Shouldn't we disable Nuclear Reactors in California?

[zapperzero]

This thread is hilarious. Don't let Danuta or Dmytry EVER find it, otherwise there'll be a literal massacre.

Yes yes, keep it well hidden. Dmytry would have a field day, and boy is he mean when he's wielding MTBF stats. A life spent hunting bugs in software will do that to a man.

 

[russ_watters]

And who has been excluding Chernobyl and Fukushima?

What most nuclear detractors fail to recognize is that even if we assume a never improving safety rate, nuclear still comes out several orders of magnitude safer and cleaner than its primary alternative.

 

[Drakkith]

What most nuclear detractors fail to recognize is that even if we assume a never improving safety rate, nuclear still comes out several orders of magnitude safer and cleaner than its primary alternative.

I think the problem is that most don't believe the figures are accurate regarding deaths and injuries from radiation. Dmytrys rant about something to do with underestimating the long term effects of radiation on cancer or whatever is case in point. I can't remember the term for it. And I know I've seen a few people that believe that radiation is about 1,000 times worse for our "genetic heritage" or something than anything else.

 

[Bodge]

What most nuclear detractors fail to recognize is that even if we assume a never improving safety rate, nuclear still comes out several orders of magnitude safer and cleaner than its primary alternative.

The impact of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory" events are minimised when using any form of energy production other than fission.

The human health impacts from Fukushima remain to be assesed, but the economic cost has been put at $250 billion, not counting the costs for evacuations outside the 20km radius.

We may be warming our planet with fossil fuels, but only nuclear power could theoretically kill millions in months, leave countries uninhabitable and 'poison the gene pool'.

Imagine an 1859 strength solar storm hitting North America tomorrow: what would happen once plants run out of diesel and battery backup? With powerlines and sub-stations destroyed the risk of multiple LOCAs would be very real.

 

[Bodge]

I think the problem is that most don't believe the figures are accurate regarding deaths and injuries from radiation. Dmytrys rant about something to do with underestimating the long term effects of radiation on cancer or whatever is case in point. I can't remember the term for it. And I know I've seen a few people that believe that radiation is about 1,000 times worse for our "genetic heritage" or something than anything else.

Nature does have a good system for dealing with mutation - usually the mutant will not survive gestation or infancy. Detrimental mutations are less likely to survive in the long run.

In the short run, high (and not so high?) radiation will lead to still-borns, disabilities and cancers - this much is not in dispute.

It is disingenuous when comparisons are made between x-ray scans/air travel and air/soil/water/food particulate contamination - strontium and caesium can be trapped in the body a long time.

The argument is all about dose; over the next 50 years the Japanese will doubtless provide plenty of evidence proving what is and what isn't harmful.


BTW, fear of radiation is called radiophobia!

 

[Danuta]

The impact of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory" events are minimised when using any form of energy production other than fission.

Except what happened at Fuku is not a Black Swan event. NPPs built on a coastline that is earthquake and tsunami central getting hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami would, in fact, not be a small probability and definitely calculable. This is more a case of a Stupid Negligent Risk Assessment event, not a true Black Swan event.

 

[Danuta]

yes yes, keep it well hidden. Dmytry would have a field day, and boy is he mean when he's wielding mtbf stats. A life spent hunting bugs in software will do that to a man.

lol!

 

[Pengwuino]

I think the problem is that most don't believe the figures are accurate regarding deaths and injuries from radiation. Dmytrys rant about something to do with underestimating the long term effects of radiation on cancer or whatever is case in point. I can't remember the term for it. And I know I've seen a few people that believe that radiation is about 1,000 times worse for our "genetic heritage" or something than anything else.

I think it's the same type of fear that people who don't want to fly have. I'm one of these people in a way. You can throw numbers and statistics at me and tell me "100,000,000s of people fly every year. There hasn't been a domestic commercial airlane crash in the US for years. You're X-times more likely to die driving instead" and I'm still hesitant to fly. People are bombarded with media telling them a bullet hole in an airplane will send the the thing plummeting and anything radioactive instantly gives you cancer. To hell with the statistics and the experts, they're obviously covering something up because I've been bombarded with the contrary for years!

