Shouldn't we disable Nuclear Reactors in California?

[Bodge]

If we pile in 1/4 of the money that is invested in nuclear power, GE's ambitions will be realized.

Historically, civilian nuclear power was and still is linked to pursuit of "the bomb"

 

[Drakkith]

If we pile in 1/4 of the money that is invested in nuclear power, GE's ambitions will be realized.

Historically, civilian nuclear power was and still is linked to pursuit of "the bomb"

What does that even mean?

 

[NUCENG]

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.

I think TEPCO considers the black swan designation is correct here.

A Black Swan event:

• Is a surprise, a rare or unlikely event
• Is serious, unforseen by the "experts"
• Has been rationalized to explain why they didn't see it coming.

I agree this is not a true black swan event for many of us because:

Earthquakes and tsunamies are not exactly rare or unexpected in Japan.
Experts in Japan knew of the eathquakes and tsunamis 1100 years ago and 2200 years ago. They even tried to get TEPCO to adress these enents in the last 5 years.
Risk Assessment could have pointed out the high "worth" value of station blackouts and EDGs if regulators had been regulating and not making "suggestions.".

I think you can insert "criminal" before "negligence." I reject the term black swan on all three criteria.

 

[clancy688]

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.

I believe there was an assessment which assumed the economical damage of the nuclear disaster at ~250 billion, nearly the same sum as the damage following the tsunami.

And offtopic:

Japan has a death penalty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan

 

[Luca Bevil]

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.

I generally share most of your opinions.

Not in this case however.
I can conceive no targets that offer more potential than an NPP for terror, detruction, long term damage, economic consequences.

Let's hope thay are going to get somewhat protected.. before it's too late

 

[clancy688]

Not in this case however.
I can conceive no targets that offer more potential than an NPP for terror, detruction, long term damage, economic consequences.

Thank god Al-Quaida didn't realize the potential of an airplane attack on a nuclear reactor.
I can't imagine what would've happened if they guided the hijacked planes into Indian Point instead of the WTC and the Pentagon.

Or maybe they did realize the potential but didn't try it since hitting a nuclear reactor with a passanger plane is way more challenging than hitting a skyscraper (and even there plane #2 nearly missed it).

 

[NUCENG]

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"

That will be wonderful! I honestly hope that is right. However, if Wishes was Fishes we could feed the world!

 

[Bodge]

What does that even mean?

I thought I was clear enough, but I can explain if you like:

If a small fraction of the (historical) global investment in nuclear power is made in solar power research, it may only be 3 years before solar power becomes cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power has been given unprecedented government support due to its military applications, i.e. nuclear submarines, ships and weapons.

see Russia, USA, UK, N.KOREA, IRAN, FRANCE, ISRAEL, SYRIA, IRAQ, etc, etc.

Without government guarantees, no NPP could operate due to the fact that no insurer would cover them.

Fukushima Daiichi cleanup ans compensation costs = $250 billion+.
Chernobyl = "hundreds of billions of dollars." - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf"

 

[Danuta]

I think you can insert "criminal" before "negligence."

I did. But finally I changed it to "insane".

 

[NUCENG]

I generally share most of your opinions.

Not in this case however.
I can conceive no targets that offer more potential than an NPP for terror, detruction, long term damage, economic consequences.

Let's hope thay are going to get somewhat protected.. before it's too late

Let's think about that, on 9/11 they got 19 men to hijack 4 jet liners. They were successful in three of their attacks. It will take a lot more than 5 suicidal people to penetrate a nuclear plant and get anywhere near the vital equipment. Even if they do somehow create an accident it will probably be similar to Fukushima - no prompt fatalities. Panic and Fear? Certainly, these would exist, no doubt amplified by the media. On the other hand there is a good chance there would be no result other than some dead terrorists. A football stadium on Saturday or Sunday is a much better target if you are looking for body count.

The Japanese government answered questions to the Convention on Nuclear Safety in 2002.

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/internationalcooperation/conventions/cns/pdf/2ndAnswers.pdf

See if you can wrap your head around this:

Question:
Protection against terrorism. It is stated that Japan is a stable
country with a very low terrorism threat. Did the terrorist attacks
in the Tokyo subways (SARIN gas) change this view? Were the
atrocities of September 11 2001 in the USA, where the
destroying effects of a crashing Jumbo-jet full of kerosene were
dramatically demonstrated, a reason for design re-evaluations
and/or design changes of the operating plants? Were there
changes regarding the new designs?

