It seems we came within 1 foot of our very own Fukishima during Hurricane Sandy. If the sea level had been 1.2 feet higher it would have breached the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant’s flood defenses and shut down their diesel powered generators that were required to cool the plant. This is exactly what happened at Fukushima. Oyster Creek is an identical design to Fukushima. How come we haven’t heard about this in the MSM? I’m no expert, but when a category 1 hurricane surge can come within 1 or 2 feet of breaching a nuclear power plant, someone should be worried. Are you?
Nuclear Power Plant Flood Risk: Sandy Was Just a Warm-Up
By Heather Rogers, Remapping Debate
As Hurricane Sandy approached the East Coast late last October, more than a dozen nuclear power plants from North Carolina stretching up to New England were in its wide-ranging path. On Oct. 29, the night that the eye of the storm made landfall near Atlantic City, New Jersey, five nuclear plants were forced to either reduce power or make emergency shutdowns.
The most serious event was at the Oyster Creek Generating Station located in Lacey Township, near Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, about 40 miles north of Atlantic City. Amid 75-mile-an-hour winds, power to the region was knocked out, including at the Oyster Creek plant, just before 7 p.m. The plant’s backup diesel generators kicked on to keep its crucial cooling equipment functioning. Nevertheless, by 9 p.m. the plant’s pumps were facing another danger: rising floodwaters. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) spokesperson Neil Sheehan said that Sandy brought a surge of 7.4 feet to Oyster Creek. The plant is obligated to prepare for the consequences of flooding at 8.5 feet, he said, and, at 9.0 or 9.5 feet — Sheehan wasn’t sure — the plant’s pump motors would begin to be flooded.
The storm surge led the plant to declare an “Alert” — the second step in theNRC’s four-tiered emergency action system.
David Tillman, spokesperson for Exelon, the utility company that owns Oyster Creek, would not answer specific questions about the evening Sandy hit the plant (such as the height to which the water level rose, the height of the pump motors, or the actions taken by the plant in response to the alert). Characteristically for the industry, he insisted that everything worked perfectly and that there were no problems.
The buffer that existed this time may be of little comfort in the future. For all the damage it caused, Sandy was only a Category 1 hurricane — Hurricane Katrina, by comparison, was a Category 3. Given the challenges even Sandy brought to the Northeast’s nuclear power plants, Remapping Debate decided to investigate the extent to which these facilities are prepared to deal with the flood risks widely expected to increase as a result of global warming.
What would be the consequences were a nuclear power plant to flood?
To grasp what a flood at a coastal nuclear power plant such as Oyster Creek would mean, Dave Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union for Concerned Scientists, told Remapping Debate it is worth reflecting on Japan’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant disaster in 2011. First, the plant — which ran on General Electric Mark I reactors, the same design as at Oyster Creek and 22 other nuclear plants in the U.S.— lost outside power due to the earthquake. Its backup generators switched on, and “the plant weathered [the earthquake] pretty well,” Lochbaum said. But then the floodwaters arrived, exceeding the facility’s sea wall. “That plant wasn’t unaware of the flooding potential, but the magnitude of the challenge they faced was just more than they could handle,” he said. Because the backup generators and pumps were flooded, there was no means by which to keep the reactors and spent fuel pools cooled.
Once that happens, explained Michael J. Reilly, director of the Division of Planning and Response at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, “it’s just a matter of time before the heat and the pressure build up and then you have a reactor accident.”
In the worst-case scenario, overheating in the reactor can trigger a hydrogen explosion, which can in turn lead to a breach of the containment structure, the reinforced building in which the reactor core is housed. This would lead to an uncontrolled release of radiation into the atmosphere.
Without an adequate flow of coolant to the spent fuel pool, the heat from the rods would begin to boil the water that remained, which would then evaporate, leaving the rods exposed to the air. At that point, the spent fuel could catch fire and explode, also leading to an unchecked release of radioactive material.
