Just read that they've had to abandon cleanup efforts at Fukushima because the radiation spiked when they started messing with it. The pools of really radioactive water are set to leak any day now. Just keeps getting worse.

6/18/2011 10:14:29 AM

I've just read that they created a cure for unicorns. I, too, can make unfounded claims.

Quote :

"Spike in infant mortality in the northwest UNITED STATES in the weeks following fukushima disaster, possibly from fallout. An increase of 35% vs. national average of 2.3%."

Oh, give me a fucking break. can we possibly cherry pick data any more in order to make shit look the way we want it to? jesus.

Quote :

"they may have to actually start conserving"

conserving is one thing. ass-raping your entire economy over bogeyman fears is entirely another

Quote :

"I'm the way forward. You all are living in the past, and hurtling towards a bleak future."

And what is that way? Back to coal? Turning off all the electricity? Over hysteria and junk science?

And the Omaha reactor? Watch that and see how safe reactors actually are. How, even in the face of "acts of God," they barely even break a sweat. Fukushima was an "act of God," to be sure, but one of worst ones we've ever seen. The thing to learn from it is "don't put reactors on the fucking beach in a major seismic zone."

[Edited on June 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ]

6/20/2011 7:00:47 PM

sorry, dp

[Edited on June 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ]

6/20/2011 7:10:17 PM

Associated Press: As America's power plants rust, the NRC consistently lowers the standards they have to meet.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/06/20/1285720/nuclear-safety-rules-wane.html

Quote :

"When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards. Regulations are loosened, and the reactors are back in compliance. Confronted with worn parts that need maintenance, the industry has repeatedly requested - and regulators have often allowed - inspections and repairs to be delayed for months until scheduled refueling outages. Again and again, problems worsened before they were fixed. Postponed inspections inside a steam generator at Indian Point allowed tubing to burst, leading to a radioactive release in 2000. "

This was front page news in the News and Observer today. Like it or not, their dirty little secrets are in the spotlight and the tide is turning against nuclear energy.

[Edited on June 20, 2011 at 8:14 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2011 8:13:38 PM

hence the reason new updated plants should be built... to replace the aging ones.

6/20/2011 9:19:27 PM

It's clearly a corrupt industry with ineffective oversight. They can't be trusted to build new ones.

6/20/2011 9:40:58 PM

Associated Press is on a roll:
Radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater and nearby wells and aquifers.

http://www.wral.com/business/story/9753395/

6/21/2011 9:48:17 AM

^ Nuclear plants don't have tritium, they have water with a few Hydrogen atoms in a trillion replaced with tritium.

6/21/2011 9:59:03 AM

Quote :

"It's clearly a corrupt industry with ineffective oversight. They can't be trusted to build new ones."

so we'll just keep the old, outdated ones instead. surely that will end well... you still haven't told us, dear troll, what your "step into the future" is... Is it coal? Is it oil? Is it unicorn farts? is it turning off all of the world's electricity and returning to the caves?

^ NM, it was a stupid question. doesn't look like it says "tritiated water". to be fair, though, Tritium certainly is produced in a fission reactor, even if it's only 1 per 10,000 fissions.`

from the article:

Quote :

"Any exposure to radioactivity, no matter how slight, boosts cancer risk, according to the National Academy of Sciences."

well, that's just fucking absurd. Plenty of studies have shown the opposite.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 11:04:49 AM

Mommy, I know my goldfish is dying because I don't feed it or clean its fishbowl regularly, but if you buy me a new goldfish I'll do better, I promise!

6/21/2011 11:48:26 AM

yes, because zero maintenance is occurring at these plants. zero. it couldn't possibly be that these things are past their usable life and their age is showing. Nope. I guess when you drive a car for 15 years and it is falling apart, that means you also shouldn't be able to buy a new car, right?


oh, and this:

Quote :

"you still haven't told us, dear troll, what your "step into the future" is... Is it coal? Is it oil? Is it unicorn farts? is it turning off all of the world's electricity and returning to the caves?"

