull, of fanbois

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

But NO, there is NOT the same chance of a major earthquake happening in Minnesota, as there is of one happening in southern California.

Just how stupid are you, really? The point - the obvious one that you somehow managed to miss - is that even "safe" areas like Minnesota can still have the occasional earthquake or F5 tornado, and your plant had better be able to handle it.

They shit me to. Check out San Onofre, or SONGS - it's more relevant to your point - and happy nuke fanboi brain raping.

from the guy that moded you up

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about in the desert to the west of Phoenix, AZ? It's about as safe an area as I can think of from natural disasters and Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

Oh if you knew the truth - how foolish you would feel. You see it's not immune from mis-management - the same thing that fukupedshima

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am loving your work - more upmod from me!

Re:Here's a better idea.

[leucadiadude]

Well thought out cogent arguments. I know this because the anti-nuke 1%'rs elbowiung themselves aside to run away from this post.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[afidel]

Funny enough if you had read the article in question you would know that there is no river for Palo Verde, they use the treated wastewater stream from several nearby cities, and furthermore the plan for the next two generators at the site would have used almost no water but rather dry cooling towers.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[ewok85]

Tokyoite here - needs to be at least a 7 before it wakes me up. Wife didn't even bother getting out of bed for 9.1, but she is a local.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[cmdr_klarg]

Don't build them in areas subject to storms, earthquakes, etc.

The rest of your post is spot-on, but I see you subscribe to the BANANA mindset.

BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

Re:Here's a better idea.

[cheesybagel]

First you don't have to move a lot of rock if you use in-situ leeching mining methods. According to Wikipedia high-grade uranium ores such as those in Saskatchewan, Canada have up to 28% uranium oxides So there it's clearly not a rate of two tons of ore to one kilogram of yellowcake. You are off by at least two orders of magnitude. Are you counting just the U-235 or what? Do you even know a CANDU reactor doesn't need enrichment to use nuclear fuel at all?

Re:Here's a better idea.

[Uberbah]

A thousand-year tornado is laughable, and makes you sound like you believe the bullshit weather movies on the Syfy channel.

That's just the sort of belligerent hubris that I'm talking about. You're still prattling on about how it's stupid to plan for the worst disaster to hit a plant's area within the last thousand years right after a once-in-a-thousand years earthquake fucked up Fukishima?

As someone who lives in Minnesota

As someone who lives in Minnesota, you'll be well familiar with the 48 tornadoes to swing through Minnesota in one day in 2010, and the flooding in Duluth that washed away homes and roads.

And that's the last two years. What's the worst natural disaster Minnesota's had in the last thousand years?

F5 is as high as they go, and they happen pretty routinely.

50 over a period of 60 years, two in Minnesota. That's not "routinely" for you.

Earthquake? You've got me there. The last earthquake in Minnesota hit in the neighborhood of 100 - 150 years ago and was a 6.something.

You mean 5.0 in 1975? Of course that's not an earthquake to worry about, but of course that means you need to plan for eathquakes even in Minnesota.

So, most of your post is fanboi denialism. Before you double down, the point isn't that Dayton should shut down all the nuclear plants in Minnesota because the next storm system will result in a meltdown. It's that nuclear plants need to be massively over-engineered before you can talk about how safe they are with an honest face. And no, going by the penny pinching corporate bean-counters definition of over-engineered is not going to cut it. Plan for the worst disaster your area might face, and for fucks sakes get the profit motive out of the equation.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[RockDoctor]

B) Good point; I mean, where the hell would an orbiting nuclear power plant get power from?

From puppies running around on little wheels. Obviously.

In a weightless environment, would those puppies be running on the outside or inside of the wheel?

Yes.

Simultaneously.

The wheel is a MÃbius band.

Re:Here's a better idea.

[RockDoctor]

Bloody Slashcode and it's inability to handle normal characters. Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to restrict the character set to just ASCII?

Thunderbirds are Go!

[at10u8]

This scenario evokes International Rescue. Obviously that says I'm old.

Re:Thunderbirds are Go!

[ColdWetDog]

I'm thinking more along the line of the big square trucks in "Men In Black". Guess I'm not that old.

Re:Thunderbirds are Go!

[OhSoLaMeow]

"Ladies and gentlemen if you'd direct your attention to this device I'm holding right here..." [FLASH!!]

"People, we've warned you about trying to dry your cat in the microwave oven and now you see what happens when you ignore these warnings."

Re:Thunderbirds are Go!

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Or SHADO. Deploy Skydiver!

Get-off-lawn disclaimer: I'm a bit too young to have caught that when it originally aired.

Re:Thunderbirds are Go!

[myowntrueself]

Or SHADO. Deploy Skydiver!

Get-off-lawn disclaimer: I'm a bit too young to have caught that when it originally aired.