This is more a case of a Stupid Negligent Risk Assessment event, not a true Black Swan event.

A nearly 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami. I think that's less 'stupid negligence' and more the fact that you simply can't plan for everything to happen all at once. It sounds like there were things that could have been done and prepared better, but part of risk assessment is assuming you can't plan for everything all the time.

 

[Drakkith]

What I got from the side against nuclear power, was that for a number of reasons we cannot reliably use nuclear power within their view of "safe". The most common (or loudly stated) reasons were that people can't be trusted to operate the plant safely, we cannot plan for everything and therefore it is too dangerous, and radiation is too dangerous and is being underestimated in its dangers. Each of those has its own reasons, but I think you get the gist of it.

What can you tell someone that doesn't believe anything you say is correct? Nothing. I'm sure this would be agreed upon by both sides.

 

[Pengwuino]

What can you tell someone that doesn't believe anything you say is correct? Nothing. I'm sure this would be agreed upon by both sides.

"Back up what you said with published research".

 

[Drakkith]

"Back up what you said with published research".

They have. And both sides discount the other sides research. At least that is what I saw myself. I didn't follow each thread intimately though.

 

[Pengwuino]

They have. And both sides discount the other sides research. At least that is what I saw myself. I didn't follow each thread intimately though.

Ahh, so are you talking about a specific argument on the forum?

My general experience is "I saw the movie China Syndrome and Hiroshima happened. That's enough for me" with people.

 

[Danuta]

A nearly 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami. I think that's less 'stupid negligence' and more the fact that you simply can't plan for everything to happen all at once. It sounds like there were things that could have been done and prepared better, but part of risk assessment is assuming you can't plan for everything all the time.

Japan's been hit with quite a few 8.0 and greater magnitude offshore earthquakes and a "ring of fire" 9.5 magnitude earthquake happened in Chile in 1960, so knowing this TEPCO's reactors should have been fortified to withstand at least a 10.0. No special praise should be given to withstanding a 9.1. As for Japanese tsunami, the biggest one on record is something like close to 40 meters high, so I'd say having at least a 50 meter seawall would have been wise but all TEPCO had was a puny 5.7 meter taifun wave barrier.

Actually, I'd change that from a Stupid Negligent Risk Assessment event to a Criminally Negligent Risk Assessment event.

 

[Pengwuino]

Japan's been hit with quite a few 8.0 and greater magnitude offshore earthquakes and a "ring of fire" 9.5 magnitude earthquake happened in Chile in 1960, so knowing this TEPCO's reactors should have been fortified to withstand at least a 10.0. As for Japanese tsunami, the biggest one on record is something like close to 40 meters high. So I'd say having at least a 50 meter seawall would have been wise but all TEPCO had was a 5.7 meter taifun wave barrier.

Actually, I'd change that from a Stupid Negligent Risk Assessment event to a Criminally Negligent Risk Assessment event.

10.0!?

See, that's not "risk assessment" in any sense of the word. That's like saying "you should only build if the reactor can withstand being hit by a 100km wide chunk of the moon". Risk management is looking at what is likely to happen and what is unlikely to happen. You try to build your system, whatever it is, to guard against what's likely to happen and try to make a cost effective defense against what is unlikely to happen, if possible. What happened at Fukushima didn't fall under "likely".

 

[Danuta]

10.0!?

See, that's not "risk assessment" in any sense of the word. That's like saying "you should only build if the reactor can withstand being hit by a 100km wide chunk of the moon". Risk management is looking at what is likely to happen and what is unlikely to happen. You try to build your system, whatever it is, to guard against what's likely to happen and try to make a cost effective defense against what is unlikely to happen, if possible. What happened at Fukushima didn't fall under "likely".

See, a reactor getting hit by a 100km wide chunk of the moon would be a true Black Swan event. It's never happened, it's a small probability and not really calculable. But a 9.5 "Ring of Fire" quake happened in 1960 and the 40 meter tsunami happened in 1933. Those are calculable.

