Shouldn't we disable Nuclear Reactors in California?

In summary, the conversation discusses the safety and potential risks of nuclear power plants in California, specifically in regards to earthquakes and the possibility of a disaster like the one in Japan. While some suggest that the plants should be shut down, others argue that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. The conversation also touches on the economic and political factors surrounding nuclear power and the difficulty of finding a suitable replacement. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the need for continuous learning and improvement in the industry.
  • #1
Acuben
64
0
I don't know too much about nuclear power and reactors, so I would like to ask some things.

I do realize that this isn't just science, but gets political and economical as well, so I decided to post in General discussion- so if you just want to talk about one area, or all three, either way is fine.


We have 2 active Nuclear Reactors
San Onofre Power Plant, (California)
http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs [Broken]
Diablo Canyon Power Plant (California)

some things I'd like to know...

1. Don't we have a big earthquake coming to California? perhaps bigger earthquake than the one Japan had? So even with all the safety precaution and higher dams, deeper container, stronger container, etc, wouldn't it have no chance to prevent meltdown anyway? So shouldn't Nuclear power plants in california be deactivated as conclusion?

2. Would deactivated nuclear power plants still be threat in case of a big earthquake? (assuming they still have radiation emitting rod, and afaik, they do. Correct me if I'm wrong)
Does this mean nuclear meltdown on deactivated power plants are as dangerous as activate power plants?

3. Is it possible to move(transport to different state in US) the radioactive rods that are in deactivated nuclear power plant? You see, i don't know how the transport would have to be done, I don't think It'd be as simple as 1,2,3 (1. pick up the rod, 2.throw in the truck, 3.drive :P ) afaik, even rods that have not been in use for a while still needs to be constantly cooled to prevent meltdown...

4. Once deactivated, how long would radioactive rod emit radiation?

5. Shouldn't people in California move to other states?

6. If it is better off for people in California to move, would it be possible that government does not want me to move ?(therefore they don't want people to know the seriousness?) Of course, for political and economical reasons

7. Could there be a political and/or economical reasons why the nuclear reactors are not deactivated? I do think that if reactors are shut off all of sudden, that will bring huge impact on economy and it wouldn't be possible to change the source of energy all of sudden (therefore bad news for those who relied on nuclear power).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Both plants use pressurized water reactors, which are much safer than the boiling water reactors at Fukushima. I'll leave more technical details to Astronuc to explain...

There is no reason to shut the plants down.
 
  • #3
Acuben said:
1. Don't we have a big earthquake coming to California? perhaps bigger earthquake than the one Japan had? So even with all the safety precaution and higher dams, deeper container, stronger container, etc, wouldn't it have no chance to prevent meltdown anyway? So shouldn't Nuclear power plants in california be deactivated as conclusion?

We also have a giant meteor coming eventually.

Why should we shut down our plants just because of "maybe"? In fact, what happened in Japan is probably a good reason to build more! With every disaster in every industry, we learn more and we become better capable of dealing with them. Contrary to popular belief, people aren't all that stupid and tend to do fairly well at gauging the risks involved with something like this. There is a chance the biggest earthquake in history will hit 5 feet away from one of the reactors and it would destroy everything. Who knows, but we really can't shut down the world because of various unlikely incidents possibly occurring.

If we had a good replacement for nuclear, it would be nice to shut them down, but we don't unfortunately.
 
  • #4
Acuben said:
5. Shouldn't people in California move to other states?

Yes, but not for the reasons mentioned. :smile:
 
  • #5
Pengwuino said:
We also have a giant meteor coming eventually.

Why should we shut down our plants just because of "maybe"? In fact, what happened in Japan is probably a good reason to build more! With every disaster in every industry, we learn more and we become better capable of dealing with them. Contrary to popular belief, people aren't all that stupid and tend to do fairly well at gauging the risks involved with something like this. There is a chance the biggest earthquake in history will hit 5 feet away from one of the reactors and it would destroy everything. Who knows, but we really can't shut down the world because of various unlikely incidents possibly occurring.

If we had a good replacement for nuclear, it would be nice to shut them down, but we don't unfortunately.

I think this about sums up my thoughts on this nicely.

If we gave up everytime we hit a snag, we'd never get anywhere. Take what has happened in Japan, learn from it and improve.

6 stinks of your attempt to promote some conspiracy.

7 is simply answered by asking how would we replace them without going backwards to fossil fuels? Economically it would be a disaster. Not only do you have two plants you need to keep tabs on to ensure they're safe, but you also have to foot the bill for an alternative source.

In all threads like this, it's rare anyone ever provides valid alternatives.
 
