You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
West Coast US - Quakes
- Thread starter El and Bill
- Start date
One has to consider that these are older reactors--40 or so years old and old technology. Secondly, the Calif. reactors are not steam reactors.
From the link which Larry provided:
"San Onofre’s reactors are Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) designed by Combustion Engineering. The PWRs use pressurized water as coolant instead of boiling the water directly in the containment vessel. In addition the design has more robust containment structures than those 40-year old GE plants.
The reactors at Diablo Canyon, in Northern California, are also PWR’s, designed by Westinghouse.
My son lives in San Clemente only about 5 miles from the San Onofre nuculear plant, and I have no fear for his safety.
There are lots of things in life one cannot insure against. Other than weapons explosions there have been miminal health effects of radiation from Nuculear generation facilities. None from 3 mile Island--Chernobyl is a different story--31 direct deaths--all were workers in the plant or first responders. Most had bad burns, one a heart attack. They were at the epicenter of the reactor radiation and fires. There were also some excess cases of thyroid cancer--and the preventive role of prophylactic iodine is questionable. There have been several deaths from the Thyroid cancer--but no increase in Lukemia, bone cancer etc--as were from the Atomic bombs released in WWII upon Japan.
What is not clear is if medical insurance would refuse to pay for illness which could be related to radiation (as remote as that might be)--cancer epidemology is so complex, that I suspect insurance companies would be hard pressed to deny coverage.
From the link which Larry provided:
"San Onofre’s reactors are Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) designed by Combustion Engineering. The PWRs use pressurized water as coolant instead of boiling the water directly in the containment vessel. In addition the design has more robust containment structures than those 40-year old GE plants.
The reactors at Diablo Canyon, in Northern California, are also PWR’s, designed by Westinghouse.
My son lives in San Clemente only about 5 miles from the San Onofre nuculear plant, and I have no fear for his safety.
There are lots of things in life one cannot insure against. Other than weapons explosions there have been miminal health effects of radiation from Nuculear generation facilities. None from 3 mile Island--Chernobyl is a different story--31 direct deaths--all were workers in the plant or first responders. Most had bad burns, one a heart attack. They were at the epicenter of the reactor radiation and fires. There were also some excess cases of thyroid cancer--and the preventive role of prophylactic iodine is questionable. There have been several deaths from the Thyroid cancer--but no increase in Lukemia, bone cancer etc--as were from the Atomic bombs released in WWII upon Japan.
What is not clear is if medical insurance would refuse to pay for illness which could be related to radiation (as remote as that might be)--cancer epidemology is so complex, that I suspect insurance companies would be hard pressed to deny coverage.
Simplicity
New member
Thataway-
I'm not saying the new reactors will be paid for by the tax payers although I believe loans will be made available by the government.My point was that in this new bill the companies that build the plants are protected from liability in the event of a "problem".If they are as safe as they claim they should be willing to have some skin in the game. This is a case of moral hazard like "to big to fail".
If it's to risky for the company maybe it's to risky for the public.
I'm not saying the new reactors will be paid for by the tax payers although I believe loans will be made available by the government.My point was that in this new bill the companies that build the plants are protected from liability in the event of a "problem".If they are as safe as they claim they should be willing to have some skin in the game. This is a case of moral hazard like "to big to fail".
If it's to risky for the company maybe it's to risky for the public.
Hi Bill,
What are your thoughts?
This article seems to suggest that the recent three quakes around the Pacific region make it much more likely for a major quake along the California, Oregon, Washington, or Alaska coasts with in the next year or so.
Is there evidence to support this or is the best science can do is say there is a 30% chance in the next 50 years?
Is there any evidence of how long the ringing in the plates from major quakes lasts? I would think that after the ringing ends we are back to the normal shifting and build/release of stresses. I am also doubtful that those stresses can be measured accurately.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/13/the- ... -come.html
Thanks,
Steve
What are your thoughts?
