Slashdot Mirror
Transformer Explosion Closes Nuclear Plant Unit North of NYC
Reuters reports that a transformer failure and related fire have forced the closure of a generating unit of the Indian Point nuclear plant, about 40 miles north of New York City; another generator at the same facility was unaffected. Witnesses reported seeing an explosion, as well as (according to NBC News) a "huge ball of black smoke" when the transformer exploded, which led to the shut-down of the site's Unit 3. The Reuters article says the plant "has long been controversial because of its proximity to the United States' largest city.
Indian Point is one of 99 nuclear power plants licensed to operate in the United States and which generate about 20 percent of U.S. electricity use, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission website.
Normal safety measures effective, loss of transformer handled in professional manner
Instead we get vague hand waving and reference to controversies generated by people wanting to shut down all nuclear power plants
Thank you /. for supporting the luddite agenda
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Nothing to see here. Generating stations, nuclear or otherwise, trip off line when major changes in load occur.
Oh, but right.., it's NOOCOOLAR POWAH! It must mean a near-miss meltdown and a cover up! I'll get my potassium iodide pills and my tinfoil hat and make some popcorn.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
I guess you don't know what is a transformer.
Achille Talon
Hop!
no, indian point is in rockland county NY in southern NY. but its not a ticking time bomb, AC has no idea what hes talking about. this is a normal function of the electrical system. it worked as intended, there is no scare here.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Transformers pop all the time. I can't see that this had anything to do with the power generation method. Will that matter to the solar fanboys? Not a bit, apparently. Fission is the safest cleanest and most effective option we have. We should close all the current nuke plants and replace them with 5 times as many modern reactors.
Hopefully not Optimus Prime. The world needs him.
How long is the time on that bomb?
Because we have to create a new generation of solar manufacturing plants to build the panels, multiple giga-factories for batteries and a whole now power transmission system to move that much energy around the continent.
Unless of course you have some alternate plan of how the tens of millions of people who are currently dependent on nuclear energy are going to function in the mean time
These things take time to plan and execute, knee-jerk reactions and shutting off major building blocks of getting away from fossil fuels to some clean energy future does not help at all. We would be a more environmentally clean society NOW if environmentalists had not spent the last forty years fighting an emotional battle against nuclear power and had focused on the emissions of the fossil fuel industry
Instead we get constant lawsuits to prevent the building of a long term nuclear waste storage facilities and new nuclear plants while the coal plants dump CO2 that is heating the planet as well as mercury and uranium that is more damaging than any imagined nuclear accident
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Are you willing to donate your property to the 10s/100s/1000s of square miles it would take to compensate the grid for the loss of the nuclear plant?
This wasn't a failure of the reactor, but a failure of a transformer. Your solar panels will still feed those.
Hydro have an astronomical death toll compared to nuclear.
You can count the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki as deaths due to nuclear power and hydro still have a lead.
You need to build a better grid.
Then again If you want to replace nukes with renewables, you need to build a better grid.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You do know that hydroelectric power plants also have large, oil-cooled transformers, of similar design, which have exactly the same chance of exploding as this unit, right? Of course, it doesn't actually matter, since this transformer explosion had the same chance of causing a nuclear accident as an explosion at Niagara Falls does of flooding upstate New York.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Those are some impressive detectors, especially since electrical transformers are a standard part of all power distribution networks and have absolutely nothing to do with radiation.
When the electrical substation providing external power to your nuclear power reactor fails, you shut down the reactor because your principal source of constant backup power has failed. Your secondary source, generators, are not intended to allow the plant to continue to operate, but to shut down cleanly.
When a tranformer blows, your risks are fire and, if it's an old transformer, PCB contamination from the old-generation transformer oils. Certainly not radiation.
As a man made of straw, I resent the gross stereotyping. We are not simply props for you to project your opponents weakness onto to then subsequently knock down. We are sentient, dancing, singing people of hay with a noble and intricate ethnic history. We have dreams-- to scare away grain-eating scavengers, to escort little girls to wizards, to somehow fuse a meat-based thought-organ to our straw-based bodies... We must be respected.
Please in future use some other analogy to personify your "fall guy". Perhaps an axe-swinging man of tin or some gutless panther could better suit your purposes.