These explosions and fires can damage containment structures, as occurred at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, with some of its buildings reduced to shattered cement and twisted rebar. Ultimately, all of its six reactors were damaged, and three reactor cores melted down, dumping a massive amount of radioactivity into both the water and air. This release led to significant food-chain contamination and the evacuation of 70,000 people. Among the contaminants emitted from the plant was Cesium-137, a radioactive isotope with a long half-life that continues to be found in fish as far away as California.
In the case of a natural disaster like a hurricane, the direct impact on a single nuclear power station would likely be exacerbated by a cascade of indirect effects: a range of emergencies and failures unfolding throughout the surrounding area. As during Sandy, transportation would be radically curtailed with roads, bridges, tunnels, trains, and airports shut, as well as some roads blocked by floodwaters, felled trees, and large-scale debris. There could also be widespread power and water outages, fuel shortages, and downed communication lines.
The indirect effects would likely impair the response to a nuclear power plant disaster. When Hurricane Sandy hit, for example, almost a third of the sirens surrounding Pennsylvania’s Peach Bottom Generating Station near Chesapeake Bay that would warn residents within 10 miles of an emergency were inoperable. The NRC-required backup plan for this situation is for first responders to drive around the area with a loudspeaker announcing the emergency. When Remapping Debate asked the NRC’s Sheehan how this would happen if roads were flooded and blocked, he said the plant could send out text messages and announcements on television. What if there was no power and cell reception was down? “That’s always a concern,” he said.
Attempting to evacuate in the midst of a hurricane, Reilly said, is “trying to get out when the window for evacuation is over.”
Dr. Andrew S. Kanter, president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and an associate professor at Columbia University, said that it is not realistic in today’s circumstances to assume that all key emergency facilities would be fully operational during a severe storm. During Sandy, for example, three major New York City hospitals lost power and were forced to evacuate.
“If there was a significant [nuclear] accident that took out all the hospitals in New York City, there’s not enough hospital beds in the entire region to relocate all of those people,” Kanter explained. “We’re running at maximum efficiency right now [in hospitals] and there isn’t a lot of excess reserve.”
The likelihood and level of such calamities depends on the intensity and scope of the storm. As Reilly pointed out, for all the havoc it wreaked, Sandy was a mere Category 1 hurricane. “This wasn’t the level of a Hurricane Katrina; it wasn’t that devastating of a natural disaster — this was a very basic hurricane,” Reilly said. “But the fact that it affected so many [nuclear power] facilities in that they seemed to have to shut reactors down, or de-power reactors, or the pumps failed, or they had to go onto generator power, or whatever the specific incident was, I think points to vulnerabilities,” he said. “That says to me that these facilities need to be hardened more because if they were faced with a Category 2 or a Category 3, it makes me concerned about whether or not they’d be able to safely shut down.”
Are nuclear power plants becoming more exposed to flood risks?
While climate scientists, including Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, the director of the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at Princeton University, currently project that the frequency of tropical cyclones such as hurricanes will stay the same, or even decrease, the severity of these storms is expected to rise. This is the result of warming ocean surface temperature, due to increasing atmospheric temperatures. “There will be a shift from less intense, say, Category 1 and 2 hurricanes, toward more intense hurricanes,” Oppenheimer said.
Amplifying the effect of these more powerful storms will be a rise in sea level. “So there are two things expected to happen simultaneously which will increase surge levels in the future,” explained Oppenheimer. Consequently, he said, “Planning for any [nuclear] installations along the coast needs to keep that in mind.”
Does the NRC currently factor increased flooding risk due to climate change into its safety requirements?
Sheehan, the NRC spokesperson, said that the agency has not factored in the effects of climate change on nuclear plants’ flood safety.
According to Sheehan, the new NRC chief, Allison M. MacFarlane, recently told the agency’s staff that she wants to start taking into account climate change in nuclear plant safety. However, she has issued no official call, schedule, or process to include it in the NRC’s current or future regulations.
What’s more, the NRC has yet to even conduct a study focused on the risks to coastal plants of rising sea levels and storm surges caused by global warming. “We’re not at that point yet,” Sheehan said.