The best part of that skydiver scene was the "Boosters ready!! *shake*" girl. Wearing a mesh shirt and nothing underneath.

Re:Thunderbirds are Go!

[myowntrueself]

This scenario evokes International Rescue. Obviously that says I'm old.

They will have to build something to carry this stuff. I imagine it'll be big and green and kind of look like a frog. It'll have a modular container system so it can carry different payloads for different disasters including one with a submarine.

Re:Thunderbirds are Go!

[leucadiadude]

Helicopters are easier.

Good for a few years

[icebike]

This plan sounds good, and might actually be well planned. But only for a few years.

Then, plants will start using the existence of the backup capabilities as excuses not to build their own. And it will all be perfectly legal, as subtle rule changes are introduced with little public knowledge. You can already see the seeds of this in TFA:

The NRC staff said the industry initiative, called FLEX, may satisfy the proposed order to mitigate certain safety challenges.

The fox runs the nuclear hen house in the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been captured by industry.

Still, any plan is better than no plan. The length of time power was out and systems were down due to Hurricane Sandy should indicate just how long such emergency systems have to be prepared to operate. Multiple weeks of fuel must be kept on hand. Alternate water supplies must be identified.

Re:Good for a few years

[Anonymous Coward]

Sandy and similar storms hit the transmission and distribution networks hardest. In most cases the power plant is ready to re-energize the wires LONG before the rest of the system is prepared to handle it (hell, in most cases the plant doesn't even go down). You won't reduce the length of most storm outages by protecting the power plants. Only the rare case of a catastrophic failure at the plant will benefit from this (not to say it's a bad idea, just that it most likely won't affect storm outages as you imply).

Re:Good for a few years

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Exactly! ANY safety plan will always be degraded over time by cost-conscious managers who become confident that nothing bad will happen, until the level of preparedness drops below the threshold where a giant disaster happens, at which point it will all start again.

Re:Good for a few years

[Uberbah]

Exactly! ANY safety plan will always be degraded over time by cost-conscious managers who become confident that nothing bad will happen, until the level of preparedness drops below the threshold where a giant disaster happens, at which point it will all start again.

That's the central flaw in nuclear power always overlooked by the nuke fanboys: the profit motive. Corners will be cut, lies will be told, "unnecessary" safety precautions like earthquake monitors and evacuation drills will be eliminated to make an extra buck or two.

Re:Good for a few years

[Anonymous Coward]

You're exactly right! I mean just look at all of the hundreds of nuclear disasters we've had! Nuclear power is destined to fail due to cost-cutting and corner-cutting by mid-level managers, and we should instead embrace idiotic "green energy" schemes that are nowhere near mature enough to satisfy the energy demands!

Please list for us the specific nuclear accidents that killed people, or resulted in widespread release of radioactive contaminants, that were caused by cost-cutting over the past... 20 years. Hell, just name 5.

Re:Good for a few years

[Uberbah]

Why hello, fanboi! You're right, nuclear power cannot fail, it can only be failed! Each meltdown, whether it's Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or Fukishima, is a No One Could Have Predicted disaster that in no way means we should re-examine the safety of nuclear energy!

Your bleating is ignoring the fact that nuclear power is by far the most expensive power source ever invented by man. Refining the ore, plant construction, plant maintenance, and of course waste disposal. We're literally talking about hundreds of billions here, money that could be spent on constructing renewable power that doesn't have a risk of meltdown and high-capacity long-distance power conduits to get around fanboi concerns over "baseload power". And that's before we ever get to the cleanup costs of Fukishima or Chernobyl.

Re:Good for a few years

[lgw]

You've ruined pretty much all discussion on this story with your incessant ranting and arguments based only on emotion. Please move on to Digg or Fark or Reddit or some other such place where they like that sort of thing - we need less of it on Slashdot.

Re:Good for a few years

[mic0e]

The thing is, when a nuclear plant is shut down regularily because the transmission lines are down, or when it is shut down because of a malfunction, it won't simply stay off. You need an external energy source to run the cooling pumps, or everything will blow up. And that external energy source is not the grid because the grid is down. That's exactly what happened at Fukushima.

Re:Good for a few years

[leucadiadude]

My god, you have no clue what you are talking about. The information is freely available to educate yourself. Please Please PLEASE go do some reading on how a nuclear plant works, why it generates heat after shutdown, and the causes of the Fukushima disaster before posting.

Re:Good for a few years

[Anonymous Coward]

You've ruined pretty much all discussion on this story with your incessant ranting and arguments based only on emotion. Please move on to Digg or Fark or Reddit or some other such place where they like that sort of thing - we need less of it on Slashdot.

Why?

For years the nuclear fanbois he is talking about have pervaded /. with their "holier than thou - we cite the science and engineering but don't actually understand it" attitude. When you actually seek to understand the science and engineering behind nuclear power you discover the fanbois have been subject to a phenomena called "social proof" and wrong all along.