Namelessly yours,
the straw man
AC has no idea what hes talking about. this is a normal function of the electrical system. it worked as intended, there is no scare here.
A transformer blew, they do do that.
There were at least two other power supplies to feed the system, one being commercial, and in reality a non event. Being a nuke plant any thing out of the ordinary must be reported and scrutinized; as quoted "These events happen occasionally. They are not unheard of and the plant responded as designed," in this case the auto sprinkler system took care of it.
Wanna bet what the people working at the plant did? My guess is whenever they could went to look at it, no cares at all just curiosity.
If it's power was being utilized at the time, it was switched so fast the computers never knew; well maybe a stretch (but they are on UPS systems).
As a general rule for Nuclear plants there are three systems for each function, one goes down another takes it's place, another goes down which is providing the same function it's time for concern (dependent only upon it's function). Fukushima used the fourth option (firetrucks).
Right, because generators the size needed to operate nuclear power plants are the sort of thing that you just pick up at any corner hardware store and "drive up and plug in"?
here's what one of those generators looks like. A nuclear power power plant may have a dozen or more in their generator building. Even replacing just one is not some sort of couple day task. These things take prep work and a lot of labour to acquire, move, install and set up. Weeks to months. That's all assuming that the generator building itself is still usable; a failure in such a large generator, or the sort of external event that can take out such a large generator, is not exactly some sort of low energy event.
Back before Fukushima people like you were all over Slashdot harping about how major nuclear disasters couldn't happen again, that it's only possible with old Soviet designs like Chernobyl that are horribly misused. Quit being so damned short sighted. Unforseen events and cascading failures do happen. You can't just act like "the list of causes of major that have already happened is the entire comprehensive list of what could cause major failures".
If you scram, lose your grid connection and lose your generators, you will likely get a Fukushima-like event. Two of the three happened here. Let's not pretend that the concept of something taking out the generator room, or otherwise preventing its power from working the pumps - generators which are only rarely tested - is such a preposterous concept. And let's not be silly and act like massive pieces of industrial equipment can just be plopped down and hooked up like a little Honda generator.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
A nuclear power power plant may have a dozen or more [back-up generators] in their generator building. Even replacing just one is not some sort of couple day task.
Quite right. But the reason there are so many is to provide redundancy - they are not all needed at once - and by having a "dozen or more" they are not all going to fail at the same time because of a transformer explosion. The power stations I am familiar with (I am a nuclear engineer in the UK) do not put them all in the same generator building either. Nor are they sited in locations prone to tsunamis and it does not look like Indian Point is either.
generators which are only rarely tested
On the power stations I deal with they are tested frequently. It is hard to judge the size of the generators in your linked picture because it is obviously taken with a very wide-angle lens. The ones I deal with are the same type as used in railway locomotives, and there are mobile trailers available with such generators.
A transformer blew, they do do that.
It is not uncommon for a large transformer to blow. I am a power station engineer and know of two events over 10 years at UK nuclear power stations. It is not a big safety deal apart from the possiblility of injuring people within say 50 yards, and I have been within sight of one (yet someone was worried about NYC 40 miles away!). These transformers tend to be in bays shielded from each other by thick masonery walls.
One unfortunate problem with nuke plants is that IIRC you have to have a continuous connection to the grid. If that connection fails, the plant has to scram to avoid damage to the generators (overspeed).
BS
Power stations (even non-nuclear) always have back-up generators that kick in on loss of grid to allow control of the plant to be maintained and for cooling pumps to take the heat out of the system in a controlled way. Generators will not overspeed if cut off the grid - their speeds are controlled by sophisticated control systems, and if they even fail then an old-fashioned back-up mechanical governor will cause the main steam supply valve to slam shut.
The plant would not be "scrammed" on loss of grid. Scramming means hitting a big red panic button. The plant would be kept spinning at first, obviously with the reactor power reduced to near zero, with residual heat being dumped through purposed heat exchangers and possibly releasing steam to atmosphere (unless it is a BWR - Indian Point is not), while the cause of the loss-of-grid was investigated - like getting the grid company on the phone. Many losses-of-grid are quite brief, but if it looked like it was going to be a while then the plant would be shut down in a controlled way, not by a scram button.