Slashdot Mirror
Under Revised Quake Estimates, Dozens of Nuclear Reactors Face Problems
mdsolar (1045926) writes "Owners of at least two dozen nuclear reactors across the United States, including the operator of Indian Point 2, in Buchanan, N.Y., have told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they cannot show that their reactors would withstand the most severe earthquake that revised estimates say they might face, according to industry experts. As a result, the reactors' owners will be required to undertake extensive analyses of their structures and components. Those are generally sturdier than assumed in licensing documents, but owners of some plants may be forced to make physical changes, and are likely to spend about $5 million each just for the analysis."
Arguably no estimate is adequate. Unexpected things happen, and our understanding and knowledge of the tectonic plate system is incomplete anyway. Given the risk we should be designing for safety in the most extreme event possible. Look at it this way: the fact that the estimates were revised up tells us that the original estimates were too optimistic, there is at least some chance that the new ones are too.
The cost is always going to be proportional to the risk. That's why no commercial insurance company will offer any nuclear facility insurance.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That's not how engineering works, or why Fukushima went into meltdown.
Engineers specify the lifetime for the various parts of their design. They specify under what conditions they are considered worn out and cannot be used any more. Clearly if any worn out part can be replaced then there is no limit to the lifetime of the design. In practice this has proven to be true with things like aircraft and ships, and indeed nuclear plants. What kills them is when the cost of maintenance gets too high and building a new one is cheaper.
In the case of Fukushima age had nothing to do with it. The problem was damage from the earthquake, damage from the tsunami (and the lack of upgrades that TEPCO were told they needed to do to the sea defence wall), and confusion in the following days. The plant itself was actually better than new, in that it had been upgraded over the years and all parts were properly maintained and functioning as designed. It was just an old design, although it is debatable how much better newer designs would have fared in the same situation.
Age isn't the problem, bad design is. Fukushima was broken from day one, in fact it was even more vulnerable to major earthquakes than it was the day one hit it all those years later.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Given that these "revised" estimates are generated by the same people who want to extinguish all dependable, tried and true sources of energy, one must reasonably suspect that the estimates were "revised" in a way that would help ensure the dismantling of the nuclear industry.
Did you read the friggin article? Of course you didn't.
The "revised" estimates were generated by the NRC in conjunction with the DOE and (wait...wait for it...) the Electric Power Research Institute. Yep, they're all a bunch of goddamed hippifreak tree-huggin energy extinguishers.
But fire does not make areas permanently uninhabitable
Tell that to the people of Centralia, PA
Maybe on a scale of "eternity", fire doesn't render places "permanently" uninhabitable.
But, then, neither does radiation.
Even in the Pripyat area (around Chernobyl), unless you're right up near the reactor, the ambient radiation is on par with many places around the world.
And even just outside the reactor, PLACES THAT HAVE NEVER SEEN A NUCLEAR REACTION where the radiation is 10-15 times as high (see Brazil, Guarapari beaches).
Most of the reactors that have had safety issues are reactors that were built decades ago, based on even older designs.
We have the knowledge, NOW, to build completely contained devices that safely generate power over the lifetime of the device.
We have the knowledge, NOW, to build reactors that quite simply are INCAPABLE of replicating the accidents that led to contamination at TMI and Chernobyl.
As for Fukushima. Fukushima is the story of a freak Tsunami that was mutated by the anti-nuke community into a "nuclear failure".
Basically, if you consider yourself environmentally conscious, you cannot be anti-nuke.
Because the only other viable options for baseline power are natural gas, coal and oil.
Natural gas, coal and oil are the things we need to be moving AWAY from.
And anyone telling you that we can rely, solely, on wind, wave, solar and geothermal is LYING TO YOU. The people telling you these lies? Shills for the NG, coal and oil industry!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Wow. I really wish people would stop conflating "counts per minute" measurements of radiation exposure, with alpha and beta nucleide contamination. There's a lot of Cs137 and Sr90 contamination in the soil all over the place near Pripyat (and Fukushima), and just because you can walk through the area and get a few sieverts of decays on your skin, and no net harm, doesn't mean anyone can safely live there. Those contaminants get into dust, and you inhale it, or ingest it in your food, and they remain active inside your body for decades. It's not the same as either an x-ray, or eating a banana.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.