 

[Drakkith]

Are the conditions between the tectonic plates at Japan similar enough to the ones at Chile to cause a 9.5 quake?

Also, I read that the 63 meter seawall at Kamaishi was insufficient to hold back the Tsunamai from the quake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_wall#Japan

 

[Pengwuino]

See, a reactor getting hit by a 100km wide chunk of the moon would be a true Black Swan event. It's never happened, it's a small probability and not really calculable. But a 9.5 "Ring of Fire" quake happened in 1960 and the 40 meter tsunami happened in 1933. Those are calculable.

You're not understanding risk management. A 10.0 has never happened in modern times. Risk management is not about guarding against things that have never happened.

Think about my airplane talk a few posts ago. Airplanes crash, they're bombed, etc at a rate that makes it a calculable occurrence. The risk management you do in your own head when you decide to take a flight is that "Ok, there's a 1 in whatever chance of dying on this flight, but I still need to get myself from point A to B so I am accepting this risk". In fact, most things in life are built off of this kind of risk assessment analysis. I accept the risk involved in driving to my university even though there's a chance I could die on the way. I accept investing in certain stocks even though there's a chance the company may be hiding billions of dollars of loss and are 10 days from being informed of a grand jury investigation of them. There exists no alternative that is 100% safe other than never leaving my house and stuffing my money in my mattress (although maybe my mattress will catch fire?).

The idea with a nuclear reactor is the same. It's likely a 7.0 earthquake will hit, build against it. It's less likely an 8.0 earthquake will hit, but it's still reasonable to build against it. A 9.0? Ok, less likely, try to build against it. A 10.0? It's never happened, it's not reasonable to build against things that have never happened. Remember, the more extreme you get in the unlikeliness of the event in question, the amount it costs to guard against it can be ridiculous. That's why, for example, skyscrapers in San Francisco are only built to withstand a certain magnitude earthquake. As you get to higher and higher magnitudes, it becomes so costly that it doesn't even make sense to build the skyscraper in the first place. No skyscraper in SF is built to withstand a 10.0 as far as I know.

 

[Danuta]

Are the conditions between the tectonic plates at Japan similar enough to the ones at Chile to cause a 9.5 quake?

Also, I read that the 63 meter seawall at Kamaishi was insufficient to hold back the Tsunamai from the quake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_wall#Japan

Same "Ring of Fire" subduction zone.

Really, the recent tsunami breached a 63 meter sea wall? Wow, well, then, I'm changing it from a Criminally Negligent Risk Assessment event to an Insanely Negligent Risk Assessment event.

So who builds NPPs on the eastern coast of Japan, the most seismically active and tsunami prone region/coast in the world, where there have been quite a few 8.0 and greater magnitude offshore earthquakes and puts up a 5.7 meter taifun barrier?

Yes, very interesting indeed how at Kamaishi, also on the eastern coast and not too far from Fuku, they deemed it necessary to put up a 63 meter seawall(risk management no doubt, eh) but TEPCO just has a 5.7 meter taifun barrier. Thanks for the tidbit.

 

[Danuta]

You're not understanding risk management. A 10.0 has never happened in modern times. Risk management is not about guarding against things that have never happened.

That would be "robustness". A NPP doesn't only need regular risk assessment. If there's one place that needs robustness in addition to proper risk assessment, it's a NPP.

edit: And ever hear of safety design with margin? At Fuku the probabilities were abysmally underestimated and the consequences, for a country with very little arable land and a dense population, even more so.

 

[zapperzero]

As you get to higher and higher magnitudes, it becomes so costly that it doesn't even make sense to build the skyscraper in the first place. No skyscraper in SF is built to withstand a 10.0 as far as I know.

We're thinking of building a new NPP on the coast of Japan. We know that a huge earthquake+tsunami could happen and it might wipe out the plant. We don't know the probability of it actually happening. Do we secure against this known unknown, at enormous cost, or do we not build it in the first place?