This article seems to suggest that the recent three quakes around the Pacific region make it much more likely for a major quake along the California, Oregon, Washington, or Alaska coasts with in the next year or so.
Is there evidence to support this or is the best science can do is say there is a 30% chance in the next 50 years?
Is there any evidence of how long the ringing in the plates from major quakes lasts? I would think that after the ringing ends we are back to the normal shifting and build/release of stresses. I am also doubtful that those stresses can be measured accurately.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/13/the- ... -come.html
Thanks,
Steve
Simplicity":uru1lgv5 said:Thataway-
I'm not saying the new reactors will be paid for by the tax payers although I believe loans will be made available by the government.My point was that in this new bill the companies that build the plants are protected from liability in the event of a "problem".If they are as safe as they claim they should be willing to have some skin in the game. This is a case of moral hazard like "to big to fail".
If it's to risky for the company maybe it's to risky for the public.
I think the real issue is that they can't buy insurance from any company at any price. Insurance companies don't know how to calculate the risks on a technology that is changing frequently (e.g. one reactor design isn't the same as the next) and on a relatively low volume (e.g. not too many plants). So in order to encourage the development of this alternative energy source, they're given some beneficial status under the law. One can argue over whether this is the right action or not but those who wrote the bill might argue that the alternative course (no new nuclear power) brings other risks to our citizens. It's all about balancing and managing risks.
Well, we were aware of the possibilities and history of earthquakes and tsunamis in Alaska as we embarked on the purchase of our new home on the water just north of Juneau. We became a little more aware on our first day of possession last week coinciding with the tsunami advisory. We had already discussed escape routes etc. and as luck had it, we hadn't moved in yet and it was no problem but provides an enforced awareness. Not enough to alter our plans to have property with a mooring in the "front yard" and the other benefits. Much of this area is near sea level anyway and for us it is a risk vs benefit and choice of lifestyle situation. For many people living in coastal S.E. Alaska, finding high ground quickly is easier said than done and a preconceived plan is a must.
Simplicity
New member
Roger- I'll admit I've always been against large scale nuclear power.The results of a serious accident could be so horrific this complex engineering better be just about perfect. Unfortunately in the world I see sh*t happens.
For example if the MOS plant had a meltdown(and we all hope and pray it doesn't) and there was a significant release it would be catastrophic. They say that time heals all wounds but one of the plutonium isotopes has a 24000 year half life. Even cesium has a 30 year half life.
the other issue is what to do with the nuclear waste. It'll be around long after the time span of the average civilization. And NIMBY is alive and well.
Finally if insurance companies can't quantify the risk how can the public?
My heart goes out to the Japanese people. First the earthquake ,then tsunami and now the nuclear situation hanging over them. They are a cohesive resilient society with a huge challenge.
For example if the MOS plant had a meltdown(and we all hope and pray it doesn't) and there was a significant release it would be catastrophic. They say that time heals all wounds but one of the plutonium isotopes has a 24000 year half life. Even cesium has a 30 year half life.
the other issue is what to do with the nuclear waste. It'll be around long after the time span of the average civilization. And NIMBY is alive and well.
Finally if insurance companies can't quantify the risk how can the public?
My heart goes out to the Japanese people. First the earthquake ,then tsunami and now the nuclear situation hanging over them. They are a cohesive resilient society with a huge challenge.
forrest":1ehemr8m said:Google "Thorium Nuclear Reactor". It's the future and the future is now.
We, as a nation, have to have power (electricity). It has to come from somewhere.
Hydro: some groups don't like dams
Coal: some groups don't like the bi-products of burning fossil fuels
Oil: see coal
Solar: expensive, takes lots of space but clean
Wind: some groups like it but N.I.M.B.Y. Those turbines are HUGE.
Nuclear: Well.
Ocean/wave power: new, untested, expensive, not popular w/ some groups
There is no perfect answer.
My heart goes out to the Japanese people. First the earthquake ,then tsunami and now the nuclear situation hanging over them. They are a cohesive resilient society with a huge challenge.
