Japan Crisis Puts Spotlight on Reactors in U.S.

reply to post by BiGGz


Did you read any of the 101 page February of 2011 report to Congress posted earlier in this thread?

Go here for more info: www.dnfsb.gov...

We have some very real problems with nuclear safety programs here in the U.S.

reply to post by manta78


I rememer when that ass clown Cuomo tried to close Indian Point last time .... I believe the conversation went something like this

Cuomo: Its time we closed Indian Point
Anti Nuke activists: Yeahhh !!!
NY Edison: Umm ... sir if we do that we wont have enough power to keep the lights on in Manhattan.
Cuomo: We will just buy the power from out of state
Anti Nuke activists: From "green sources" .... Yeahhh !!!
NY Edison: Umm ... sir .. have you looked at the existing peak congestion on the grid lately?
Cuomo: peak whos a whats is
NY Edison: sir, we barely have enough free capacity on the NYRI to cover our current peak load deficts and current congestion fees are adding over 35% to the peak load spot price
Cuomo: NYRI .. are you coming on to me?
NY Edison: no sir, the NYRI is the New York Regional Interconnect grid that supplies electricty to this region
Cuomo: and your point?
NY Edison: sir, our point is if we take 2200MW of generation off the NYRI that operates at 99% dispatch availability we will have rolling blackouts
Cuomo: thats bad .... right?
NY Edison: it certainly will be for your reelection campain.

Cuomo: New directive ... Indian Point stays open
Anti Nuke activists: booooo ... you sold us down the river to the SUITS!
Cuomo: its OK, you idots wont vote republican

reply to post by SirMike


Funny....That sounds about right for the type of responses a politician might make, although as you indicated that approximate text is from your memory, not actual conversations. Although I am not an anti-nuke activist, I am a person concerned about safety with reference to our nuclear programs in the United States; there is more than sufficient evidence from a variety of sources, that indicates that safety issues and deficiencies in our various nuclear programs are real, and these need to be investigated in more detail and addressed/corrected as quickly as possible.

reply to post by BiGGz

The Titanic was best ship of it's kind it was supposed to be indestructible but it still sank.
As soon as we say we are indestructible fate will prove us wrong.
The problem is nothing is 100% safe really. California has an active fault line the San Andreas fault system and in the Midwest there is the New Madrid Fault system. This could be the USA easily; Japan is very technological in fact a lot of technology comes from that area. If their power plants aren't safe then how can anyone be sure that other countrys' power plants are safe?
I never think it can't happen here about most diasters because I know it could.

Which reactors in what states I read the article but it did not state which ones. I live 100 miles from 3 nuclear power plants. If I am 100 miles away am I safe? I hope they stop building nuclear power plants. I always knew they were very dangerous. I would rather not risk people's lives and use solar power or even wind power. What is wrong with Obama and his green iniative how come he does not focus on truly safe power. What abot geo thermal power? That's safer than nuclear power.

reply to post by dreamseeker


systems for storing electric energy are notoriously expensive, capacity-limited and resource-hogging while they carry risks of their own. even if thy did exist, the generation potential of today's alternative sources will always be insufficient due to intermittency and low power density.

on to relative risk:

nextbigfuture.com...


www.britannica.com...

In addition, an estimated 145,000 people died from epidemics (caused by contamination of the water) and from famine; some estimates put the total death toll at more than 220,000. The number of people affected by the disaster exceeded 10 million.

i guess you've never heard of the Banqiao dam catastrophe, but it killed a quarter million people, while 10 million+ were directly affected. how does that compare?


needless to say, even without killing anyone, hydro power (currently by far the most efficient form of large scale energy storage) causes potentially severe changes to habitats and even weather patterns and always affects erosion, even if these changes might sometimes be considered positive. (unless you're a salmon, that is...) the total amount of storage is of course limited by topography and always influenced by external events (precipitation, d'uh) and therefore less reliable than typically imagined.

www.businessinsider.com...



if you wish to view nuclear power in isolation, go ahead, but be advised that you'll be footing the bill and suffering the consequences either way including some radioactive contamination via coal firing.


www.sourcewatch.org...

mind you that i don't intend to downplay anything, but can't we just wait until we know a little more? say, until exclusion zones are finalized (if any) and how crippling the eventual contamination will be?

Originally posted by zorgon
Well I just hope they learn the lesson on where to store spent fuel rods... Had they been stored off site or in a separate building, they wouldn't be in such a mess right now...