  • #6
The honest truth is that all that power is worth a couple lives occasionally. It's really that simple.
 
  • #7
Any idea what the safest form of energy is in the new unit DPGWY*?

(*deaths per gigawatt years)

Also how many people's healths have been affected due to radiation of Fukushima?

Maybe this chart also helps to evaluate risks.
 
  • #8
Andre said:
Any idea what the safest form of energy is in the new unit DPGWY*?

(*deaths per gigawatt years)

A unit for that was already defined, it's called the toastie.

Can't remember where it is now, but there's a thread outlining safety exactly what you want here.

From the thread, nuclear came out the safest (including Chernobyl) with coal being the worst.

EDIT: Can't find the 'toastie' thread now. Anyone remember it?
 
  • #9
  • #10
Good Link Andre (referring to the radiation comparison chart)
 
  • #12
Of course, there's problems with statistics in this kind of venture. I'd like to see the statistical methods involved, first off. I'm not advocating that nuclear power is more dangerous at all, just that power is worth lives in general (regardless of the type of power).But a couple questions/thoughts:

1) was the data normalized to the respective amounts of power-types being used?
2) were risk assessment considerations taken into account

2a) for instance, nuclear power has a hell of a lot of safety protocol attached to it. Somebody installing a roof-top solar collector on their personal home is not as guaranteed to be "osha approved" in their methodology.

2b) the hydrodam in my hometown is tiny; nothing like the towering damn that took out 2000. There's very little possibility of it ever harming thousands of people.
 
  • #13
There is also a good discussion going in the blogosphere. Not sure if I can link but a certain well known green blogger from the UK made an about-turn, stating that "The green movement has misled the world about the dangers of radiation."
 
  • #14
jarednjames said:
A unit for that was already defined, it's called the toastie

... sigh. Couldn't some fancy acronym be made up like DPGWH (deaths per gigawatt-hour)?
 
  • #15
Andre said:
There is also a good discussion going in the blogosphere. Not sure if I can link but a certain well known green blogger from the UK made an about-turn, stating that "The green movement has misled the world about the dangers of radiation."

I guess you refer to http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/ which you mentioned in PM to me earlier - this is an interesting opinion/point of view, I don't see why it should be not allowed in a general discussion.
 
  • #16
Borek said:
I guess you refer to http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/ which you mentioned in PM to me earlier - this is an interesting opinion/point of view, I don't see why it should be not allowed in a general discussion.

Well, it's always a question what is and what is not acceptable. But great, then I'd also like to show how Monbiots common sense crashed into a concrete wall built with fear:

Seven double standards

...The accusations have been so lurid that I had to read my article again to reassure myself that I hadn’t written the things that so many of my correspondents say...

but especially

Evidence meltdown

..Over the past fortnight I’ve made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-nuclear movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice. ...

Maybe some people get strong déjà vu senses here, considering another subject, whose name shall not be mentioned.
 
  • #17
Pengwuino said:
... sigh. Couldn't some fancy acronym be made up like DPGWH (deaths per gigawatt-hour)?

Well you could, but that's like saying I don't like "metres" so I'm rebranding it something else.

We already have a defined unit so let's use it. Besides, I like the "toastie".
 
  • #18
Mmm...tostie...
 
  • #19
The op expressed concern about having nuclear power in his backyard and risking something like we see in Japan, not how many people pollution kills.

How many homes have been lost [unplanned] to nuclear power compared to other forms of energy? How much land has been or will be lost for decades due to just two accidents? How many accidents of comparable significance have we seen from coal plants?

As for earthquakes, I know we could have a magnitude 10 tectonic event here in Oregon. I'm not sure if Diablo or San Onofre are subject to an event that large or not. I know they could have mag 7s - I was there for two of them. That is certainly an area subject to major earthquakes. In fact, in S. California they are expecting the big one any time. They are due. I believe the estimates for a major San Andreas event are in the range of mag 8.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
My favorite reply is that because of Japan, now we can all feel safe! Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of this statement?
 
  • #21
I'm also concerned about world wide radiation pollution =p
If water gets contaminated world wide this way, well it won't be fun, and 2 major nuclear meltdown is good enough to cause that-correct me if I'm wrong though.

I don't mean giving up on nuclear energy completely like jared said, but temporary shutdown until the high earthquake warning in California pass. -of course I don't even know if temporary shutdown will even solve the problem (since the reactors needs to continually cool the rods anyways).

this refers back to question 1...
Maybe most people accept that the earthquake in California won't be big enough to cause major problems/disaster (not just with nuclear meltdown)

I do want to know what public thinks about the earthquake as well =p
 
  • #22
Ivan Seeking said:
How many homes have been lost [unplanned] to nuclear power compared to other forms of energy? How much land has been or will be lost for decades due to just two accidents? How many accidents of comparable significance have we seen from coal plants?