The only thing that works with these fanbois is understanding the facts and pure, unadulterated vitriol in the delivery. The nuclear fanboi attitude has always been offensive, as if just because you suspect that there is something wrong with nuclear power but you haven't been able to comprehend all of the deep complexity behind the industry then you are somehow an idiot. i.e. The fanbois made it this way.

What we've discovered, after all these years, is it's the fanbois that are the idiots, never citing facts or reason, just social proof. At least Uberbah is providing information to the fanbois, with a serving of well deserved vitriol. I have tried, very hard, to not be vitriolic in these sorts of discussions and counter everything with fact but I received abuse and ad hominem attacks. Now-a-days I am too busy too bother.

But I'll do it when someone annoys me enough.

Re:Good for a few years

[bill_mcgonigle]

You're railing against 1950's light water reactor designs. Modern nuclear power is much less expensive and much more safe. Talk to the DoE who prevents the plants from being built (and the politicians who see to that to advance their agendas).

Re:Good for a few years

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that you can't list any examples of nuclear accidents that killed people or released widespread contamination, that were caused by cost cutting?

Light water reactors are old technology. Far safer and far better technology exists in the Generation III(+/++) designs, and most of the accidents you mentioned (not due to "management cost cutting," incidentally) would have been impossible or greatly reduced in scope & impact in a reactor of a newer design.

Your bleating is ignoring the fact that nuclear power continues to get cheaper, and is our only legitimate source of renewable energy. For all your bleating about the expense of nuclear, all your "renewable" power sources are far more expensive than nuclear, per MWh, and we simply don't have the efficiency or the capacity to move away from coal and natural gas to renewable / non-nuclear options.

So the choices are:
1) coal & natural gas - eventually run out of fuel, cheapest cost currently, but at great cost to the environment;
2) renewables (solar/wind) - most expensive currently, requires massive infrastructure build out using inefficient technologies that will be unable to satisfy the energy demands of industry & emerging economies;
3) nuclear - some risk of environmental contamination (concerns that are largely mitigated by new Gen 3(+/++) designs we could start building today), slightly more expensive than coal or natural gas, and able to satisfy our energy needs easily;

Given those three choices, nuclear looks pretty good, despite all your whinging and hand wringing.

Re:Good for a few years

[lgw]

Yeah, you're a crackpot. "The scientists and engineers are all wrong, I have the secret truth!" Sure, I bet. Now tell me how Einstein agreed with you in his unpublished papers.

Good idea..in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok so in cali we have a couple plants. Lets say "the big one" hit and takes cali down. The plant fails and needs this crew for help...oh wait no airports are open because they are all too damaged....what now?

Re:Good idea..in theory

[X0563511]

CH-47s don't need runways.

Re:Good idea..in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Truck the supplies in as close as you can get. Have a fleet of heavy lift helicopters in place to airlift them the rest of the way to where they're needed, along with any other personnel and crews to assist.

Simultaneously, military / national guard engineering units go in to begin clearing and preparing a runway for additional supplies to be airlifted in by C-130, C-5, or C-17.

Pretty much the same way it would operate anywhere else when you need to airlift in emergency relief supplies on short notice into an area where there are no serviceable airstrips.

Re:Good idea..in theory

[couchslug]

"oh wait no airports are open because they are all too damaged....what now?"

That's easy. Lift a crew in on military CH-47 and CH-53 helicopters, including Skycrane variants which can haul small tracked vehicles and other heavy gear. They can prep runways (you don't need an "airport" in a combat situation, just the runway) by clearing them enough for airlifters to bring the heavy equipment.

It's rather like deploying to a "bare base", which the US military have been training for longer than most Americans have been alive.

Re:Good idea..in theory

[bill_mcgonigle]

That's easy. Lift a crew in on military CH-47 and CH-53 helicopters, including Skycrane variants

Are those *in* the contingency plan? Do they have the copters on contract so that they're guaranteed to be available when needed? Are they *hoping* the military has some nearby that will be available for their use?

It all seems like corner-cutting and cost-shifting to me.

So...

[benjfowler]

... "rescue wagon" is jus a PC way of saying "gigantic nuclear crash cart", I take it?

They have a way with words.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

... "rescue wagon" is jus a PC way of saying "gigantic nuclear crash cart", I take it?

They have a way with words.

Which "they", the Slashdot editors? Yeah they have a way of fucking words up. It seems even a 3rd-grade reading level is more than they can handle.

not a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

not a bad idea overall. Probably be cheaper and more efficient than mandating each site has backups for the backups for the backups for the....
It could be a huge example of fraud and abuse though. store/buy old worn out shit repainted to appear new at new prices.

Hell the National Guard does this already just in case they need a few M16s in front of the local walmart. Be a good idea to combine these stores with air national guard sites for quick deployment.

Don't Forget the Submerged Pumps.

