Poll - Nuclear plant in your town

[duane1]

(Disclaimer: I am employed as a service provider to the nuclear indistry in Ontario)

I am not sure in the US, but I dont think any reactors in Canada are built on any ocean . (Don't actually know of any in the US eaither)

As for fault lines, isn't everything built on a fault line of some kind? As far as I know any reactors in Canada and the US are built to withstand any magnitude earthquake that has ever hit North America.

Japan's reactor failed due to the tsunami taking out the backup generators for their cooling systems. As long as you are not vunerable to a tsunami, your backups will all work.

The Japanese reactor's design was also 40 years old, and from reports coming out; due to be mothballed.

As well, it's design apparently uses a much higher fuel to water ratio than other deisgns. The CANDUS use low fuel \high water. All in Ontario are built on the great lakes so no tsunami threat.

Ontario reactors are on a very minor fault line. The minor earthquake tremors Ontario suffered recently were calculated as being in the thousands of times less than the one that hit Japan.

I live between the Pickering and Darlington reactor sites and have no concerns for my families' safety.

I also work in an office that can clearly see reactors.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Hi,

So, do we move the ones that are on the shore, or shut them down? What about the plants on or near known active faults or earthquake areas?

This plant (and all the others in japan) survived the "largest quake recorded ever" and shut down safely. This plant had problems because power from outside needed to keep the cooling systems running failed due to the effects of the wave.

It wasn't actually effected by the wave itself.

The obvious safety review result is to make sure that the cooling systems have local power provided from generators installed which will probably run on fossil fuels - oil and diesel.

Then of course you have to ensure these backup systems have fuel which has not "gone off" (remember petrol/diesel does not age well so you cannot store it forever) and that they can be replenished before they run out - which means that the local oil storage/refining/importing facility is intact, the tankers/pipelines are still running and the roads are usable.

So it all comes down to oil in the end.

[cfg83]

Arragonis -

Originally Posted by Arragonis

This plant (and all the others in japan) survived the "largest quake recorded ever" and shut down safely. This plant had problems because power from outside needed to keep the cooling systems running failed due to the effects of the wave.

It wasn't actually effected by the wave itself.

I think I understand the distinction you are trying to make. For instance, the containment vessel was not effected by the wave. However, the health of the reactor depends on the cooling system. No cooling system => meltdown => no reactor. Radiation has not been released to the environment (except to relieve pressue), but all you have left is a pile of radioactive sludge.

The obvious safety review result is to make sure that the cooling systems have local power provided from generators installed which will probably run on fossil fuels - oil and diesel.

To my knowledge that is exactly what they had in Fukushima. The design flaw was locating the generators in the basement where they were flooded by the wave. Hindsight tells you to locate them nearby, preferably above a worst-case-scenario tsunami.

Then of course you have to ensure these backup systems have fuel which has not "gone off" (remember petrol/diesel does not age well so you cannot store it forever) and that they can be replenished before they run out - which means that the local oil storage/refining/importing facility is intact, the tankers/pipelines are still running and the roads are usable.

So it all comes down to oil in the end.

In the USA they found out that one of the reactors similar to the Fukushima design had backup diesel generators in disrepair for the last 20 years. A safety system suffering from neglect :

How nuclear reactor design played a role in Fukushima crisis - Boing Boing

Anon(ymous comment)
For everyone who thinks that he regulations in US are better so we shouldn't worry: Fermi 2 Nuclear Plant from Michigan (which is the same exact design as Fukushima), the emergency diesel generators in 2006 were discovered to have not been operable for 20 years. From 1986 to 2006, the emergency diesel generators at Fermi 2 Michigan, wouldn't have been operable if called upon.

(Apologies for the weak source, but you can confirm this elsewhere)

So it's not just design, it's also oversight.

CarloSW2

[Arragonis]

I agree, the key here is this

Originally Posted by cfg83

So it's not just design, it's also oversight.

Not the technology itself or where it is. Of course it comes down also to how much we want to spend on it.