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 11:55:18 AM

^^
Come on man, at least get back to putting some effort into the trolling.

Plants aren't needing to be replaced because they weren't cared for properly. Plants aren't starting to fail inspections because they weren't cared for properly or weren't designed properly. In fact it is quite the opposite in most cases. Many of them have already been operated well beyond the amount of time they were initially designed for because new ones aren't being built.

A generation of plants is designed to be used safely for X years. At X-Y years, they start trying to build new plants but there is an enormous amount of red tape and pushback. At X+Z years the original plants are starting to show signs of wear, and in some cases not pass inspection tests, but because people are still pushing back and the red tape has only gotten thicker, very few new plants are being built to replace aging plants. The people arguing against new plants use these failed inspections or local minor incidents as proof that new plants should not be built. Do you see a problem with a lot of your arguments? It's unfounded circular logic to the extreme.

PS ^ just saw your post. thank you.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2011 11:57:13 AM

Then these ailing plants should be shut down immediately, regardless of the status of their replacement. The fact that they aren't shut down when obviously past their usable lifespan shows that government is in collusion with industry in what amounts to criminal negligence.

How can we blindly trust these people with a new 30 year contract and public funds to build new ones?

We can't.

6/21/2011 12:00:41 PM

Quote :

"Then these ailing plants should be shut down immediately, regardless of the status of their replacement. "

and generate the necessary power that would be lost with... or do we just go back to the caves until then?

Quote :

"The fact that they aren't shut down when obviously past their usable lifespan shows that government is in collusion with industry in what amounts to criminal negligence."

Actually, it shows the need for this country to have electricity. it also shows the resilience and strength of these designs that they can still function effectively, even past their designed lifetime. It also shows how much fucking bullshit it takes to get something new built that it is just easier to stick with something less safe.

Quote :

"How can we blindly trust these people with a new 30 year contract and public funds to build new ones?"

Because they have done NOTHING to show that said trust isn't warranted?

oh, and this:

Quote :

"you still haven't told us, dear troll, what your "step into the future" is... Is it coal? Is it oil? Is it unicorn farts? is it turning off all of the world's electricity and returning to the caves?"

6/21/2011 12:07:35 PM

6/21/2011 12:10:37 PM

6/21/2011 12:11:35 PM

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X04000260

On “immortal” nuclear power plants

Quote :

"US nuclear reactors have demonstrated that they can continue to operate well beyond their thirty or forty year operating licenses which, at the time they were issued, were based on criteria for large fossil fuel power plants. Accordingly, a longevity criterion for 21st century reactors is proposed here, designed to last 100 years or more. Cheap electricity from a fully amortized long-life reactor is a gift from the generations that paid for the reactor to future generations that benefit from it, and they compensate (to a degree) for the burden of geologically sequestered wastes."

Some people are convinced that we have to scrap ENTIRE NUCLEAR PLANTS because of the effects of aging. Others, after learning about the component lifecycle management used by the industry, come to the conclusion that really, we never have to fully decommission the plant itself, since the only components that can't be replaced (like foundation) are the parts that don't require replacing except for in the 100s of years time frame.

Most people don't know just how wide this chasm is. People have no idea how a pump, fan, or a pipe wall thickness, translates into public safety. And they shouldn't, a layman is just that, a non-expert. Nuclear safety is historically indistinguishable from the topic of communication. The "scientific" safety analysis is well-developed and completely irrelevant, as shown by continuing public attitudes.

To smc:
- What parts have had insufficient maintenance?
- Why could these parts not be replaced, or more generally, effectively managed in a risk-informed approach with the existing operations management tools?