[Anonymous Coward]

above water.

gas - check
generators - check
inverters and distribution load controlers - check
pump to actually move cold water . . .
pipe to connection with pump to move cold water . . .

Sounds like a great plan, carbon tax covering these leaks, deaths, and ruined countries ones?

bad words follow

STILL no long-term disposal site

[Anonymous Coward]

Yucca scrapped, no new contenders to my knowledge for centralized waste storage...

This is a huge problem in spent pools nationwide.

Re:STILL no long-term disposal site

[CanHasDIY]

Yucca scrapped, no new contenders to my knowledge for centralized waste storage...

This is a huge problem in spent pools nationwide.

Speaking of which... what's keeping us from launching that crap into the sun?

And don't tell me it's cost - money isn't everything, especially when talking about compounds that have the potential to literally foul the planet for centuries.

Re:STILL no long-term disposal site

[iggymanz]

How about risk, as your rocket may fail to achieve orbit.

Of course, cost is also realistic consideration, talk of "launching something into the sun" is made by people who don't understand orbital mechanics. The large delta-V for even reaching mercury is fearsome for a half ton object like the MESSENGER probe. we don't have the rockets to send 80,000 tons of nuclear fuel to the sun, nor the trillions of dollars to build such a fleet.

But the truth is our "spent fuel" is actually usable fuel, a gold mine of energy that can release seven or more times that which we've extracted so far, and at the end would leave only isotopes with very short decay time. we should not dispose of it but burn it in modern reactor designs.

Re:STILL no long-term disposal site

[CanHasDIY]

How about risk, as your rocket may fail to achieve orbit.

THAT is the legitimate problem I was looking for.

talk of "launching something into the sun" is made by people who don't understand orbital mechanics.

Which is probably a majority of the human population. No sense getting a big head about it if you do.

Most people don't understand how automatic transmissions work, either, but you don't see me rubbing it in.

But the truth is our "spent fuel" is actually usable fuel, a gold mine of energy that can release seven or more times that which we've extracted so far, and at the end would leave only isotopes with very short decay time. we should not dispose of it but burn it in modern reactor designs.

Fair enough; so long as there's some solution other than the current "let's bury it somewhere and hope for the best" strategy.

Re:STILL no long-term disposal site

[lgw]

And don't tell me it's cost - money isn't everything, especially when talking about compounds that have the potential to literally foul the planet for centuries.

That's mostly myth. There's very, very little in spent fuel, or any sort of transportable nuclear waste, that's all that dangerous long-term - and nothing should be transported or disturbed more than necessary for the first 5 years after use. (Despite this being very easy to get right, sure enough we've got it wrong before; go figure).

Most radioactive compounds aren't subtle: if they have a short half-life, you really don't want to be in line-of-sight for 10 half-lives, but after that they're just industrial waste. Not pleasant, but not bad on the scale of industrial waste and there's not much of it. There are some nasty compounds that are only mildly radioactive, but deadly if they enter the food chain, but then that's not specific to nuclear waste at all. The screw-up is to try to put hot waste in barrells or some other silliness while it's still hot, and will destroy the structural integrity of containers. Leave it on-site for 5 years or so, however, and it's not hot anymore.

We want to keep spend fuel around long-term because it's valuable, not because it's so dangerous.

Re:STILL no long-term disposal site

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some nasty compounds that are only mildly radioactive, but deadly if they enter the food chain, but then that's not specific to nuclear waste at all.

except that a radionuclide can re-enter the food chain multiple times and still be toxic and it will remain as a toxic analogue of the micro-nutrient for as long as it remains a emitter of radiation. For example a micro-gram of plutonium is a toxic dose for a human in the body, how long before it decays to its daughter product. You and I both know that is a long time.

We want to keep spent fuel contained long-term because it's valuable, and because it's dangerous.

See, no vitriol, and I'm certain that's what you meant in the first place.

Re:STILL no long-term disposal site

[nedlohs]

The majority of the human population that doesn't understand how automatic transmissions work also don't suggest using them as the solution to some problem they are completely unsuited for. And for those that do you should point out that they don't understand the workings and if you are being really nice a quick reason why it won't work.

You know exactly what was done when "launch it into the sun" was suggested as a solution.

Or do you prefer people just nod their heads and never mention when you display a lack of knowledge of some specialised area of knowledge?

Re:STILL no long-term disposal site

[CanHasDIY]

You could always try explaining it, instead of being an uppity dick.

Of course, to do so would require you to actually know about orbital mechanics yourself, a caveat I had not considered up until now...

IMO, people who use phrases like "Well, that's just because you're ignorant of/don't understand X," without going on to show their own understanding of the subject, are full of it. Otherwise, they'd prove their own knowledge, wouldn't they?

Re:STILL no long-term disposal site

[lgw]

For example a micro-gram of plutonium is a toxic dose for a human in the body, how long before it decays to its daughter product. You and I both know that is a long time.