Nevertheless, Sheehan claimed that Oyster Creek and all the other nuclear power plants in Sandy’s path would have been fine if they had been directly hit by the storm.
Does the NRC have plans to close any nuclear power plants because of increased vulnerability to flooding?
No.
What is the NRC doing to require nuclear power plants to better withstand flooding and its consequences?
In March 2012, the NRC issued updated flood-safety “recommendations” in response to the disaster at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant. The recommendations require the country’s 65 nuclear power plants — which operate 104 reactors — to conduct internal assessments to ensure their facilities meet updated flood- and seismic-risk guidelines. If these reevaluations reveal inadequacies, then the facilities are required to develop remedial plans for NRC approval, and, when approved, implement those plans. But, as of now, the post-Fukushima recommendations issued by the NRC do notrequire the country’s nuclear power plants to assess their facilities in light of projected future consequences of global warming, such as a rise in sea level and more extreme storms.
The NRC is enacting its post-Fukushima recommendations in three tiers, the first of which has a deadline of 2017. However, the remaining two rounds currently have no due dates, and none of the rounds requires planning for current and future effects of global warming.
To some people, the NRC’s timeline of five years for the completion of Tier 1 reassessments and changes, and the lack of deadlines for Tiers 2 and 3 is unacceptable. Among the critics is Gregory P. Jaczko, former chairman of the NRC, under whose tenure the recommendations were studied, written and issued. (Jaczko left the agency in July of this year.) He would have preferred all recommendations be carried out in a single phase as opposed to divided into three tiers, and he thinks all of the changes could and should be made quickly.
“I still think the right answer would have been to shoot for five years,” Jaczko told Remapping Debate. It would be a lot of work, he said, noting that plants would have to bring in outside engineers, hydrogeologists, and other experts to conduct analyses and plan improvements, not to mention construction crews to make the changes. Doing so, he added, would be expensive. But neither point justifies delay, he said. “Make the metric not ‘How long is this going to take us?’ but ‘What do we need to do in order to get it done in five years?’”
One factor impeding faster upgrades, as Jaczko sees it, is that the NRCtends to accept the claims of many plants that assessments, analyses, and improvements can only be done when a plant shuts down a reactor for regularly scheduled refueling and maintenance, which happens every 18 to 24 months.
Indeed, Sheehan, the NRC spokesperson, takes the schedule defined by the plants’ refueling windows as a given when explaining the five-year time frame for the completion of Tier 1.
Jaczko had a different view. “Changes can be made at any time if they’re necessary for safety,” he said. “There’s no law that prevents the NRC from requiring changes during the period between scheduled outages.”
What are some basic flood mitigation strategies that could be implemented quickly?
Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry executive and current chief engineer at Fairewinds Energy Education, a non-profit organization critical of the nuclear industry, offered ideas for what could be done in the near future to safeguard against flooding at coastal nuclear plants.
He suggested protecting each nuclear plant’s pump motors against floodwaters by reinforcing them. First, that means locating the motor in a watertight room — with no windows and a sealed flood door — as some plants have already done. But, Gundersen said, that’s not enough, because although the room is sealed, it is not designed to accommodate a surge that puts continued pressure on the structure. If the water reaches high enough levels, it can begin to undermine the room’s integrity. Because of the pressure “you’ll still get the water squirting in, so you have to make a sealed pump in a sealed room,” he said.
Reilly of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness said that upgrades like those suggested by Gundersen, as well as higher flood walls, could and should be put in place at relevant sites immediately.
Above and beyond the physical changes at plants to mitigate flooding, there are important questions about the culture of nuclear regulation that some say need to be addressed.
Reilly thinks the NRC should take a more active role, either itself or through an independent third party, in auditing plants and formulating their upgrade plans instead of the plants doing those tasks themselves, as is currently the practice.
Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists discounted the utility of deploying independent third parties, saying that the NRC itself should be held accountable for regulating plant safety. One way to do that would be for Congress to hold the agency to safety deadlines in the same way that it now holds the agency accountable for meeting deadlines regarding “business items,” such as plant-owner requests to extend the period for which a reactor is licensed, and to increase the amount of power the reactor is permitted to generate. Currently, Lochbaum said, the agency allocates far fewer staff and resources to its safety work than to those business items, and rarely sets safety deadlines that it keeps.
Stucky says:
If the Oyster Creek nuke plant melted down and turned New Jersey into a giant pile of stinking shit …. HOW would anybody know?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
0
31st December 2012 at 8:08 pm
Joe says:
Crass fear mongering is all!
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 
13
31st December 2012 at 8:10 pm
Muck About says:
Atomic energy is one of the safest, best sources of energy there is………
Provided, the tiny assholes in charge approve designs and locations that minimize the danger of accidents AND the FEDERAL ASSHOLES get off the dime and designate somewhere (like Yucca Mtn. in Nevada) to dispose of used up fuel rods.
As long as used up fuel rods are stored “on site” (as they ALL are now), another disaster is guaranteed – sooner than later – due to weather or human stupidity.
So we have displayed complete idiocy in yet another area (above and beyond the $215 trillion unfunded debts of this country) which will, eventually kill a lot of people and further, put atomic energy in a deeper and deeper hole when it should be safer that a double rubber during sex.. And is safer, if properly designed and waste properly taken care of.
Sorry, makes me want to puke again at the stupidity of the human animal and the proclivity the human animal has to commit suicide over the dumbest things.
MA
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
31st December 2012 at 8:10 pm
Administrator says:
Joe the Plumber representing the ignorant masses chimes in.
Thanks dumbass.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
31st December 2012 at 8:12 pm
sangell says:
While these are concerns that need to be dealt with something that has bothered me since Fukushima is who is allowed to operate nuclear power plants. Right now any nation that wants them can have them and that is scary. Consider that Japan with all its technological sophistication and industrial and financial resources was very nearly overwhelmed by Fukushima. With over 50 nuclear reactors in operation around the country as well as an indigenous nuclear power plant design and construction industry it had backup engineering and technical people available had many or all of the Fukushima plant’s operating personel been killed or disabled by the disaster.
What about other countries? Mexico has “A” nuclear power plant. Ditto Iran. We worry about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons but what if they have a nuclear accident. Think they are going to allow western teams in even if they lose control of their reactor. Think the Mexicans could handle a nuclear emergency? Of course there is no way to say to a nation ‘sorry but you are not advanced enough or capable enough to handle nuclear power plants’ but that doesn’t change the reality that that is exactly the case.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
31st December 2012 at 8:43 pm
Makati1 says:
“… The Oyster Creek nuclear reactor in Ocean County, the oldest operating nuclear plant in the country, is a virtually identical General Electric reactor, sharing its (Fukushima’s) design features — and, some fear, its weaknesses. …”
GE owns the major news sources in the US. Nuff said…
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
31st December 2012 at 11:03 pm
SSS says:
Piffle. I’m with “crass fear mongering Joe” aka “dumbass Joe the Plumber” on this one.
Move or elevate the backup generators (expensive) or build a flood wall around the generators (less expensive). Don’t forget to protect the power switching station that moves the nuke plant’s electrical power from its primary source to the backup generators, which was a major factor in the Dai-Ichi disaster. As I understand it, some of the generators didn’t get hit by the tsunami, but once power was lost from Tokyo Electric Power, the switching station was flooded and couldn’t fuction to let the backup generators kick in.
Learn from other’s mistakes. Take measures so those mistakes don’t happen to you. It’s so easy even a dumbass like me can figure it out.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
31st December 2012 at 1:26 am
IndenturedServant says:
Aren’t there prevailing winds that would carry that shit to the UK? That will teach the fuckers NOT to send anymore of Piers Morgan’s ilk over here!
I_S
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
31st December 2012 at 3:47 am
Stan says:
Atomic power is good when used right but man oh man when something goes wrong it REALLY goes wrong.