6/21/2011 1:04:12 PM

serious question here... is it realistic (economically) to think you could replace the reactor vessel? Also, it seems absurd to think that you could replace the containment building. Some stuff surely can't be replaced. pipes and fans, sure, though. Better forethought into things like cabletrays, though, would be helpful.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 2:24:47 PM

Quote :

"serious question here... is it realistic (economically) to think you could replace the reactor vessel? Also, it seems absurd to think that you could replace the containment building. Some stuff surely can't be replaced. pipes and fans, sure, though. Better forethought into things like cabletrays, though, would be helpful."

You would do better to watch this video than read my answer:
http://www.areva.com/EN/activites-2389/mediashare-978/video/page.html

The important thing to notice is the hatch that it's moving through. This is a "new" reactor design, the 1700 MW electric EPR, and is also much larger scale than any operating plant. You would find that most operating plants do not have the exact capability, that is, to move the vessel in through a hatch of a sufficient size.

But that can't rule out replacement for existing plants. The steam generators have been getting replaced, which obviously wasn't sufficiently planned for when they were built since the companies had to cut out pieces of the containment in order to do it, this this idea of form factor isn't necessarily a make-or-break aspect, but the EPR at Okiluto in Finland should be significantly more capable of replacing its pressure vessel when it wears out... in 2070 maybe?

Yes there are other issues. In fact, the vessel isn't even the next item in line. Next up I hear we'll have to deal with the vessel "internals" first, and the cost-benefit for that could shut down a few American plants. Replacing the vessel itself may or may not be feasible depending on the plant.

6/21/2011 2:38:46 PM

Still looking for a better source, but LOL if true

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/5500

Quote :

"Fukushima Nuclear Fuel Leaking Into Groundwater, Tepco Says Barrier Too Expensive, Will Hurt Stock Price "

6/25/2011 11:27:57 AM

Between 2 nuke bombs and now this, Japan is going to be gone in 100 years.

I remember watching this anime where japan quarantined themselves and ended up creating nano technology to turned their entire population into cyborgs, then tried to take over the world. That’s what’s going to happen.

6/25/2011 11:40:36 AM

The media's assault on nuclear energy continues
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/news/economy/nebraska_nuclear_plant/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1
When will the fear-mongering end?

6/28/2011 1:15:51 PM

I sure wish the evil media would have left poor old Dick Nixon alone. It's a crying shame what they did to that man.

6/28/2011 3:29:03 PM

Is this old?

NRC and industry rewrite nuke history
http://www.wral.com/business/story/9788890/

6/28/2011 3:47:52 PM

^

Quote :

"In 1982, D. Clark Gibbs, chairman of the licensing and safety committee of an early industry group, wrote to the NRC that "most nuclear power plants, including those operating, under construction or planned for the future, are designed for a duty cycle which corresponds to a 40-year life.""

Their evidence supports their claim sooo well.

6/28/2011 3:59:44 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/9831210/

CLOSE IT DOWN!!!!

7/7/2011 1:23:04 PM

lol , I find burro's comments about unicorns pretty funny considering he's the one living in the fantasy world where climate changed isn't being caused by humans.

7/7/2011 2:38:38 PM

Quote :

"10 gallons/hour is not a threat....350 gallons per hour is a public threat"

Quick! Someone calculate the diameter difference in the leak required to make this change. I'm willing to bet it's mere millimeters.

7/7/2011 8:48:40 PM

^^ well, first it would have to actually be happening in order to even be able to be caused by humans. funny how you need the horse before the cart in order to make it go. But yes, I'm in the fantasy world because I don't believe a theory that is not backed up by repeatable, verified observations and whose predictions have CONSISTENTLY failed to pan out. I'm in a fantasy world because I don't subscribe to the views of scientists who, when the observations don't fit the theory, question the observations. Yep, makes PERFECT sense

7/16/2011 5:28:54 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVuGwc9dlhQ

Fukushima Nuclear Response Director: "You have no right to live without radiation exposure. There will be no funds for evacuations, no urine tests to see if children are already exposed. If you're one of the poor schmucks that lives near one of our plants, suck it up and take your lumps."