There's plenty of nasty shit in industrial waste (sometimes literally so), but the plutonium you're likely to find in a reactor cleans itself up pretty quickly, with a half-life of 75 days. Rememberthat "leave it alone for 5 years" I was talking about? Math is your friend.

Yet another reason for solar.

[Anonymous Coward]

When the plant goes down, it's called a sunny day..........

And of course power and fuel will be available...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

...to run all this wonderful equipment. You can stabilize fuel, of course, but not forever. Eventually, you'll have to change it out, and dispose of the old stuff.

Quite frankly, old nuclear power plants that don't use passive safety systems and depend on grid electricity are an accident waiting to happen. A far better idea would be to design and build new plants

Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 spam

Added to the HOSTS file.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1.

This is like...

[Anonymous Coward]

having a 50 year old car, parts are falling off, hoses are springing leaks, but you patch it up with duck tape and spare parts... and for good measure you buy a AAA membership to get roadside assistance when it inevitably fails. Because we all know, those newfangled models are unproven and just downright dangerous!

Re:This is like...

[TheMeth0D]

It's not "roadside assistance" it's a "Rescue Wagon"!

Simple..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just build a concrete plant next door. In case of emergency, redirect concrete onto Nuclear reactor. Build huge hill, cover with grass, build houses. Tada!

Re:Simple..

[Sentrion]

Where did you get hold of this classified Soviet technology?

Tell that to Fukushima

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Yeah, overbuilt. Odd how just down the coast they built their sea wall 3 meters higher and stopped the tsunami cold in its tracks. Oops! The TRUTH is nuclear power plants are built to the lowest standard that the NRC will allow them to get away with, period. And that "allow" is tempered with the fact that they constantly beg for more and much of the NRC is made of of ex nuclear power people (understandably so, but still). Now, they don't perhaps do a TERRIBLE job, but they cut it as close as they possibly can. I mean really, look at this proposal they're talking about here, creating one or more caches of emergency equipment and crews that can be dispatched on short emergency notice to any nuclear power plant. Is this concept sort of STUPIDLY FUCKING OBVIOUS???!!!! Is it not like the first or second thing you think of? Isn't something you just always assumed already existed because it was so FUCKING OBVIOUS!! And now 50 years into nuclear power it is only now being contemplated and only because of a massive backlash against nuclear power because the impossible happened and FOUR REACTORS went China Syndrome. This is why I don't care for nuclear power. Truthfully, IN THEORY it can be quite safe, but human beings are not trustworthy enough to handle it.

Re:Tell that to Fukushima

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post isn’t based on reality, and it summarized by your last sentences:

Truthfully, IN THEORY it can be quite safe, but human beings are not trustworthy enough to handle it.

I don’t who said it first, but as a practicing engineering it is proven correct every day:

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

Doesn’t matter if it is due to human nature, weather, politics, limited resources, or anything else. If one attempts to make engineering decisions on theory alone, they are bound to fail. It doesn’t matter if nuclear power is safe in theory. It has to be made safe in practice, and that is very hard.

Memphis

[Richy_T]

New Madrid fault, anyone?

Cooperation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever noticed that the only time U.S. industry cooperates is when they can avoid expenses or governmental regulation?

CAFE standards were the 1st instance of auto industry leaders using a collective approach to anything. They were a great idea at first but failed in keeping reasonable pace with environmental concerns because industry didn't want the expense. By the time the Obama administration forced the EPA to update mileage and emissions requirements, it was only to equal the Chinese standards.

FINRA, the Financial Industry (non) Regulatory Agency was the brainchild of industry and was implemented to avoid the threat of outside (federal) oversight. (Needless to say, there a bit more lax than most people might like.)

FDA Fast Track was yet another infiltration by industry into federal regulation and oversight brought about by a concerted effort of industry lobbyist. It wasn't enough that that FDA doesn't even run its own labs or actually conduct the researched used to justify drug approval. The result is that industry can scuttle any negative research and provide only the positive evidence that supports their claims of benefit over risk of a potential candidate for use as a medicine.

The use of a single set of equipment approved by the federal government in the event of a nuclear disaster relief sounds interesting of it face. My hope would be that the teams responsible and the equipment, itself, are better thought out, designed and kept than the blow-out protectors and environmental disaster response plans developed by the oil industry which failed so miserably in the Gulf of Mexico. The blowout protector in that case was shown to have been approved for use even though it had not been tested or maintained in accordance with regulation. It was operated under a waiver granted by the feds at the assurance of Industry.

Good, but this still misses the real point

[WindBourne]

It is great that the industry is finally doing something. To be honest, I am amazed that FEMA did little about that in the past. However, that is not the real issue.
We are working with reactors that actually expired long ago. These should be taken down AND REPLACED. Not with coal, or Nat Gas, etc. but with a SAFE reactor that can burn up most of the current spent fuel.