Is the number of lost (unplanned) homes really the best measuring stick to use when talking about energy? I think people would rather be displaced than dead. People die in coal mining accidents all the time (http://www.msha.gov/mshainfo/factsheets/mshafct2.htm). How many people have died because of Fukushima thus far? 0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents). How many people have died because of Three Mile Island? 0 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html). What happened in Chernobyl is now a physical impossibility
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Ivan Seeking said:
My favorite reply is that because of Japan, now we can all feel safe! Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of this statement?
Probably not, but that doesn't make it absurd!
 
  • #24
I know it is true that just about everything has inherent risks, however, in the event that an earthquake damages these reactors, the consequences of having a 20, 30, 40 or ? mile radius of land rendered un-inhabitable would make a trip to San Diego similar to a trip to Chernobyl. We have had 3 historic 8 point plus earthquakes in California, the most recent I believe was in 1872. Of course, they may never be damaged. To put it bluntly, radiation is scary stuff. We probably should go back to hunter/gathering.
 
  • #25
So FMRR86, you don't believe that safe reactor designs, safety planning, and other measures will not work in such an event? Did you know that the reactos in Japan that were damaged were 40+ years old?
 
  • #26
This thread is hilarious. Don't let Danuta or Dmytry EVER find it, otherwise there'll be a literal massacre.

Drakkith said:
So FMRR86, you don't believe that safe reactor designs, safety planning, and other measures will not work in such an event? Did you know that the reactos in Japan that were damaged were 40+ years old?

If I remember correctly, the newest NPP in the US is from 1980. Have fun counting 40+ years NPPs there.

Many of the german reactors are newer, we don't know Tsunamis, a magnitude 5 earthquake would be a headliner in the news, and we still decided to turn them off by 2021. There was a nice study (from the 1990s) which evaluated what would happen in case of a serious accident in a PWR. It may be true that those plants are safer than BWRs, but if Murphy comes and get us, the consequences will be much more serious. They found out that the most likely serious accident would be a high pressure meltdown. Which probably looks like the following picture:
http://tec-sim.de/images/stories/hpp-fail.jpg"
I know that it was ridiculed by some users of this forum, but they probably lacked the proper description. Cooling systems fail, core is still under high pressure and melts down, RPV is compromised, the bottom snaps off and the whole RPV is flying upwards through the Containment. "I believe I can fly~"

Common answer to that scenario would be "that won't happen since we have fancy security systems". Well, I'm pretty sure the japanese said the same thing about their plants before 11/3. Final words:
I'm honestly shocked by the utter arrogance some previous writers showed. A american desigend nuclear power plant in one of the technological leading country just failed in every possible aspect, contaminated large areas and those guys are still one hundred percent sure that won't happen again because their plants are way more secure...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
I spent a year and half writing a paper, "California Earthquakes and Human Response", in college, Senior Paper. It has nothing to do with man's ability to provide safe energy, (I will admit), but, I came to the conclusion that it is really hit or miss when it comes to earthquakes.

Although unlikely in California, (from our records), if an event such as the one in Alaska in 1964 were to happen, (you really never know), it would not matter if man sunk
titanium caissons 85 feet into solid rock, (well, maybe that would be safe !). The Alaska quake sent sidewalks and roads rippling through the air down the street, (its captured on film). This type of force cannot be stopped by man.

As example of a different force of nature: If we put up a wall of concrete and steel against Mt. St. Helens, could it have survived the 1980 volcanic explosion ? In fairness though, I am not a structural engineer, and I really do not know what structures that man is capable of. I really just don't want to hear about radiation messing up any future trips in So cal. Plus, I live there. Why chance it ? Put several plants in the Nevada nuclear test site areas. A much better, safer alternative
 
  • #28
Final words:
I'm honestly shocked by the utter arrogance some previous writers showed. A american desigend nuclear power plant in one of the technological leading country just failed in every possible aspect, contaminated large areas and those guys are still one hundred percent sure that won't happen again because their plants are way more secure...

I'm suprised at the utter arrogance and ignorance in plenty of people here on the forums. Especially the ones that believe that nuclear power is the worst thing ever designed. Every incident to date has shown that an insufficient focus on safety has been the ultimate deciding factor during incidents or the direct cause of them. Also, I don't believe that anyone in this forum has ever said that they are 100% sure it won't happen. The argument has been whether the benefits outweigh the risks, which brings in the argument of chances of incidents. Obviously there are a huge variety of opinions.

