Slashdot Mirror
NRC Analyst Calls To Close Diablo Canyon, CA's Last Remaining Nuclear Plant
An anonymous reader writes Michael Peck, who for five years was Diablo Canyon's lead on-site inspector, says in a 42-page, confidential report that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not applying the safety rules it set out for the plant's operation. The document, which was obtained and verified by The Associated Press, does not say the plant itself is unsafe. Instead, according to Peck's analysis, no one knows whether the facility's key equipment can withstand strong shaking from those faults — the potential for which was realized decades after the facility was built. Continuing to run the reactors, Peck writes, "challenges the presumption of nuclear safety."
This is not a new story, basically a reprint. With that said, if there is any indication the the plant cannot withstand postulated earthquake levels it should be shut down. This was not ignored, and the article does mention that an evaluation was performed based on the new information.
"In 2012, the agency endorsed preliminary findings that found shaking from the Shoreline fault would not pose any additional risk for the reactors. Those greater ground motions were “at or below those for which the plant was evaluated previously,” referring to the Hosgri fault, it concluded."
Given our experience with plants holding up extremely well to seismic events and the large margins that are included in seismic design of these plants, the finding is not surprising. Work continues, as it should, to look for anything that could possibly have been missed or not enveloped by the new data.
The basis for the inspectors complaint is, in large part, not that the plant is not capable of withstanding the quake, nor that the analsyis is faulty or incorrect, but rather that the licensing basis document has not been revised to require a higher peak acceleration design level. It is debateable whether such a would make any difference, since they are already required to analyze for the higher levels. Meanwhile, the concern is being handled through the appropriate processes.
Solar cells on every house is great as long as there is local storage in every house too.
Wind power is great as long as there is good power distribution infrastructure: It's always blowing somewhere.
Nuclear power is great as long as you address operational safety and waste storage, both of which are addressable if you do engineering rather than politics. Part of that is again, good infrastructure so you can build the nukes in good places for nukes.
It's easy to point at any single generation or harvesting technology and identify it's flaws as a sole solution. However there are many technologies and combined together they form a robust and comparatively clean solutions.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
US starts buying more nuclear power from Canada, quickly pulling a Germany. In 5 years, subsidies much like those in Germany will then be gutted, and there will be a mass rush to build new coal and NG power plants until reactors can be refurbished or built anew.
Almost: Germany has been in a mad rush for quite a while to build solar and wind power production. The whole country is dotted with thousands of wind turbines, and a massive percentage of the country have solar panels to reduce their power demands from the grid. In short, Germany has been preparing for a while to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, and was consequently in a position to abandon nuclear power instead. At their current build rate, in 10 years, they will only need 50% of the fossil fuels they use today, even with the nuclear plants shut down
The key to their success is that, for Germans, the overriding goal is environmental protection. Its a national obsession (Probably owing to complete lack of available land, and limited fossil fuels). Like Japan, one bad nuclear accident is guaranteed to affect a massive percentage of the population, fossil fuels leaves them too reliant on foreign powers. It means that Germany's only real option is renewable energy sources, and they have the political will and industrial might to make it happen.
Unlike American politics, the anti-environment sociopaths don't last long in German politics.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Per the usual, the simple fact that Natural Gas and Coal accidents/air pollution kills people every day is ignored compared to the remote risk of something happening to a nuclear powerplant.
If the 3 nuclear reactors in Fukushima Daichi were instead 3 coal thermal boilers, it would have killed hundreds of people in the decades it operated.
6.5 quake is peanuts for a nuclear reactor.
Nuclear require an extreme accident to become a hazard to human life, while coal/NG kills every day.
Even solar and wind kill more per TWh produced than nuclear, perhaps they can cleanup their act and have less work accidents before they can claim solar/wind is safer than nuclear.
Turns out storage is not much needed at 80% renewable energy supply. http://www.engineering.com/Ele...
Yes, in 1999 (when I last toured the plant) the SCRAM time was 3.5 seconds with control rods fully placed in 0.5 seconds if the emergency circuit is tripped. This happens automatically in the event of a 6.0 or stronger quake. An emergency SCRAM requires 30 to 120 days to restart the reactor. Also like all reactors, it requires time to cool. Because DCNP is located on the ocean it does not require active cooling to safely cool the reactor core after a crash. flooding the core with sea water will probably be the end of that reactor, but it will not loose containment. The plant was originally designed to be operational after a 7.0 quake and to not loose containment in the event of a 9.5. After the discovery of the Hsgri fault the design was modified to withstand a 10.8 quake. Analysis after the 2004 6.2 quake in Paso Rubles suggests that the engineering was "very conservative" and that the plant may well be able to survive an 8.0 in operational condition.
On the other hand, the temporary on site storage of spent fuel was not part of the original plan, In the event of a major seismic event, it is the spent fuel casks that scare me.
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
Germany is switching its baseload from nuclear to coal, which has meant digging the world's largest strip mine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
covering 48 square kilometers. Think of it as an anti-nuclear exclusion zone, like Fukushima but getting bigger instead of being cleaned up..
But when all the nukes are phased out, Garzweiler won't be enough. This even bigger lignite pit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
will top out at 85 sq. km when fully developed. Lignite has the approximate energy value, and pollution profile, of damp firewood.
The real problem with Diablo Canyon, and the rest of the nuclear industry is managing the waste. There is no place to put nuclear waste in this country, so it's just stored on-site. That's crazy. You can't do that forever.
That being said, my expectation is that we'll continue to see tech advancements in solar and wind generation, and energy storage to the point where large central generation will be a thing of the past.