GE's PRISMs could do this, but even better would be thorium reactors. It would be in the West's as well as America's and the nuke industry to spend some money helping local companies get their thorium reactor designs tested and passed. These have ZERO chance of a meltdown (unless you can avoid the laws of physics or the NRC allows piss-poor designs). Likewise, these can be factory built which will make them a great deal safer AND CHEAPER than the build-on-site monsters. Note that by using the 'waste' that is on-site, it would be possible to lower the amount of real waste. And with much smaller amounts that need to be discarded 100 years out, well, this becomes today's issue that solves itself down the road.

Re:Good, but this still misses the real point

[bill_mcgonigle]

It would be in the West's as well as America's and the nuke industry

Your plan has a fatal flaw: it would not be in the best interests of the politicians who are using global warming as an excuse to grab money and power.

We have a political problem regarding energy, not a technical one.

Re:Good, but this still misses the real point

[WindBourne]

Why would it not be in their best interest? The whole issue of AGW is that we are spewing massive amounts of CO2, and this would help solve it.

So, please explain how your comment relates.

Re:Good, but this still misses the real point

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why would it not be in their best interest? The whole issue of AGW is that we are spewing massive amounts of CO2, and this would help solve it.

Because they want to tax carbon and regulate industries. They'll take money and power over solutions *every time*.

Re:And of course power and fuel will be available.

[Anonymous Coward]

Older plants do have diesel generators in-case onsite grid power is lost, so I'm not sure how this is an "accident waiting to happen"....

I call Band-Aid

[ElitistWhiner]

Anyone else think there's time to re-act, re-locate, re-spond with their Emergency Erector Set? Chernobyl anyone?

Re:I call Band-Aid

[sinij]

Not Chernobyl hysteria again. Different reactor design, plus in Chernobyl's case safety mechanisms and fallbacks were intentionally disabled in attempt to prevent safety shutdown. They succeeded in overriding safety shutdown and melted whole thing.

In case of Japanese disaster - yes, they had time to react.They probably had enough time to had it fly from US, had something like that was available.

Re:I call Band-Aid

[Anonymous Coward]

That was with Fukushima and that was a pretty bad design, though not as bad as the insane Chernobyl one. What's your point?

Re:I call Band-Aid

[Chuckstar]

Chernobyl was a catastrophic failure which occurred over a matter of minutes. Once that failure occurred, there was really not much that could have been done to mitigate the damage. At least not much more than was actually done.

In the case of Fukushima, the ultimate failures occurred over the days following the tsunami. Even emergency systems that might take a day or two to put in place could have dramatically reduced the damage.

Completely different situations. You avoid Chernobyl through better design and operating guidelines. You avoid Fukushima by having better backup plans.

Re:I call Band-Aid

[inventorM]

Don't bring Chernobyl into this. The Chernobyl reactor design was considered unsafe fifty years and three design generations ago, and nobody in the West was building those designs even then. What caused the disaster was that the managers decided to remove multiple layers of safety devices and controls to run unscheduled and unapproved tests, and when the plant caught fire, the response teams had no protective gear, and little equipment to put the fire out. Had the same disaster occurred in the West (assuming that the NRC had approved a basically unsafe reactor design in the first place), the personnel and equipment available to the response personnel would have allowed them to put the fire out without the huge radiation dispersal that occurred at Chernobyl. Additionally, were you to visit the area today, you would see that the area has recovered from what damage was done, and that the local flora and fauna have long since returned to their original state (no more mutant trees or critters than could be statistically expected in most of the world). If I said something empirically wrong, please provide references to research from reputable sources (such as UN science groups) based directly on data.

Re:I call Band-Aid

[sinij]

Chernobyl wasn't a catastrophic failure, it was operating reactor well outside of the design parameters with all safety and auto-shut down procedures disabled.

What happened is that two tests - turbine vibrations and something else that had to do with cooling system were run concurrently, without considering implications. Safety system kicked in and proceeded to shut down whole thing. Junior techs that were on site decided they would chance disabling safety systems to try to keep reactor from going cold. Unfortunately whole system malfunctioned in "full open". Ironically, they did succeed at restarting reactor but now had no way to control it and watched whole thing melt over next couple hours. It wasn't sudden and wasn't catastrophic failure - in a sense that system didn't fail on its own.

Chernobyl reactor that blew up was one of 4 built with that design at that site. By modern standards it is considered unsafe, but even with that remaining 3 operated will into 2000s. I think one is still operational.

Re:I call Band-Aid

[Chuckstar]

I just meant that Chernobyl happened fast. No backup system that would take more than a few minutes to kick in would have helped (whether it was on-site or merely nearby). Fukishima happened slow. Lots of time to bring backup systems on-line, or even fly them in from far away.

That is the only distinction I was trying to make.

