Slashdot Mirror


Pakistan Builds Nuclear Reactors In Karachi, Sparking Fears of Disaster

schwit1 writes World leaders have fretted for years that terrorists may try to steal one of Pakistan's nuclear bombs and detonate it in a foreign country. But some Karachi residents say the real nuclear nightmare is unfolding here in Pakistan's largest and most volatile city. Of all places to locate a nuclear reactor, they argue, who could possibly make a case for this one — on an earthquake-prone seafront vulnerable to tsunamis and not far from where al-Qaeda militants nearly hijacked a Pakistan navy vessel last fall.

12 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Re: terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Glad to see a mod on her toes in modding thearent trol!

    After all, Bin Laden had a nice urban apartement in Pakistan, was all reformed and the Pakistan governement knew thus and wanted him to get a break.

    but no. Those war mongering Americans had to go and shoot that poor man just because he allegedly was some sort of terrorist mastermind.

  2. It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m by tp1024 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This must be the most moronic article I've read in a long time.

    3/4 of the way down the text it says the only relevant piece of information: "Minhaj said concerns about the effect of a tsunami are also overblown because the new reactors are being built on a rock ledge about 39 feet above sea level."

    That's 12m above the sea. The tsunami generated by a mag 9.0 earthquake is expected to be between 0.9m and 7m high - so the plant will have 5m margin ABOVE THE WORST CASE.

    Shut up everyone, you've been lied to.

    1. Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m by tp1024 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was none. They used the 1960 tsunami in Japan for reference in Fukushima Daiichi (unlike e.g. Onagawa) - which reached a height of 4.5m. This tsunami was caused by the 1960 Chile earthquake on the other side of the planet, across the pacific.

      Yes, baseline nuclear safety in Japan was that crappy - most operators went way beyond the baseline, but at least one didn't.

    2. Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m by burni2 · · Score: 1, Informative

      And you are only concentrating on one point, you find inconclusive, and this is your basis to call everyone to shut up?

      If you would have taken the time, and glimpse at a satellite image of that region, you might have recognized that the surrounding area has a nice beach style "ramp" on the west side.

      a nuclear power plant needs cooling == fresh water
      a tsunami will suck all water from the beach for approx 30s
      a tsunami will struck down the surrounding grid (== fukushima)
      a failing over flodded backup generator is bad (== fukushima)
      an emergency stop of a nuclear reactor will need after cooling or it will melt the core (== fukushima)

      And this is why it remains a very bad idea to built a nuclear reactor at a tsunami site, because a nuclear reactor needs a functioning infrastructure to safely operate.

    3. Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m by zm · · Score: 4, Informative

      A brand new 21st century reactor != Fukushima Daiichi 1960 BWR design. Nor 1950's RBMK design for that matter. Misleading panicky comparisons lead nowhere.

      --
      Sig ?
    4. Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m by tp1024 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The nuclear power plants will be ACP1000s. There is half a century of experience between the ACP1000 and the BWR-3/4 used in Fukushima Daiichi. And wouldn't you know it, there have been improvements in the meantime!

      http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-...

      It's a combined passive and active design, it doesn't need power to cool the reactor or the containment, but it has powered cooling systems in addition to the passive ones. -> NOT FUKUSHIMA.
      A backup generator that is above the Tsunami will not be flooded and will not fail because of flooding because it isn't being flooded. -> NOT FUKUSHIMA.
      An emergency stop of a nuclear reacto needs cooling or it will melt the core, which is being provided for in a much more adequate fashion than in Fukushima. -> NOT FUKUSHIMA.
      The ACP1000 is a pressurized reactor in a large dry containment, that can contain a molten core without overpressurizing the containment. It is not a small "pressure supression" containment that has been known since at least 1966 to be unable to contain a molten core - which is a statement made by none other than the vendor, General Electric. -> NOT FUKUSHIMA.

    5. Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m by itzly · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know what'll stop backward hicks like ISIS? Technical and social advance

      Keep dreaming. People who are eager to destroy 6000 year old artefacts aren't interested in your technical and social advance.

    6. Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m by MrL0G1C · · Score: 4, Informative

      A tsunami that high is not seen as a possible scenario

      The tide varies by over 2.5m
      Normal waves can reach over 10m in height.
      The reactor is built at only 12m above sea level !!!
      The same coast of Pakistan has already had a 15m tsunami in the last century.
      The India Ocean produced a 30meter Tsunami just a decade ago.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      So, it doesn't sound so impossible to me, I don't hear of anyone actually having modeled various earthquake tsunami scenarios for Karachi.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  3. Re:In Karachi? by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

    new orleans

    Population (2013)[1]
        City and Parish 378,715 (US: 51st)
        Metro 1,240,977 (US: 45th)

    karachi

    Population (2013)
        Total 23,500,000[1]
        Rank 1st (Pakistan), 2nd (World)

    new orleans is a cute little rural suburb compared to karachi

    having driven to new orleans a number of times, i've seen myself that 20 miles out from new orleans it is nothing but scrub and mangroves. i can understand within new orleans itself you feel like you are in a dense city, because there's nothing else around, and you're the center of that area of the country. but this is a provincial judgment

    world cities are mind blowing compared to american cities

    here in new york city, a huge fucking megacity by usa standards but a puny light weight by world standards, 20 miles out is still dense and urban

    Population (2013)[5]
        Total 8,405,837[1]
        Rank 1st, U.S., 24th (World)

    so: 20 miles from the city center of karachi is still pretty much in the middle of dense giant fucking karachi

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  4. Re:In Karachi? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

    so: 20 miles from the city center of karachi is still pretty much in the middle of dense giant fucking karachi

    You use a lot of fancy numbers but really all you needed to do was look at a map. These reactors are being built in the middle of nowhere (or rather the edge of nowhere since it's on the waterfront). The reactors are not 20 miles from the city centre rather they are actually about 15 miles from the boundary.

    Better still these nice modern reactors with all their modern safety standards and passive safety systems and an inherently safer design are being built in an existing complex next to a set of existing 1970s era reactors. The article even has a picture of the existing plant.

    This is colossal FUD, and they should be welcoming the addition of GenIII reactors so they can eventually transition away from the older ones which actually may be a problem if something seriously goes wrong.

  5. Karachi already has nuclear reactor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    There has already been a nuclear reactor plant in Pakistan Karachi since the 1972, supplied by the Canadian Gov; it's called the KANUPP-I and it's still in operation, but only generating 85MW of power (max power = 140MW), while the new reactor will generate up to 1000MW.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_Nuclear_Power_Complex#KANUPP-I

  6. Re:But but but by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is safe. But just like a lot of other safe thing, you have to be somewhat inteligent in using it. It is still not a good idea to run with safety scissors just like its not a good idea to walk around the shady parts of nyc showing everyone you pass a wad of cash while asking them where you can find some crack cocaine.