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.

[AllenK]

Here in Germany we are about to switch all the nuclear power plants off. 7 were switched off last year. 10 are still running but are planned to be switched off in the next years. Percentage of renewable eletric energy is on the rise: in the moment we are at 20%. But i agree, there is a lot of potential to save energy.
Allen

[duane1]

Shuting down reactors means Germany will need to replace the loss of the 17% of overall power.

Renewable usually can't meet that demand on a constant reliable basis, so they are instead going back to fossil fuels. (natural gas). Nuclear power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally, I would rather have a well designed and maintained reactor.

[NeilBlanchard]

Renewable energy can meet the demand of a grid. It takes a proper mix of sources, and some energy storage. Germany actually got ~27% of their energy from renewable in recent months. Solar and wind are the main sources, but wave and tidal and small hydro and biomass are also quite viable. Storage include pumped hydro and very soon grid-level batteries, and molten salt for solar heat, and biogas, too.

[SoobieOut]

The more sources the better for energy. I think nukes are a scam in general. If you figure in the cost of cleanup and storage of waste it extremely expensive. I worked at Hanford Nuke in Washington for a year. There is an impending contamination of the columbia river in 5 years that will render Portlands water supply unusable. This is not the way clean power should be.

We can do it all with Solar, Hydro, and tidal if the government would kick the lobbyists to the curb.

70 cents per watt is the golden number for the USA to switch to solar, we are almost there!

[AllenK]

1. Using or not using nuclear energy is not an option for people who want to be responsible. That is alone because of the nuclear waste which is a high danger for future generatioins. I quote the german ministry of environment and nuclear safety which defines the conditions for a permanent storage of nuclear wastes in germany: "It must be shown that for 1 million of years there will be only very few toxic particles released..." (Atomenergie / Ver- und Entsorgung - Endlagerung - Sicherheitsanforderungen an die Endlagerung hochradioaktiver Abfälle) Nobody can guarantee for one million of years. Especially seen the short and desastreous history of germany's search for permanent storage: The first trial with an permanent storage at so called "ASSE" ended in a desaster: unexpected water broke into the storage rooms and since then they are removing the radiant waste for billions of euros (paid by our taxes). And that happened within 20 years of storage. Who will predict what will happen in one million of years? Whole mankind is not much older than one million of years.
2. Nuclear power is not economic. In the 50ies and 60ies it was a political decision for many countries to build up nuclear industry by massive subsidies because in this world leaders believe that one needs the option for nuclear weapons. Till today nuclear energy is subsided heavily. Most of the subsides are not given in cash but in shift of responsibility. For example the nuclear industry does not need to pay for constructions, not for waste storage (for one million of years) nor for the insurance of accidents. Worldwide there is no single nuclear plant that has an insurance for the worst case scenario. Like in Fukushima the community pays painfully for these accidents. More information about subsiding energy you might find here: Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Renewable energy can replace 100% of our electricity. Since more than 50 years we do have all the techniques it does need to produce electric energy 100% from renewable energies. There is nothing magic in it. All it needs is a political will. Technicaly we need to build up a decentralized energy system. This book shows a way to do that: Hermann Scheer - Energy Autonomy
The author is not a nobody but the father of the "EEG" the renewable energy sources act in germany, which was soon copied in many countries (for example china and india) and which did its part in starting a worldwide boom of solar panels and wind generators, which again lowered their prices considerably in the last 10 years.

Lets leave the wrong path and shift to 100% renewable energies. The money is there. The techniques are there. The energy is there.

[NeilBlanchard]

Renewable energy is going to be here for about 5 Billion years, give or take...