NISA Answer:
Since the terrorist attacks in Tokyo subway using Sarin gas, the Government has
been continuously considering implementing necessary protections against
Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical terrorism. We still understand that terrorist
attacks are few in Japan and that Japan is a rather stable country. As for the
terrorist attacks on 9/11, NISA does not re-evaluate current designs of our
nuclear power plants [boldface added]

Does that attitude say anything about "overlooking" tsunamis?

 

[clancy688]

Solar Energy alone won't help much. It can't compensate peak loads and it can't provide base load. We still need conventional plants for a stable energy supply. Or very effective techniques for energy storage, so that we could store unused energy during the day and recall it in the night when there's no sun.

Currently, the only effective energy storage technique is a pumped storage hydro power station. And we need the right geography for it to work. Here in Germany, nearly every location suitable for such plants are used. And they still can only provide a fraction of the storage capacity needed.

 

[Danuta]

I can conceive no targets that offer more potential than an NPP for terror, detruction, long term damage, economic consequences.

I agree. Nothing better instills terror in people's minds than a blown up, steaming, smoking and out of control radiation spewing reactor with a blob of fubarium smouldering in the dry well. Well, maybe three such reactors(or more). Not even going to mention the SFPs.

A terrorist's dream. Potentially the biggest dirty bomb ever now that they know all you have to do is knock out power and backup on vintage reactors.

 

[NeoDevin]

Thank god Al-Quaida didn't realize the potential of an airplane attack on a nuclear reactor.
I can't imagine what would've happened if they guided the hijacked planes into Indian Point instead of the WTC and the Pentagon.

Most likely the plane would be destroyed, with relatively minor damage to the NPP.

 

[clancy688]

Most likely the plane would be destroyed, with relatively minor damage to the NPP.

Here in Germany we had plants which, according to official government studies, wouldn't even withstand a Cessna.
And I'm pretty sure these ones were newer than Indian Point for example.

Don't underestimate the force of 150 tons moving at several hundred miles. The 9/11 planes in New York totally smashed through reinforced concrete and elevator shafts.

 

[Danuta]

Let's think about that, on 9/11 they got 19 men to hijack 4 jet liners. They were successful in three of their attacks. It will take a lot more than 5 suicidal people to penetrate a nuclear plant and get anywhere near the vital equipment.

Disable backup generators weeks if not months before the event. Nobody would have noticed this at Fuku. When was the last time they tested their backup generators?? Probably years ago. They just fudged it on the safety report as usual, eh. And no need to penetrate the nuclear power plant to knock out main power.

 

[Danuta]

Here in Germany we had plants which, according to official government studies, wouldn't even withstand a Cessna.

*&^%$#@ unbelievable. I did not know that.

 

[clancy688]

*&^%$#@ unbelievable. I did not know that.

Hm, I researched that. Apparently, the study stated that no german NPP would withstand a normal passenger airplane. And a few (of the older ones) won't even withstand "small passenger airplanes". Somehow the media thought that means something similar to a Cessna.
Sorry for that misleading comment of mine.

 

[Bodge]

How about we start by dismantling every existing NPP on its 35th birthday?

Anything else is akin to Russian Roulette IMHO.

 

[NUCENG]

I thought I was clear enough, but I can explain if you like:

If a small fraction of the (historical) global investment in nuclear power is made in solar power research, it may only be 3 years before solar power becomes cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors.

Nuclear power has been given unprecedented government support due to its military applications, i.e. nuclear submarines, ships and weapons.

see Russia, USA, UK, N.KOREA, IRAN, FRANCE, ISRAEL, SYRIA, IRAQ, etc, etc.

Without government guarantees, no NPP could operate due to the fact that no insurer would cover them.

Fukushima Daiichi cleanup ans compensation costs = $250 billion+.
Chernobyl = "hundreds of billions of dollars." - http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf"

Military uses and support for nuclear power development is historical fact, like the development of aviation. But a Boeing 747 is a transport, not a fighter or bomber. A commercial nuclear plant, absent reprocessing, has no military applications.

And right now solar and wind energy require even larger government subsidies per kilowatt to make it possible to produce electricity and sell it in competition with coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. I don't object to subsidizing research to improve solar and wind power so it can become competitive. Government guarantees of construction loans only cost the taxpayers if the utilities default on their loans. Government funded insurance for accident effects above a liability limit is a more direct subsidy, but again, no accident, no extraordinary costs. It has been stated erroneously that nuclear plants do not have any insurance costs. That is not correct, they are insured for employeee injuries, liabilities and many other normal industrial insurance categories. They are insured for accidents up to the federal limit on liability.Decommissioning funds are maintained as well. Rate payers, not taxpayers) have paid for a geological repository through taxes on nuclear plant power production. Regulatory costs that involve direct support or reviews of plants are billed to the plants and they don't work cheap.