There are multiple threads on these views already, so I will not be replying to any responses here unless you really want me to.

If I remember correctly, the newest NPP in the US is from 1980. Have fun counting 40+ years NPPs there.

Hrmm, I thought we had newer ones since then. If not, then my mistake.
 
  • #29
FMRR86 said:
We probably should go back to hunter/gathering.
Pass.
 
  • #30
Drakkith said:
I'm suprised at the utter arrogance and ignorance in plenty of people here on the forums. Especially the ones that believe that nuclear power is the worst thing ever designed.

Well, the truth lies in between. I mostly see only two extremes:
The guys who're thinking of nuclear power as the ultimate gift to humanitys hunger for energy regardless of any consequences, which, of course, won't happen anyway since there are so many well engineered safety systems.
And then there are the guys who, as you mentioned, think of nuclear power as pure evil.

I never opposed nuclear power until March. I thought of it as a clean and secure energy source. But then a certain earthquake happened and chaos unfolded. Afterwards I wasn't so sure anymore about all that praised security. Screw ups can always happen. There ARE things we didn't think of. We just don't know these things yet (otherwise we'd have counter-engineered them, right?).
And nuclear power unfortunately is a technology which doesn't tolerate any kind of screw up. So I revised my point and thought not using that technology might be for the better. And seeing people categorically excluding ANY kind of accident despite Chernobyl and Fukushima kinda confirmed my revision.

Hrmm, I thought we had newer ones since then. If not, then my mistake.

Quote from wikipedia:

Ground has been broken on two new nuclear plants with a total of four reactors. The only reactor currently under construction in America, at Watts Bar, Tennessee, was begun in 1973 and may be completed in 2012. Of the 104 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier.
 
  • #31
clancy688 said:
The guys who're thinking of nuclear power as the ultimate gift to humanitys hunger for energy regardless of any consequences, which, of course, won't happen anyway since there are so many well engineered safety systems.

Who says this?

There ARE things we didn't think of. We just don't know these things yet (otherwise we'd have counter-engineered them, right?).

So Japan never envisioned an earthquake happening in that country? Or a tsunami? You're completely ignoring everything said on this forum in regards to risk assessment. Things are engineered to tolerate certain events happening and unfortunately, we can't engineer against everything nor can we engineer against things we can't foresee. And you know what? That's too bad. We can't engineer cities against being hit by meteors and comets, but that doesn't mean we stop building cities. San Francisco could some day be hit by a 9.0 earthquake and destroy the city, but no one's saying we should pack SF up and move it someplace safer.

And nuclear power unfortunately is a technology which doesn't tolerate any kind of screw up.

These are empty words. The whole idea of having multiple safety systems within any kind of complex system is to deal with the fact that screw ups do happen. Talk about space shuttle launches if you want to talk about technologies that don't tolerate screw ups.
 
  • #32
clancy688 said:
Well, the truth lies in between. I mostly see only two extremes:
The guys who're thinking of nuclear power as the ultimate gift to humanitys hunger for energy regardless of any consequences, which, of course, won't happen anyway since there are so many well engineered safety systems.
And then there are the guys who, as you mentioned, think of nuclear power as pure evil.

Honestly, I have yet to meet anyone of the former. Most people here probably fall in between, and I know I've seen at least a few of the latter.

And nuclear power unfortunately is a technology which doesn't tolerate any kind of screw up. So I revised my point and thought not using that technology might be for the better. And seeing people categorically excluding ANY kind of accident despite Chernobyl and Fukushima kinda confirmed my revision.
Quote from wikipedia:


What do you mean? The only scew ups that aren't tolerated are the ones that exceed designed safety features and systems. I'm assuming you meant those kinds of screw ups? And who has been excluding Chernobyl and Fukushima?

Also, I thought that I had seen some posts i the last few months saying our designs here in america were much newer/better/something, and that we had some new ones built or being built. I guess I was mistaken.
 
  • #33
Pengwuino said:
Who says this?

You for example, in your first post in this thread. I had to read it twice until I was sure that there wasn't any sarcasm included.


So Japan never envisioned an earthquake happening in that country? Or a tsunami?

Not as big and not as high. There were enough 30 metre tsunamis during the last centuries and yet they failed to realize this and build sufficient protection. In my opinion that counts as "they didn't think of that".
But of course, all non japanese engineers are way better, they wouldn't overlook such a danger. (Warning: Sarcasm included)


These are empty words. The whole idea of having multiple safety systems within any kind of complex system is to deal with the fact that screw ups do happen. Talk about space shuttle launches if you want to talk about technologies that don't tolerate screw ups.