Am I the only one who is amazed that more “accidents” haven’t happened?
And when will some nut set off one of the thousands of nuclear bombs man has devised?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
31st December 2012 at 5:18 am
Stan says:
Quote of the day:
“I tell you these are great times. Man has mounted Science and is now run away with. I firmly believe that before many centuries more, Science will be the master of man. The engines he will have invented will be beyond his strength to control. Some day science may have the existence of mankind in its power, and the human race commit suicide by blowing up the world.
Henry Adams , mid 1800′s
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
31st December 2012 at 5:24 am
Zarathustra says:
I’m just wondering why Japan didn’t place their nuclear power plants on their western shores, where they don’t get tsunamis.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
31st December 2012 at 6:12 am
ONE FOOT MORE TO MELTDOWN – A nuclear “near miss” USA « nuclear-news says:
[...] The burning Platform Blog [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
31st December 2012 at 8:37 am
TJF says:
@Zarathustra, I wonder if it has to do with the prevailing winds.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
31st December 2012 at 3:27 pm
sangell says:
Zarathustra while Japan has an equivalent to our NRC it also has private utilities that have their own markets. Think PG&E the big Northern California power provider seeking to build a nuclear power plant in Oregon or Nevada or Con Ed wanting to build a nuke in Pennsylvania to supply New York. It might make sense if geology and safety were the only considerations ( and perhaps they should be) but in the real world its hard enough to find a community that wants these plants. In Japan, Tepco picked Fukushima, in part, because it was a rural area who wanted the jobs the plant would bring ( and if Japan has anything like US property tax, those tax revenues a massive nuclear plant create).
In Florida we’ve got a situation where Citrus county was getting almost a third of its property tax revenue from a nuke owned by Progress now Duke that is shut down owing to a botched maintenance job by Progress. Progress says the plant ain’t worth what it was since it can’t be operated for years ( if at all) and it isn’t going to keep paying property tax as it were operational.
The other thing is these plants are built to withstand maximum historical events. Well the earth doesn’t play by those rules obviously. There aren’t supposed to be 5.7 magnitude earthquakes in Virginia but there was one and only a few miles from Dominions Lake Anna Nuke. It wasn’t damaged but it also wasn’t built for that kind of seismic event. If it had been a 7 or 8 quake who knows.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
31st December 2012 at 4:20 pm
Novista says:
I lucked out finding a 1995 US Corps of Engineers report of 1995 and the DHS 2005 analysis of a hurricane hitting NYC, so that the start of the Superflood portion of my book.
Something I’ve thought since Hurricane Sandy hit is how large it was, and Cat 1 — and how large Yasi was at TC Cat 5. DHS reckoned a Cat 4 hurricane would cause $500 billion in damage to NYC … when the son of Sandy arrives, you wouldn’t want to be there.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
31st December 2012 at 8:53 pm
MIlw05 says:
There are 15 Nuclear power plants within the New Madrid fault line, which could be damaged during a major quake. God help us if we have a major earthquake. Fukishima times 15.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
31st December 2012 at 8:53 pm
SSS says:
“There are 15 Nuclear power plants within the New Madrid fault line, which could be damaged during a major quake. God help us if we have a major earthquake. Fukishima times 15.”
—-MIIw05
Bullshit. Name one (it’s a trap challenge, dickweed, watch your step). Where did you get your information, from the Union of Concerned Scientists?
And get another screen name. MIIw05 sucks. What the fuck is that anyway? The password to your bank account?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
31st December 2012 at 11:08 pm
Milw05 says:
SSS – Google New Madrid Earthquake/Nuclear powers plants and you will see what I mean. There is plenty of information on it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
31st December 2012 at 4:56 pm
Milw05 says:
hhttp://www.sott.net/article/225939-15-Nuclear-Reactors-on-New-Madrid-Fault-Line
SSS Above is a article on http://www.sott.net
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
31st December 2012 at 5:01 pm
Milw05 says:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/08/if-earthquake-hit-our-nuclear-plants-nightmare-scenario/41656/
Another article spelling out the scenario if the earthquake hit.