So this whole idea about investing a small fraction of nuclear subsidies in alternative energy is a smoke screen. They are already getting a large fraction, at least here in the US.

Go ahead, check out the federal budget to reinsure nuclear loan guarantees, and other insurance. Add in the DOE costs for the portion of DOE and NRC that support commercial nuclear power.

Then add up the subsidies for ethanol, solar power, wind power, oil shale, thermal energy, biomass energy, tidal energy and all the other potential sources of energy. Remember to add in the environmental costs of greenhouse gases and other fossile plant emissions which are defacto subsidies. Add the ratepayer funding for Yucca mountain that won't benefit the nuclear industry at all. See what the facts are.

By the way GE is a multiple billion dollar company that paid zero income taxes. Any bets about government funding for GE development of competitive solor research? That company does nothing that doesn't generate profit. And if they solve the energy problem, that is OK by me.

 

[Drakkith]

How about we start by dismantling every existing NPP on its 35th birthday?

Anything else is akin to Russian Roulette IMHO.

Sure. I hope you have a plan for replacing them with something else to generate power. Both dismantling old plants and buliding new ones will cost money, so I hope you can find the funds to do so as well.

 

[NUCENG]

Disable backup generators weeks if not months before the event. Nobody would have noticed this at Fuku. When was the last time they tested their backup generators?? Probably years ago. They just fudged it on the safety report as usual, eh. And no need to penetrate the nuclear power plant to knock out main power.

Don't know about Japan rules for testing EDGs but in the US they are tested monthly and the required reliability is 0.975 to start and carry loads for an hour.

 

[Bodge]

Thanks for your detailed reply NUCENG.

re. "They are already getting a large fraction" [of investment]

Not of historical investment levels.

But, I agree, the current subsidies for the expensive and inefficient solar panel installations are a waste of money. Wind is also underwhelming.

The breakthrough will come when solar cells become cheap enough to put everywhere.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-swiss-cheese-enables-thin-silicon.html" recent story is one example of the kind of thing nano technology may bring to the equation.

The Japanese and Germans, who are abandoning nuclear power due to Popular Opinion, will figure out the renewable energy storage problems.

Technology advances and economies of scale will hopefully make this a reality...

 

[NUCENG]

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.

Yes, I have heard of it and included it in my analyses and designs every day in the nuclear industry. One of the best examples of margin in nuclear power is evident if you want to research calculations for safety-related instrument and controls setpoints. Two potential searches include NRC regulatory RG 1.105 and TSTF-493 which is a recent rework and enhancement for this area.

 

[NUCENG]

I believe there was an assessment which assumed the economical damage of the nuclear disaster at ~250 billion, nearly the same sum as the damage following the tsunami.

And offtopic:

Japan has a death penalty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan

Oops, should have checked that. I lived there for three years and never heard of it being used. Probably won't be invoked here unless somebody proves it was murder.

 

[Danuta]

Hm, I researched that. Apparently, the study stated that no german NPP would withstand a normal passenger airplane. And a few (of the older ones) won't even withstand "small passenger airplanes". Somehow the media thought that means something similar to a Cessna.
Sorry for that misleading comment of mine.

I'm assuming(but shouldn't anymore) that they calculated weight, velocity and angle. Yeah, I don't see how a vintage reactor could withstand the dive bombing of a medium or jumbo sized passenger plane right into it at a steep angle. Especially if the engine was cut some time before. But it would have to be a freak accident because you'd have to be a damn good commercial airline pilot to hit the smallish target purposefully at a steep angle, which most terrorists aren't. You'd still have to be a pretty good commercial airplane pilot to come in low and parallel. Imagine jet fuel ignition on impact.

I'd like to consult my alias, Dmytry, on this one.

 

[clancy688]

But it would have to be a freak accident because you'd have to be a damn good commercial airline pilot to hit the smallish target purposefully at a steep angle, which most terrorists aren't.

The webmaster of the often recited www.tec-sim.de[/URL] homepage wrote (somewhere on the main page) that a high wall in front of every NPP would be enough to stop every airplane.

That's because a commercial airliner is only able to fly a controlled descent angle of 15 degrees.

[PLAIN][URL]http://tec-sim.de/images/stories/eibl.jpg[/URL]

 

[Drakkith]

The webmaster of the often recited www.tec-sim.de[/URL] homepage wrote (somewhere on the main page) that a high wall in front of every NPP would be enough to stop every airplane.