Yes. It's horrific. Do whatever you can. We donated what we could, making sure the funds went to Japan relief. A small thing, but if many do it...
rogerbum":248za6tj said:It's all about balancing and managing risks.
Not ALL Roger. There is a significant amount of "that which we dare not speak" (politics) involved.
Mark's got it right....localboy":34knj66a said:It has to come from somewhere.
Hydro: some groups don't like dams
Coal: some groups don't like the bi-products of burning fossil fuels
Oil: see coal
Solar: expensive, takes lots of space but clean
Wind: some groups like it but N.I.M.B.Y. Those turbines are HUGE.
Nuclear: Well.
Ocean/wave power: new, untested, expensive, not popular w/ some groups
Here's an article in today's NY Times about a 40 year old plant that provides 30% of NY City's electricity
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/nyreg ... ml?_r=1&hp
starcrafttom
Active member
after almost a week it comes out in the new today that the melt down in japan is not , I repeat not the reactor but the old fuel rods in a storage bin!!!! So if the Japanese had removed those rods to a better location then they would not have a problem right now.
So my first question is have we as a nation put our selves at risk by not using the storage facility in Nevada?? after spending tons of money building it???? It was not the quake but the tsunami that caused the most damage. where is the spent fuel rods safer in this country should we suffer the same faith? next to the ocean and all the people or in the middle of Nevada in a dry desert?
So my first question is have we as a nation put our selves at risk by not using the storage facility in Nevada?? after spending tons of money building it???? It was not the quake but the tsunami that caused the most damage. where is the spent fuel rods safer in this country should we suffer the same faith? next to the ocean and all the people or in the middle of Nevada in a dry desert?
The Japanese reactors were designed to store the spent rods in the same building and on an upper floor. So now they cannot enter the building to replenish the water that is supposed to cover the spent rods. This is a really bad design.
I think (but I am not sure) that in the US we store the spent rods in a pool at ground level that could be kept full of water.
Does anyone know if this is the case, or are we doing the same thing that has gotten the Japanese in trouble?
I think (but I am not sure) that in the US we store the spent rods in a pool at ground level that could be kept full of water.
Does anyone know if this is the case, or are we doing the same thing that has gotten the Japanese in trouble?
starcrafttom
Active member
my point is why are they stored on site at all if we have a perfectly usable storage center for all our spent fuel? and for that matter why are we not building breeder reactors that can use that same spent fuel ?/ time to get the next generation of power off the ground and stop wasting time with windmills and and other flights of tax break fancy.
I looked up Yucca Mtn storage and here is what Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
It seems from the above that we could be risking the future pollution of the water table with non-recoverable radioactive waste. Since this country has only been here for 300 years, I don't think we can assume that anyone can assure the safety of that kind of storage. 10,000 years is a long time! If nuclear radiation damage is not insurable now, how can anyone assure the safety of Yucca Mtn.
I recall that we have dumped nuclear waste offshore of WA in steel drums encased in concrete, and those drums are now leaking waste into the ocean. That was within the last 65 years. Are we actually any smarter now? Ask the Japanese!
Location
It neighbors the Nevada Test and Training Range and the Nevada Test Site. The Nevada Test Site was home to 904 atomic bomb tests between 1945 and 1992.[2] Although the Department of Energy is planning to consider other options to Yucca Mountain, it remains the only legal site in the United States for development as a deep geologic repository. The Yucca Mountain Development Act was passed by the Congress and signed by President Bush in 2002 making development of Yucca Mountain the Law. Until Congress amends or changes the law, the Secretary of Energy is charged with pursuing development of Yucca Mountain as the Nation's geologic repository.[3]
In 2010 the future of the proposed waste site was threatened by government action which could leave the United States without any long term solution for its nuclear waste, currently stored on-site at various facilities around the country.[4]
[edit] Geology
The formation that makes up Yucca Mountain was created by several large eruptions from a caldera volcano and is composed of alternating layers of ignimbrite (welded tuff), non-welded tuff, and semi-welded tuff. Tuff has special physical, chemical and thermal characteristics[vague] that some experts[who?] believe make it a suitable material to entomb radioactive waste for the hundreds of thousands of years required for the waste to become safe through radioactive decay.