It will take five years at the soonest for the Fukushima lessons learned to be applied to U.S. power plants.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-nuclear-group-backs-5-year-safety-timeline-2011-07-26?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Vermont Plant refuels without government permission despite active lawsuits and public outcry. Who's regulating who?:
http://www.reformer.com/ci_18548814?source=most_viewed

NRC AGAIN relaxes its regulations, this time letting plant managers work employees past the point of fatigue, at their own discretion, of course.
http://ohsonline.com/articles/2011/07/26/nuclear-plant-operators-getting-flexibility-on-fatigue-rule.aspx?admgarea=news

7/26/2011 11:14:51 AM

^hoepfully we don't have a 10.0 earthquake and 30 foo tsunami hit a plant within the next 5 years or we might just be screwed

7/26/2011 11:19:26 AM

No tsunamis, but plenty of industry tail wagging the corrupt regulatory dog, just like Japan.

7/26/2011 11:21:15 AM

Can't happen here.

8/23/2011 8:33:12 PM

What can't happen here?

*The largest earthquake on the east coast in 67 years
*A shallow earthquake at that (meaning the upper ground disturbance was more severe)
*The epicenter was extremely close to the plant

Yet, the plant's outdated design basis was still 5 times larger than the quake that hit it yesterday. The two new units that will be built there (probably something I will get to work on if I ever finish this automotive aluminum job) will have a significantly larger design basis and updated safety features beyond the old basis and features that held up yesterday.

Now, over the next week or two they will have a better idea of what, if any, real damage was caused there beyond their initial estimate and we can review the impact then instead of just the initial reports of no expected damage.

8/24/2011 7:39:29 AM

Quote :

"Can't happen here."

It can happen here. And I'm fine with that.

8/24/2011 10:53:48 AM

Quote :

"It can happen here. And I'm fine with that."

The human cost of Chernobyl was due to a lack of timely evac measures.

You might picture yourself as a citizen of the town of Futaba for the best possible accuracy (assuming you live in a community next to a nuclear plant). Since they were the closest to the accident they have only recently been talking about permitting (former) residents limited-time returns to their homes.

So in the *correct* perception, such individual may risk loss of home and a trying time in evacuation shelters. Unless you believe our government will lie to you, a health concern is not founded. Even the Japanese government didn't do that.

And before smc posts some NYTimes article to "refute" me, just go look up the radiation does for Iidate.

8/24/2011 11:34:44 AM

Check out this amusement ride inside a cooling tower of an old German nuc plant, looks kinda sketch lol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukWZ5cVLj1o&feature=player_embedded

8/24/2011 12:58:05 PM

^I can't wait to do that in Shearon Harris!

8/24/2011 1:55:18 PM

Quote :

"Can't happen here."

Correct. A tsunami can't happen here.

8/24/2011 3:39:19 PM

Correct. A nuclear disaster can't happen here. We are infallible.



Here are the 10 nuclear power sites with the highest risk of an earthquake causing core damage, showing their NRC risk estimates based on 2008 and 1989 geological data.

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/what-are-odds-us-nuke-plants-ranked-quake-risk/#.TlVYc13os1I

[Edited on August 24, 2011 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2011 3:53:55 PM

Yep, keep shifting your argument.

8/24/2011 10:15:14 PM

^^

http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2011/03/18/dont-believe-everything-you-read/

Quote :

"One example was a so-called “investigative report” on MSNBC.com that ranked nuclear power plants according to their “vulnerability” to major earthquakes. The reporter concluded that the Indian Point plant, 24 miles north of New York City, was “the most vulnerable” in the nation. Instant headlines. You may have heard a local news report that your neighborhood nuclear plant ranked “on the NRC’s Top Ten List” of the plants most likely to tumble in a temblor. Let’s be clear: The NRC does not rank nuclear power plants according to their vulnerability to earthquakes. This “ranking” was developed by the MSNBC.com reporter using partial information and we believe an even more partial understanding of how we evaluate plants for seismic risk. Each plant is evaluated individually according to the geology of its site, not by a “one-size-fits-all” model – therefore such rankings or comparisons are highly misleading."