That's because a commercial airliner is only able to fly a controlled descent angle of 15 degrees.
[/QUOTE]

Are you sure that doesn't mean a "safe and controlled" descent? During 9/11 the air traffic controllers for the airport near the pentagon commented on the manueverability of the plane with "Commercial planes don't fly like that. It isn't safe". Could it be that you can control an airliner at a steeper angle, but it is extremely unsafe and could likely result in a crash during normal circumstances?

 

[clancy688]

Well, I found this very very nice pdf:

http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT17/J03-6.pdf

"Airplane Impact on Nuclear Power Plants"As for the angle, I don't know. tec-sim only writes that 15 degrees is the maximum descent angle for a commercial airplane.

 

[Danuta]

The webmaster of the often recited www.tec-sim.de[/URL] homepage wrote (somewhere on the main page) that a high wall in front of every NPP would be enough to stop every airplane.

That's because a commercial airliner is only able to fly a controlled descent angle of 15 degrees. [/QUOTE]

Okay, so the only way you could get a steeper angle on a commercial plane would have to be flying manual(good luck) or if something bad happened to the engines high up and the plane was in free fall. Basically, loss of control at a certain height and distance. Hmm, freak accident it would have to be.

15 degrees into the building at any building height would still do major damage, I'm quite sure.

How would the reactor buildings at Fuku have stood up to jet fuel explosion and heat?

 

[Danuta]

Could it be that you can control an airliner at a steeper angle, but it is extremely unsafe and could likely result in a crash during normal circumstances?

You can take a commercial plane out of auto/assisted pilot and put it in manual. But it is almost never done. It was discovered recently(an article I read, got to find it) that some pilots couldn't fly the plane if computer assistance was cut off. I think you need to be one heck of a commercial plane pilot to fly manual let alone hit a small target flying manual. It would be quite a feat and nothing simple like hitting huge twin towers.

Edit: But if you are a terrorist, why bother with all this complicated airplane crashing stuff when all you have to do is sabotage/disable backup and cut power at some of these vintage reactors.

 

[NUCENG]

If we pile in 1/4 of the money that is invested in nuclear power, GE's ambitions will be realized.

Historically, civilian nuclear power was and still is linked to pursuit of "the bomb"

Okay, I thought this through and North Korea, Iran and Syria come to mind as linking nuclear power to military uses. But those reactors are state owned and operated, not commercial, and I doubt whether they would be shutdown even if they were commercial failures. Can you explain why you believe commercial nuclear plants in the US or Japan, or UK or Germany are still linked to nuclear weapons? (Especially Japan?)

 

[NUCENG]

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.

Are you thinking of Linear No Threshold (LNT)? The biggest problem there is that the nuclear industry acts on the possibility that LNT is truth. That is the basis behind ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). It acknowledges that radiation equals risk and minimizes that risk. (Note that it does not eliminate that risk). If I had to summarize Dmytry's position it is that we should reduce that risk by not allowing any extra exposure. That is not possible if you are producing nuclear power. The current industry standards seek to maintain the benefit of nuclear power while monitoring and controlling radiation exposure to a very low level. I will probably get in trouble for putting words in his mouth, but so far I still have ten fingers.

 

[NUCENG]

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.

For discussion sake, there have been a lot of improvements in protection systems for the electrical distribution system since 1859. I will have to do some research on this because I just read about the 1859 solar storm at the following link.

http://www.rense.com/general43/great.htm

The numbers in nT quoted in that article appear to indicate that the 1859 event was three times worse that the 1989 event if the relationshhip is linear. How do the level relate to radiation hardened designs now being built into satellites?

Also, have you read about the death toll of the 1917 influenza pandemic or the black death plague in the midddle ages? Geological evidence of past volcanic eruptions from the Yellowstone Park area could create world wide effects and loss of a large part of the world population. Mass extinctions due to asteroids or comets have happened before. I'm sorry, but Mother Nature can be a female dog! So we can try to find ways to better protect a plant from an earthquake or a tsunami, but I have no idea what to do if a big chunk of the moon hits that plant other than to hope I am at ground zero like Woody Harrelson in the movie "2012," or like Slim Pickens in "Dr. Strangelove." Yahoo!

 

[NUCENG]

Pass.

Ah the good old days when old age was 35 and you starved because your teeth were ground down to the gums. At least obesity wouldn't be a big prpblem

 

[daveb]

Well, I found this very very nice pdf:

http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT17/J03-6.pdf

"Airplane Impact on Nuclear Power Plants"


As for the angle, I don't know. tec-sim only writes that 15 degrees is the maximum descent angle for a commercial airplane.

Here's a great video of a plane crashing intoa concrete wall. Most plants have thicker walls around the core.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0MhOdkREQ"