The volcanic units have been tilted along fault lines, thus forming the current ridge line called Yucca Mountain. In addition to these faults, Yucca Mountain is criss-crossed by fractures, many of which formed when the volcanic units cooled. While the fractures are usually confined to individual layers of tuff, the faults extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 600 to 1,500 ft (180 to 460 m) below the surface.[5]
The volcanic tuff at Yucca Mountain is appreciably fractured and movement of water through an aquifer below the waste repository is primarily through fractures.[6] Future water transport from the surface to waste containers is likely to be dominated by fractures. There is evidence that surface water has been transported down through the 700 ft (210 m) of overburden to the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain in less than 50 years.[7][8]
Some site opponents assert that, after the predicted containment failure of the waste containers tens of thousands of years from now, these cracks may provide a route for movement of radioactive waste that dissolves in the water flowing downward from the desert surface.[9]
Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility. Even without faults and fractures, tuff is slightly permeable to water, but due to the depth of the water table it is estimated that by the time the waste enters the water supply it will be safe.[9]
Map of the Location of the Mountain
The area around Yucca Mountain received much more rain in the geologic past and the water table was consequently much higher than it is today, though well below the level of the repository. Critics contend that future climate cannot be predicted to 10,000 years so it is optimistic to assume that the area will always be as arid as it is today. Most geologists who have worked at the site still maintain that the geology will adequately slow the rate of waste seepage to protect water supplies even if the local climate becomes much wetter.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
It seems from the above that we could be risking the future pollution of the water table with non-recoverable radioactive waste. Since this country has only been here for 300 years, I don't think we can assume that anyone can assure the safety of that kind of storage. 10,000 years is a long time! If nuclear radiation damage is not insurable now, how can anyone assure the safety of Yucca Mtn.
I recall that we have dumped nuclear waste offshore of WA in steel drums encased in concrete, and those drums are now leaking waste into the ocean. That was within the last 65 years. Are we actually any smarter now? Ask the Japanese!
Does anyone know if this is the case, or are we doing the same thing that has gotten the Japanese in trouble?
I plead ignorance. Heck, I flunked college physics, so I'll leave all this "nucular" ( :wink: )stuff to the experts.
Tom,
Because of the decay time of the nuclear fuel, the rods have to be kept cool for about 7 years. There would be some serious logistics transporting 'hot" nuculear material. By 7 years the radioactivity will be at a low enough level to avoid "melt down", and require constant cooling.
San Onofre unit one was started in 1968, and stopped in 1992. (it was licensed until 2004, but Edison had to upgrade the cooling, and was not sure it would recoup the costs, so shut it down). It is being dismanteled:
and over 65,000 tons of radioactive debris will have to be stored at a safe site. The cost of this (already factored in and paid for) is over 460 million dollars. The units 2 and 3 have another 11 or so years left on the license. I believe that at San Onofre the spent fuel is stored on site, but in separate containers from the reactor.
Because of the decay time of the nuclear fuel, the rods have to be kept cool for about 7 years. There would be some serious logistics transporting 'hot" nuculear material. By 7 years the radioactivity will be at a low enough level to avoid "melt down", and require constant cooling.
San Onofre unit one was started in 1968, and stopped in 1992. (it was licensed until 2004, but Edison had to upgrade the cooling, and was not sure it would recoup the costs, so shut it down). It is being dismanteled:
and over 65,000 tons of radioactive debris will have to be stored at a safe site. The cost of this (already factored in and paid for) is over 460 million dollars. The units 2 and 3 have another 11 or so years left on the license. I believe that at San Onofre the spent fuel is stored on site, but in separate containers from the reactor.
El and Bill
New member
Want to bring this discussion back to the fire, since there is mews to report re earthquake prediction.