That's the point. There are multiple safety systems for rockets but nobody says they are safe because of safety systems. Space travel is considered as dangerous despite all these safety systems.
But nuclear plants are considered safe. They are as safe as rockets. Maybe the chance for accidents is magnitudes below the accident probability in space travel. But the chance is there. Fukushima demonstrated that pretty well.


But I think we should stop at that point. You probably won't move from your position and I won't move from mine. We both consider each others arguments as not as strong as our own, so continuing would be pointless and driving the thread further offtopic.
 
  • #34
That's the point. There are multiple safety systems for rockets but nobody says they are safe because of safety systems. Space travel is considered as dangerous despite all these safety systems.
But nuclear plants are considered safe. They are as safe as rockets. Maybe the chance for accidents is magnitudes below the accident probability in space travel. But the chance is there. Fukushima demonstrated that pretty well.

I can see what you mean, but I think there are a few differences between rockets and nuclear power plants. For one, the weight constraints on rockets is a big factor.

But I think we should stop at that point. You probably won't move from your position and I won't move from mine. We both consider each others arguments as not as strong as our own, so continuing would be pointless and driving the thread further offtopic.

You are probably correct.
 
  • #35
clancy688 said:
You for example, in your first post in this thread. I had to read it twice until I was sure that there wasn't any sarcasm included.

I will have to admit, I can't really equate

me said:
There is a chance the biggest earthquake in history will hit 5 feet away from one of the reactors and it would destroy everything. Who knows, but we really can't shut down the world because of various unlikely incidents possibly occurring.

If we had a good replacement for nuclear, it would be nice to shut them down, but we don't unfortunately.

with

you said:
The guys who're thinking of nuclear power as the ultimate gift to humanitys hunger for energy regardless of any consequences, which, of course, won't happen anyway since there are so many well engineered safety systems.

which makes me think

But I think we should stop at that point. You probably won't move from your position and I won't move from mine. We both consider each others arguments as not as strong as our own, so continuing would be pointless and driving the thread further offtopic.

is indeed the best course of action.
 
<h2>1. What are the potential risks of nuclear reactors in California?</h2><p>The potential risks of nuclear reactors in California include the release of harmful radiation, potential meltdowns, and the production of nuclear waste that can remain hazardous for thousands of years.</p><h2>2. Can't we just rely on renewable energy instead of nuclear power?</h2><p>While renewable energy sources like solar and wind are important in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, they may not be able to meet the current energy demands of California. Nuclear power provides a reliable and consistent source of energy, especially during times of high demand.</p><h2>3. Is it possible to safely disable nuclear reactors in California?</h2><p>Yes, it is possible to safely disable nuclear reactors in California. However, it would require careful planning and implementation to ensure that all safety protocols are followed and that the process does not cause any harm to the environment or surrounding communities.</p><h2>4. What are the economic implications of disabling nuclear reactors in California?</h2><p>Disabling nuclear reactors in California would have significant economic implications, as it would require finding alternative sources of energy and potentially lead to higher energy costs for consumers. It could also impact jobs in the nuclear energy industry and related sectors.</p><h2>5. Are there any alternatives to disabling nuclear reactors in California?</h2><p>Yes, there are alternatives to disabling nuclear reactors in California. These include implementing stricter safety regulations, investing in new technologies to improve the safety and efficiency of nuclear power, and finding ways to safely dispose of nuclear waste.</p>

1. What are the potential risks of nuclear reactors in California?

The potential risks of nuclear reactors in California include the release of harmful radiation, potential meltdowns, and the production of nuclear waste that can remain hazardous for thousands of years.

2. Can't we just rely on renewable energy instead of nuclear power?

While renewable energy sources like solar and wind are important in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, they may not be able to meet the current energy demands of California. Nuclear power provides a reliable and consistent source of energy, especially during times of high demand.

3. Is it possible to safely disable nuclear reactors in California?

Yes, it is possible to safely disable nuclear reactors in California. However, it would require careful planning and implementation to ensure that all safety protocols are followed and that the process does not cause any harm to the environment or surrounding communities.

4. What are the economic implications of disabling nuclear reactors in California?

Disabling nuclear reactors in California would have significant economic implications, as it would require finding alternative sources of energy and potentially lead to higher energy costs for consumers. It could also impact jobs in the nuclear energy industry and related sectors.

5. Are there any alternatives to disabling nuclear reactors in California?

Yes, there are alternatives to disabling nuclear reactors in California. These include implementing stricter safety regulations, investing in new technologies to improve the safety and efficiency of nuclear power, and finding ways to safely dispose of nuclear waste.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
52
Views
7K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top