SSS – Do I need to post some more. Do some research before you insult. I’ve never done anything to you. What is your problem?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
31st December 2012 at 5:12 pm
IndenturedServant says:
Did SSS miss his nap or run out of Viagra?
I_S
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
31st December 2012 at 5:17 pm
Milw05 says:
SSS – Where are you? Still waiting.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
31st December 2012 at 7:19 pm
SSS says:
“SSS – Do I need to post some more. Do some research before you insult. I’ve never done anything to you. What is your problem?”
—-Milw05
You don’t need to post more. I did some research before I “insulted” you. You haven’t done anything to me. I don’t have a problem, other than your geographical ignorance. I assume you’re a product of public education post 1975.
I said there are no nuclear reactors in the New Madrid fault zone and challenged you to name one. And there aren’t. You posted links to people in Alabama, for heaven’s sake, who said they need to take a look at the threat of a New Madrid-centric earthquake on 3 reactors in that state.
Take a look at a fucking map and overlay that with nuclear plant locations. Here, let me help you get started. That NE to SW oblong red dot in Missouri, Illinois, Tennesse, and Arkansas is the New Madrid fault zone. Now, point out the fucking nuke plant in that zone, please.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
31st December 2012 at 11:34 pm
Milw05 says:
It depends on the size of the quake. The above graph is for a 6.0 quake. If the quake would to reach 7.7 , which is stated in the Atlantic article, the damage would push into the surrounding states and put the plants out of commision. If the quake would hit 9.0 it could cause a nuclear disaster.
I’m not looking for a fight, I’m posting what I’ve read. It is easy to research. I don’t understand your attitude. Why do you take things so personnal? This is only an internet forum. Chill out for crying out loud.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
31st December 2012 at 12:27 pm
Administrator says:
Milw05
This is a picture of SSS when he’s laughing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
31st December 2012 at 12:35 pm
Milw05 says:
Thanks Jim! I don’t get it. I’m not reporting anything new. This stuff been out there for a while. If he dones’t agree, that’s fine, but the attack on me is flat out bizarre.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
31st December 2012 at 12:44 pm
Administrator says:
SSS loves nuclear power and fracking. Anything posted that in any way points out possible dangers from these two forms of energy will always be met with a hysterical diatribe from the wise old geezer of TBP.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
31st December 2012 at 12:47 pm
SSS says:
“If the quake would to reach 7.7 , which is stated in the Atlantic article, the damage would push into the surrounding states and put the plants out of commision. If the quake would hit 9.0 it could cause a nuclear disaster.”
—-Milw05
The largest known earthquakes EVER to have hit the 48 contiguous U.S. states are 7.8 (San Francisco, 1906) and 7.7 (New Madrid, 1811 and 1812). Ever. So you can forget that 9.0 shit, all of which have occurred in the Pacific Rim of Fire (Alaska, Chile, Japan, etc). Not saying that it couldn’t occur in California or somewhere along the U.S. Pacific coast, but the New Madrid Fault is totally out of the picture in the probability chart.
So back to nuke plants “in the area” of the New Madrid Fault. The nuke plant in Russellville AR is 205 miles west of New Madrid. Are you saying that a 7.7 earthquake 205 fucking miles away is going to put that plant out of commission (yes, I believe you are)? Do you even realize what the rigid construction standards are for a nuclear power plant, particularly the reactor building (no, I believe you don’t)?
Look, here’s what pisses me off ……. Chicken Little bullshit scenarios about nuclear power that have NO BASIS IN REALITY OR PROBABILITY and fed to a gullible, ignorant public that becomes almost terrorized by the words “nuclear power.” I’m not saying you’re among the ignorant masses, but you did post this initial comment, which shows you are not well-versed on nuclear power, and I threw the bullshit flag.
“There are 15 Nuclear power plants within the New Madrid fault line, which could be damaged during a major quake. God help us if we have a major earthquake. Fukishima times 15.”