You're going to say "Your question is flawed! We do our best within the budget and hope nothing bad happens." I'm fine with that, as long as you can prove to me that the cost of failure is acceptable. In my book, an exclusion zone cutting the country in half isn't acceptable. That outcome was and still is a possibility with Fukushima.

And when I say proof, I mean scientific proof, a sound theory validated with experiments. Until then, no go. Oh and you're going to have to prove that the experiments are themselves safe enough before proceeding.

 

[Pengwuino]

You're going to say "Your question is flawed! We do our best within the budget and hope nothing bad happens." I'm fine with that, as long as you can prove to me that the cost of failure is acceptable. In my book, an exclusion zone cutting the country in half isn't acceptable. That outcome was and still is a possibility with Fukushima.

And when I say proof, I mean scientific proof, a sound theory validated with experiments. Until then, no go. Oh and you're going to have to prove that the experiments are themselves safe enough before proceeding.

This is exaggeration. Plus that's not the point! We KNOW something bad MIGHT happen, but you can't never ever do anything because of stuff that may possible happen if all the planets align and the correct butterfly flaps it's wings. It's not that the cost of failure is acceptable or not, it's about whether the RISK of failure and associated cost is acceptable. Is it acceptable for a building in san francisco to collapse and killing 10,000 people? What does acceptable even mean in that case?

If you have no idea what it risk means, I suggest you live inside a bomb shelter for the rest of your life as everything in the world is far too dangerous to take part in.

I'm done with this nonsense. You guys need to learn what risk actually means before going off about risk management.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Needless to say it takes much less than a 10R earthquake to get in trouble most NPPs in the world.

As a case in point the japanese march 11th earthquake was a 9.0R intensity quake but one with an epicenter located at 200 + km from Fukushima daichi and daini NPPs.

distance nothwithstanding the resuling ground accelerations were at maximum design level, ore in some cases exceeding them by 10 or 15 % above them.
In fact it appears likely that damage was suffered by unit 1 of daiichi, BEFORE the tsunami struck.

The Hamaoka NPP put on shutdown on PM Kan's request, had similar quake design resilience capabilities, but this one is at risk of being hit by a much closer epicentre quake of 8R+.

Risk estimates is just what are being consistently performed on the side of insufficient caution for NPPs, fact that, given the appalling potental of major incidentes is just simply unacceptable.
The US is no exception to this.
10 yrs after the appalling tragedy of september the 11 2001, many US NPPs still have completely vulnerable Mark I containments AND rooftop located pools loaded with spent fuel, Both can be possibly struck bt a determined terrorist attack, and would result in a much worse scenario tahn Fukushima.
such a tragic attack has been put in place no one but fur times only ten years ago, but no one seems to remember, apparently.

In spite of any logic these installation are not being protected by batteries of SA missiles, at least not that I know of.

That would be, short of shutting down the reactors altogether and relocating the spent fuel in less exposed structures, the only credible chanche of withstanding an air attack that I can think of.

Yes reactors in California should be shut down. They definitely should.
So should reactors reaching 40 yrs of service and of particularly unsafe containment.

The sooner the better.

 

[clancy688]

Ahh, so are you talking about a specific argument on the forum?

My general experience is "I saw the movie China Syndrome and Hiroshima happened. That's enough for me" with people.

It's rather assessments versus assements. There are assessments which conclude that Chernobyl only accounts for ~100 deaths so far, possible 4000 additional long term cancer deaths and many non-lethal thyroid cancer cases.
And there are assessments which conclude 100.000 to 1.000.000 deaths because of Chernobyl.

There's all kind of published research data. Pro-nuclear people will find research which concludes that effects and dangers of nuclear technology are negligible compared to the benefits. And contra-nuclear people will find research data which states the opposite.

Now both sides keep waving with their favourite field study and don't acknowledge the other's. That's the current situation.

That's my observation, and NO, I certainly DON'T want to start any discussion regarding which research data now really really really is the correct one.