In most countries without a communist past, the reactors do not have the same likelihood of fast catastrophes like Chernobyl's. We've pretty much made it very hard for those types of accidents to happen (not impossible, but very hard). So if we're going to make further increases in safety, we should be looking at the slow things... like what happened at Fukushima.

And regardless of the cause, I do find it hard to understand the claim that Chernobyl wasn't a catastrophic failure. It was a catastrophe. And it was a failure. The fact that there was serious levels of human error involved doesn't really change that. What am I missing?

Re:I call Band-Aid

[dunkelfalke]

Only you are wrong.
The reactor exploded due to the emergency shutdown procedure (SCRAM).

Re:I call Band-Aid

[Anonymous Coward]

Chernobyl wasn't a catastrophic failure, it was operating reactor well outside of the design parameters with all safety and auto-shut down procedures disabled. What happened is that two tests - turbine vibrations and something else that had to do with cooling system were run concurrently, without considering implications. Safety system kicked in and proceeded to shut down whole thing. Junior techs that were on site decided they would chance disabling safety systems to try to keep reactor from going cold. Unfortunately whole system malfunctioned in "full open". Ironically, they did succeed at restarting reactor but now had no way to control it and watched whole thing melt over next couple hours. It wasn't sudden and wasn't catastrophic failure - in a sense that system didn't fail on its own. Chernobyl reactor that blew up was one of 4 built with that design at that site. By modern standards it is considered unsafe, but even with that remaining 3 operated will into 2000s. I think one is still operational.

No, The operators Xenon poisoned the reactor, then withdrew the control rods. meanwhile the reactor was going critical as it converted the water to hydrogen - much as what happened at Fukushima (ref;US society of mechanical engineers test on GE gen I reactor vessel). To their horror they must have realised what was happening just as they dropped the graphite tipped control rods into a reactor well above the ignition point of graphite.

The rest is history. Ironically modern RBMK's are probably the best designed reactors in the world.

Don't forget water

[bigtrike]

They need to be located near a large river or lake, too

Re:And of course power and fuel will be available.

[bigtrike]

An onsite generator is not passive safety.

Two words: passive cooling

[mark-t]

Is it really so difficult for the USA to implement when it's been used successfully for decades in several other countries?

Re:Two words: passive cooling

[Anonymous Coward]

And what currently operating plants do you know of that have passive cooling / safety systems?

Re:Two words: passive cooling

[Tailhook]

Is it really so difficult for the USA to implement...?

Yes. Replacing the fleet means fighting interminable battles with activists armed with judges that injunct whatever they're told to. Even when we do grown-up things like create a law and a tax to fund waste disposal it gets wrecked by statists. Capital knows better than to have anything to do with US nuclear; the US electorate are hysterical children, bought a paid for with bennies and led around with FUD.

Nuclear power is out of our league now. We're just not competent to govern such things any longer. Our zombie reactor fleet will subsist until some easily foreseeable disaster creates sufficient hysteria. Our parents in Washington will then act and take them away.

Re:And of course power and fuel will be available.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying it is...I was just stating that the Gen-2 and older plants do not need to rely on the grid to operate their safety systems. Currently, there are no operating plants with passive safety systems. You won't see this until the first AP1000 plants start coming online.

The US military already has almost everything

[frank249]

In the case of a Fukishima type nuclear emergency, the US military already has the most of the equipment need for a quick response such as generators, armoured vehicles, radiation monitors, airlift etc. Under 18 U.S.C. 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness.

Re:The US military already has almost everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring up one of my thoughts about the Mission of the US Navy and Coast Guard, which is that disaster response should be a larger part of the mission.

One of things that totally was wrong about Fukushima was you had Naval ships with 100MW diesel-electric propulsion systems within range of the stricken plant, and no way to tap in to provide power to it. Any of those ships should have a standard tap and carry a 10,000 foot 'extension cord'. Sounds funny, but the Soviets once did something like that with a nuclear submarine.

how about many smaller plants?

[k6mfw]

20 years ago, Ed Teller was a speaker at an Engineers Week banquet. He suggested instead of a few large nuclear plants with all complexities of sheer size plus containment vessel and security, make many smaller plants that are more manageable. I wish this was taped, I took some notes and published in one of local engineering society newsletters (did best I could capturing Teller's actual phrases). Seems to be a reasonable idea, a friend who was in Navy sub service said there are about 30 different emergency procedures (or steps?) on dealing with reactor problems. He feels large commercial plants are so complex, certain situations which can overwhelm operators. Of course there are many issues when dealing with lots of small nuclear power plants. I'm just throwing out some things I've heard.