Talk about frickin’ hyperbole, that one takes the cake.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
31st December 2012 at 7:12 pm
Administrator says:
SSS lecturing Milw05
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
31st December 2012 at 7:17 pm
Milw05 says:
It’s clear you have a handle of this and maybe I fell guilty to the chicken little stuff. Why didn’t you explain this in the first place and not resort to calling me dickweed and ignorant. I’m not above having my mind changed with logic and a decent argument.
I’m not an earthquake or nuclear power export by any means. I caught this stuff in passing and found it interesting due to what happened in Japan, that’s all.
No need to get worked up. Like I stated you seem to have a handle on this. The insult stuff isn’t really necessary.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
31st December 2012 at 7:30 pm
AWD says:
Milw05
Getting called “dickweed” and “ignorant” is an honor. It’s when the monkeys start mentioning your genetic origins and your mother’s choice of contraception, abortion methods, and sex partners that you should be concerned.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
31st December 2012 at 7:40 pm
Stucky says:
It is a known fact that marijuana plants, if grown within 50 miles of a nuke plant, will grow 20x larger and 20x more potent.
So, there. Doing my part to change SSS;s mind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
31st December 2012 at 7:42 pm
AWD says:
SSS must have played golf today.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
31st December 2012 at 7:45 pm
Milw05 says:
Thanks AWD. Posters really go after one another on this board, guys are real aggressive here, which is cool. Jim has a great site and the members are real passionate. I go on this site everyday and recognize you, SSS, Stucky and many others. I enjoy the posts. A real smart group. I learn stuff all the time here.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
31st December 2012 at 7:48 pm
AWD says:
There hasn’t been a real nasty brawl around here in quite awhile. Stay tuned, it can get amusing.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
31st December 2012 at 7:50 pm
sangell says:
What is needed is a way to ‘plug in’ a reactor cooling system quickly under any and all circumstances. When Fukushima’s back up generators were flooded truck mounted generators were brought to the site but the connections weren’t compatible and the electrical switches were ruined as well. There was also some hesitation on the part of plant operators ( this was Japan) to take responsibility and begin pumping seawater into some of the other reactor cores which would irretrievably ruin the reactor.
I assume all nuclear power plant operators are figuring out ways to connect a modular reactor cooling system that can be brought in from outside a disaster area should any reactor lose its ability to circulate water and an on site system that would keep the reactor cool long enough for that system to be deployed. The alternative is bankruptcy and perhaps death.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
31st December 2012 at 8:11 pm
SSS says:
sangell
Check out the Westinghouse AP (Advanced Passive) 1000 reactor, which produces 1,154 megawatts of power. Really cool reactor design when it comes to shit-hitting-the-fan scenarios. If we build 200 of those 3rd Generation Plus reactors, we’re good for the grid for 50 years. Bonus: carbon fucking free!!!!
Milw05
Thanks for your comments. I get testy now and then. Nothing personal.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
31st December 2012 at 8:28 pm
Llpoh says:
I intentionally avoided this thread til now. I suspected a same old SSS against the world scenario re nuke energy. Imagine my surprise to find out I was right.
As for me, I side with SSS on this. We need energy and nukes is best for the mid-term, in my opinion. Whatever source is available will be used when the crunch comes.
I am not a fracking fan, however. But I am ok with it so long as it is being done next to SSS’s house and not mine. Funny about that.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
31st December 2012 at 8:37 pm
Darwin says:
I remember reading this from some obscure tweet somewhere last week. I was wondering the same thing. a) why’d it take weeks to make any news at all and b) why wasn’t the media all over it?
I suppose it’s like our federal, state and municipal spending addiction. MSM and the Americans they cater to ignore brewing problems and near-misses and only focus on sensationalized events that have recently occurred. And then they forget about them as well – and shift attention to Honey Boo Boo
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
31st December 2012 at 9:56 pm
SSS says:
Darwin
Are you concerned that we “missed it by that much.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
31st December 2012 at 12:11 am