 

[zapperzero]

We KNOW something bad MIGHT happen, but you can't never ever do anything because of stuff that may possible happen if all the planets align and the correct butterfly flaps it's wings. It's not that the cost of failure is acceptable or not, it's about whether the RISK of failure and associated cost is acceptable. Is it acceptable for a building in san francisco to collapse and killing 10,000 people? What does acceptable even mean in that case?

I will spare you the embarrassment of discussing the overall tone and quality of your post.

To the points you make: yes, it's true we can't sit on our hands while population is increasing. We need power, food, shelter, and lots. All of that power is going to come with associated costs, in terms of lives and money. This is a given.

You state "it's not that the cost of failure is acceptable or not, it's about whether the RISK of failure and associated cost is acceptable". Let us discuss this for a bit.

NPPs in the United States are uninsured. This is because they are not insurable. That is, absolutely no-one who cares about their money is prepared to bet that the risk of a NPP failing and the subsequent associated cost is smaller than any insurance premium a NPP operator might reasonably pay. That, to me, is the very definition of unacceptable risk.

Let's approach this from another angle. We now have enough data to say that for a population of about 400 NPPs, we will get one total failure every twenty years or so. That's the risk. Now for the associated cost. A lower bound estimate for Fukushima is 250 billion dollars, so far. But what does this "so far" mean? Well, we know that some land will become unusable for decades if not centuries. The economic cost is, thus, unbounded.

You ask "Is it acceptable for a building in san francisco to collapse and killing 10,000 people? What does acceptable even mean in that case? " Let's talk about this from a systemic risk perspective.

Yes, it is acceptable for one building to collapse, out of all the similar buildings that have been built. HOWEVER, if I find out that all buildings which house 10000 people or more in them share a common failure mode and thus will ALL fail in an earthquake, well then, I don't think that's acceptable anymore.

No BWR can survive a total loss of coolant accident . That's a common failure mode. Furthermore, most BWRs would suffer meltdowns if offsite power becomes unavailable and remains unavailable for more than eight hours. That's two common, catastrophic failure modes. Furthermore, all BWRs in existence store "spent" fuel onsite, in non-hardened buildings, with little security and ZERO contingency planning for loss of coolant, loss of power, missiles of any sort (yes, meteorites and errant turbine blades do count), earthquakes disturbing the geometry of close-packed fuel racks... That's three, no, make that six or seven common, catastrophic failure modes.

No need for the butterfly's wings to resonate with the orbital irregularities of Jupiter I'm afraid.

 

[zapperzero]

In spite of any logic these installation are not being protected by batteries of SA missiles, at least not that I know of.

Don't think planes. That was yesterday's threat. Post-Fukushima, you can bet every reasonably-educated, hate-filled wannabe Islamic terrorist (I am describing Mohammed Atta here; there are many Mohammed Atta types in the world, or so the US gov't tells us) is checking out pictures on Google Earth and thinking:

"Oooohh... so if we blow up this transformer station here, and block these two road intersections there and there with IEDs, this NPP here goes kablooey in eight hours' time? Wow. Osama, you shall be avenged. In style."

Take that and plug it in your risk assessments, Pengwuino.

 

[NUCENG]

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.

Actually the BWR has greater margin to fuel damage from temperature limits than a PWR. A BWR is designed to boil. A PWR is never allowed to have boiling so the PWR operates at higher pressures and temperatures.

 

[Drakkith]

Don't think planes. That was yesterday's threat. Post-Fukushima, you can bet every reasonably-educated, hate-filled wannabe Islamic terrorist (I am describing Mohammed Atta here; there are many Mohammed Atta types in the world, or so the US gov't tells us) is checking out pictures on Google Earth and thinking:

"Oooohh... so if we blow up this transformer station here, and block these two road intersections there and there with IEDs, this NPP here goes kablooey in eight hours' time? Wow. Osama, you shall be avenged. In style."

Take that and plug it in your risk assessments, Pengwuino.

Umm, you'd have to add in there the part about destroying the backup generators and keeping anything from land AND air from getting there.

 

[daveb]

Umm, you'd have to add in there the part about destroying the backup generators and keeping anything from land AND air from getting there.