Regarding a "rescue wagon" which I don't think will be practical. Unlike other disaster response plans (i.e. for various natural disasters), events of large scale nuclear disasters are very few in between. Having an effective team with resources will continually on "high state of combat readiness" will be very taxing with highly trained crews waiting years for The Big One. Perhaps if going with large nuclear plants, put in extra protection i.e. backup systems. Yes, these backup systems cost additional money but far cheaper than cost of the disaster itself if it were to occur. And some of these "once in 10,000 years events" do actually happen in your lifetime.

Re:how about many smaller plants?

[Chuckstar]

I actually think your argument tends to favor central "rescue wagon" teams. You either need a few central teams that can be airlifted to the site of trouble, or you would have to have an equivalent team in place at every facility. Seems like it would be more effective to have a few central teams, well trained, on 24-hr alert, then have to provide that same level of training and readiness in place at each and every facility.

Re:how about many smaller plants?

[PPH]

Step 30: Abandon ship.

Fukashima actually came after another disaster...

[dfenstrate]

Folks,
I'd like to introduce you to "Extreme Damage Mitigating Guidelines" (EDMG), which are procedures created in response to NRC Security Order Section B.5.b. That order was created after 9/11/2001, when crashing airliners into important structures became a known tactic.

The industry response to the B.5.b requirements is not unlike what you would expect for Fukashima contingencies (you've lost large portions of your plant to widespread fires and destruction. How can you mitigate the release of radionuclides to the public when areas x,y and z of your plant are heavily damaged?)

A certain local nuclear power plant I'm familiar with has a diesel-powered pump stored onsite but far away from the power block. It's the exact same type of pump that would have saved the plants at Fukushima, and because of 9/11, we already had the pump, hoses, flanges, and connections required to inject cooling water into the reactor or steam generators under the most adverse conditions. This equipment and the required contigencies plans were in place a few years before Fukushima.

Now the post-Fukushima problem is a natural disaster could conceivably wipe out this B5B pump, putting this contingency plan at risk.
That, presumably, is where this FLEX equipment comes in.
If you can't count on ANYTHING onsite being available, then you need to have it stored safely offsite. If you're going to do that, might as well share the equipment and costs.
One might argue about the size of the regions where this equipment is shared, but the FLEX equipment is:
a backup plan (FLEX)
to a backup plan (EDMG per B5B)
to a backup plan (Severe accident mitigating guidelines and backup pumps and backup- backup generators that pre-date 9/11)
to a backup plan (original emergency diesel generators and emergency operating procedures that have been at the plants from the start.)

Japan did not develop EDMG's after 9/11, and consequently were far behind the US nuclear industry in terms of emergency preparedness.

Now, the NRC has required a number of changes at existing and planned US nuclear facilities in response to the Fukushima meltdowns, however, that builds upon changes already made in response to the B5b regulations that came about a decade ago.

Rescue wagon?

[judoguy]

Perhaps a Welcome Wagon would make more sense, as in "Let's build some modern nuke plants".

molten salt?

[spongman]

isn't it time we switched to reactor designs that are inherently safe, don't require redundant backup cooling systems?

Re:And of course power and fuel will be available.

[couchslug]

"Eventually, you'll have to change it out, and dispose of the old stuff."

No problem. Use the diesel to fuel plant vehicles in order to rotate the stock. Fuel sampling is old news. Military POL troops handle stuff like that under austere conditions worldwide.

Like FEMA for Nuke Plants

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll begin looking for another habitable land mass.

Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope it's the industry and not the national regulatory commission that pays for the nuclear ambulance. Just like I wish the industry actually paid for the regulatory commission, the cost of refining fuel, the cost of anti-terrorism activities, liability insurance, etc.

Water Tower

[Anonymous Coward]

Water Tower = Passive water pump. If gravity stops working, they've got bigger problems.

Layered safety system

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the idea. There may be some issues with facility tie-in and siting of the portable units but the essential idea is sound. Also, post-disaster, you're rolling the dice on things like site accessibility and safety.

In the end it gives plant sites an option of bringing in suitable equipment on hot standby. That's all to the good.

The clock is ticking

[Anonymous Coward]

The end of the world is in 11 days and now they think of these things...

Re:Fukashima actually came after another disaster.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is multiply redundant due to it's geographical diversity. It makes sense to do the same for the Reactor Safety Systems. They need to build a 2x2 Chinook Helicopter with 4 rotors to carry stuff to the site quickly. That would be cool, what would be even cooler is if it were never used.

Why not -ALSO- promote -safer- Thorium reactors?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too much like Medicine... putting resources into reacting to errors in designs (or the choice to use Fast Breeder reactor designs over another, safer one - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors - whose lower operating-pressures reportedly -preclude- the need for costly, post-disaster responses, in the first).

Medicine has begun to embrace -preventative- healthcare, & I - for one - strongly feel it's time that the nuclear industry get behind LFTR's, as a counterpart pre-emptive strike against melt-downs, etc.

If the reportedly -less- dangerous LFTRs are the safer way to go for nuclear energy, then we should go there.