You should probably read that whole thing, considering how concerned you seem to be about nuclear plants, and how this is the regulator tasked with keeping the public safe.

[Edited on August 24, 2011 at 11:33 PM. Reason : ]

8/24/2011 11:04:39 PM

NRC is corrupt.

8/25/2011 8:38:12 AM

^ This is America and the NRC is a government agency. So, yea, that is kinda what they do. But just because an agency is corrupt does not answer what it will do. In the case of many government agencies charged with safety, their corrupt goal in life is to prevent new competition and therefore secure the profits of their client industry. It does this by passing onerous regulations which no new comer would ever be willing to pay. As such, while the NRC may not care about safety anymore than their clients do, these onerous rules might as well be safety enhancing, so they are, and everyone is happy.

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 8:56 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/25/2011 8:55:29 AM

North Carolina Nuke Plant can't handle a measly little hurricane, will be shut down ahead of time.

http://business.blogs.starnewsonline.com/15986/progress-preparing-itself-other-utilities-for-irene/

Wait, aren't our nuclear plants were impervious to natural disasters?

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2011 1:34:29 PM

Quote :

"aren't our nuclear plants were"

Also, I love how you link articles or paste information from articles without actually reading them and make assumptions that have no basis.

I'll make it easy for your small brain though:

-The article is mainly talking about general safety and being prepared for possible repairs related to distribution equipment: things like transformers, cable poles, any outdoor substations etc.

-Shutting down the operation of a nuclear plant when a strong hurricane is projected to cross it's path is standard operating procedure at many nuclear plants. I won't say all because I am not sure if that is true, but shutting them down is nothing new.

-Being designed to structurally withstand a wide variety of natural disasters is different than their choice of whether or not to normally operate during certain conditions. For example, Florida states: "two hours prior to hurricane force winds, the nuclear power plant reactor is shut down."

If you're going to try and argue with people, you need to at least be informed and not be so hypocritical. You can't say nuclear plants aren't safe enough and aren't transparent enough and then jump down their throats when they take precautionary measures (Southport) or release public statements even when their isn't true cause for alarm (North Anna).

The Southport plant is an old one for sure, but do you know how many hurricanes that thing has been through? And then you have the lack of brains to say it can't stand up to a "measly little hurricane"? Every case is different so we will see how things play out but your post has so much stupid in it I can't even wrap my head around it.

Predicted response: smc will not directly respond to anything he was completely incorrect about and instead post the link to another article he has not read with a completely different nuclear safety related topic.

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ]

8/25/2011 4:03:32 PM

If the plant isn't safe to operate during inclement weather then it's not safe to operate at all and should be dismantled.

8/25/2011 4:43:43 PM

Quote :

"If the plant isn't safe to operate during inclement weather then it's not safe to operate at all and should be dismantled."

You're like a caricature of yourself. Hurricane force winds are a slight bit more severe than "inclement weather."

I don't think a plant could operate during a meteor strike either, shut that bitch down.

8/25/2011 4:52:57 PM

Both happen regularly and the plant should be shielded accordingly.

Anything less than full automation is unacceptable when we're talking about a machine that could kill millions. If a nuke plant requires as much as one live person on site to operate, its design is flawed and fragile.

Quote :

"(In the event of an emergency, ) Shearon Harris assigned a worker to run through the plant, squeeze into a high-voltage electrical cabinet, mount a step stool and disconnect a switch with a screwdriver. ""

[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

8/25/2011 4:56:17 PM

There's no such thing as full automation.

8/25/2011 5:03:17 PM