And the on-site armed security forces, emergency procedures for dealing with these kinds of incidents, etc. Nuclear plants have to create numerous scenarios for dealing with energency situations, and the NRC has begun re-examining our plants to determine if procedures in place can adequately deal with similar situations. You can read up on things here.http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/category/emergency-preparedness-and-response/"

 

[zapperzero]

And the on-site armed security forces, emergency procedures for dealing with these kinds of incidents, etc. Nuclear plants have to create numerous scenarios for dealing with energency situations, and the NRC has begun re-examining our plants to determine if procedures in place can adequately deal with similar situations. You can read up on things here.http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/category/emergency-preparedness-and-response/"

I'm very glad the NRC has "begun re-examining" things. Now let's hope the combined NRC/operators/security OODA loop is shorter than that of your average terrorist cell.

 

[zapperzero]

Umm, you'd have to add in there the part about destroying the backup generators and keeping anything from land AND air from getting there.

I'm sure you can think of something. Let's not take this any further than is actually needed.

EDIT: on second thought this is all idle talk anyway. There are much easier targets with similar potential for destruction and terror.

 

[uart]

Many people are claiming that the Japanese tsunami was about a one in 1000 year event. Consider however that Fukushima NPP had been operating for over 40 years and would almost certainly operated for another 10 years had the disaster not have happened. So in that context it had a 1 in 20 probability of happening over the operational lifetime of the reactor. Seriously, is a 1 in 20 chance that small that it is a "black swan" event? I think not.

 

[russ_watters]

Agreed and I think the preliminary report on it said the design criteria for the generators was wrong.

 

[NUCENG]

Many people are claiming that the Japanese tsunami was about a one in 1000 year event. Consider however that Fukuphima NPP had been operating for over 40 years and would almost certainly operated for another 10 years had the disaster not have happened. So in that context it had a 1 in 20 probability of happening over the operational lifetime of the reactor. Seriously, is a 1 in 20 chance that small that it is a "black swan" event? I think not.

Can they do anything about that probability? Can they turn off their section of the "Pacific Ring of Fire"? 1/20 per year probability of an earthquake/tsunami is the probability of an event. The consequence of this event so far is roughly 25,000 prompt deaths due to non-nuclear causes (1250 deaths per year risk) and 0 prompt fatalities from nuclear aspects (0 prompt deaths per year).

There will be latent deaths from both sources. Injuries, economic impacts, suicides, exposure to non-nuclear contaminants and carcinogens will cause further deaths as time passes. And if Japan fixes the problems with their remaining nuclear plants, and improves defenses against tsunamis and earthquakes both risks will decrease.

Unfair to just consider deaths, do the math for injuries and you see the same result. Calculate the economic impact. Damages and dislocation due to non-nuclear impacts far exceed damages and dislocation from the nuclear accident. Duration of that damage and dislocation will potentially become worse for contaminated areas from radiation over time (and for a heavily popolated country with such small land area, this is a vital issue in Japan.)

The accidents at TEPCO Fukushima plants made the consequences of an already terrible disaster worse. Somebody needs to go to jail (no death penalty in Japan) and a whole lot of things need to be done so that never happens again.

What can Japan do? Their coal reserve is inadequate, they have little or no oil reserves. Importing energy is expensive and would put Japanese industry at a big disadvantage. They currently have only 17 of 52 reactors operating and are looking at massive disruptions until they can replace or restart generation. There is no country that has solved the problem of operating stable electric grids with a large portion of generation from wind and solar energy. Coal, oil, gas, and biomass all generate greenhouse gases. Japan has thermal and hydro resources, but it would take time to develop.

What they should have done (protecting against tsunami and extended station blackout) is important, but what do they do now? What can be done to change that 1/20 per year probability into a statistic with no consequence?

 

[mheslep]

...They currently have only 17 of 52 reactors operating and are looking at massive disruptions until they can replace or restart generation. ... but what do they do now?...

Restart some/many of the reactors.

 

[Bodge]

Cheap solar energy for all!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

"Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co"