Also when you build diesel generators on Tsunami beach, maybe a steel and concrete bunker might have been wise

Greetings:

Perhaps this will give one a head start on investigating the West Coast potential "hot spots." You might notice that Diablo Canyon shut down and declared an emergency upon notice of a potential tsunami. The same fault line that connects San Onofre in southern California and Rancho Seco mid-state - the San Andreas - is connected to Diablo by the Hosgri fault line...

Will America's Nuclear Power Plants Fail in an 8.0 Earthquake?

I am working in the New Madrid region at this time, with the same attention to "closed" and "SAFSTOR" facilities, and separately will be posting an update on the Rancho Seco and Santa Susana sites.

Zorgon, please take a look at the orbit parameters for Eris and UB313. If they are one and the same (according to NASA, why would they be listed separately and have different orbits? This is not the only anomaly with NASA information that is perhaps crucial at this time. Your thoughts?

I have also included couple of interesting NASA programs in case you do not already have them.

Extreme Planet Makeover

Solar System Simulator

These challenges to life and sanity on this planet must be met with clear minds and sound hearts.

May your 2011 see you embracing its highest potential. Onward through the fog.

In Peace & Light
tfw



American Red Cross

Dodged a Solar Bullet

Cometgate! Elenin + 2005 YU55 + Nibiru

Surviving the American Food Crisis of 2011

The Domino Effect of February 2011 - I Had a Dream About America's Future

reply to post by manta78


Not really memory .. more satire. Coumo did want to close Indian Point unitll NY ComEd told him they didnt have the generating capacity or interconncet capacity to handle the hit.

Originally posted by Raist
For the purpose of your thread here is a map of reactors in the U.S.

The good news is that I don't see any nuclear reactors close to the new madrid fault line, but I do see 2 in southern california and a host of reactors on the east coast..hopefully not close to the sea? Given the small map its impossible to be precise, so please fill in the gaps if you know details!

One major safety issue with nuclear reactors in the U.S. (or worldwide for that matter), which is totally seperate from how earthquakes and/or tsunamis might impact an operating nuclear plant, but is an issue that needs more attention/money spent towards correcting the problem, is included in this report to committees and members of Congress last year:

Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities
August 23, 2010

Nuclear power plant vulnerability to deliberate aircraft crashes has been a continuing issue. After
much consideration, NRC published final rules on June 12, 2009, to require all new nuclear
power plants to incorporate design features that would ensure that, in the event of a crash by a
large commercial aircraft, the reactor core would remain cooled or the reactor containment would
remain intact, and radioactive releases would not occur from spent fuel storage pools.

NRC rejected proposals that existing reactors also be required to protect against aircraft crashes, such as by adding large external steel barriers, deciding that other mitigation measures already required by NRC for all reactors were sufficient. In 2002, NRC ordered all nuclear power plants to develop strategies to mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions that could result from aircraft crashes or other causes. NRC published a broad final rule on nuclear reactor security March 27, 2009, including fire mitigation strategies and requirements that reactors establish procedures for responding to specific aircraft threats.

To read more of this 14 page report go here: www.fas.org...

reply to post by manta78


Maybe they should have SAMs and anti-aircraft guns installed near those nuclear powerplants. Yes nothing is impossible but earthquakes and tsunamis are more likely than deliberate aircraft crashes into them. Of course its just my opinion!

More news today on how the crisis in Japan is effecting nuclear plans here in the U.S.

Japan Crisis Weighs on U.S. Reactor Plans
Published: March. 22, 2011 at 8:17 AM

NEW YORK, March 22 (UPI) -- Plans for nuclear power project near Houston have been reduced while U.S. regulators assess the significance of the Japanese nuclear disaster, companies said.

Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, a joint venture between NRG Energy Inc. and Toshiba Corp., announced it was reducing the scope of development for its South Texas nuclear project about 90 miles southwest of Houston.

Read more: www.upi.com...


also today:

US Nuclear Regulator Under Fire for Extending New License
Mar 22, 2011, 18:53 GMT

Washington - The United States' top nuclear regulator came under fire Tuesday for extending a 20-year license to an ageing power plant in the US state of Vermont, even as a nuclear crisis at a Japanese power plant continued.

Lawmakers from Vermont and private nuclear watchdogs questioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decision on Monday to give the four-decade-old Yankee nuclear plant in Vermont an extension.

Source: www.monstersandcritics.com...