It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan Crisis Puts Spotlight on Reactors in U.S.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Japan Crisis Puts Spotlight on Reactors in U.S.


online.wsj.com

MARCH 16, 2011, 3:50 P.M. ET.

"Japan's nuclear crisis is drawing attention to aging U.S. reactors, especially the 23 most similar to reactors at the Japanese plant where workers are racing to avoid a full-scale meltdown.".....

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
money.cnn.com




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
The article continues with:

"Eleven U.S. utilities, including industry giants such as Southern Co., Entergy Corp. and Exelon Corp., own similar reactors in 14 states. Most of them are operating beyond their initial 40-year licenses and have been granted 20-year extensions by federal regulators."

and:

"One key lesson, Mr. Gasser said, was that plants need to be able to restore power quickly in the event of an emergency. The Fukushima Daiichi plant lost power in the tsunami that followed Friday's massive quake, leaving reactors without normal water-circulation cooling. As a result, fuel rods inside the reactors overheated, leading to a series of explosions and radiation releases.

American plants have backup generators and powerful batteries, but some only have enough battery power to run critical instrumentation and controls for four hours. The Japanese units had eight hour's worth and it was insufficient.

For example, the Monticello reactor in Minnesota that's operated by Xcel Energy Inc. only has four hours of battery life if it loses grid power and diesel generators."


Four hours? Are you kidding? You think it might be time to invest in more battery power? Wondering how many more reactors have such limited backup plans since the article only specifies "some"?

This situation needs to be investigated further, and corrected asap imo.






online.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)




edit on 3/16/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 


The batteries are part of the defense in depth. It would be quite something if a US reactor lost external power as well as its primary and secondary emergency diesels. And before you tell me “it happened in Fukushima” let me remind you that the NRC standard for emergency diesel siting is very stringent and emergency power busses are specified for interfacing with many commercially available industrial portable generators.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I think we need to rethink the dangers of using reactors to produce electricity. The catastrophic implications on the human race is just too great. The NRC has always said they had safety precautions to prevent reactor melt downs. But with the events unfolding in Japan, it's proving that there is no such thing as preventing a reactor melt down.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 


Ah yes.

This comparison explains why the Japan crisis is being downplayed. Could set the nuclear industry way back, just like Chernobyl did. ...What a shame. [/sarcasm]

Good catch. S&F



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
For the purpose of your thread here is a map of reactors in the U.S.



Granted some of those are decommissioned. More can be read here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is the list that shows running and decommissioned reactors.

en.wikipedia.org...


Raist

edit on 3/16/11 by Raist because: adding list



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 


Japan having reactors to supply their energy deserves the biggest Darwin award of all time.

I Think it's kind of like drinking turpinetine and taking a leak on a brush fire.

More than energy the Japaneese people needed Japan.

How can anyone think it's safe to put a reaction chamber on a siezmic hotspot? The horrible truth is
mankind dosn't even need nuclear energy. There's power in the oceans current isn't there. The whole thing is disgusting to even think about.

Oh and more than energy I need California.

Raist

Thanks for posting the map partner. You know what the first thing I noticed looking at it was ? None of those reactors in the U. S. are any where near yellowstone. No way was somebody using there head for change?
edit on 16-3-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by manta78
 


The batteries are part of the defense in depth. It would be quite something if a US reactor lost external power as well as its primary and secondary emergency diesels. And before you tell me “it happened in Fukushima” let me remind you that the NRC standard for emergency diesel siting is very stringent and emergency power busses are specified for interfacing with many commercially available industrial portable generators.




Acknowledged that backups to backup systems exist. After reviewing a recent report here however:

Twenty First Annual Report to Congress

by the:

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

dated: February 2011

whose function is:

"Congress created the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board as an independent agency
within the Executive Branch (42 U.S.C. § 2286, et seq.) to identify the nature and consequences
of potential threats to public health and safety at the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) defense
nuclear facilities, to elevate such issues to the highest levels of authority, and to inform the
public. The Board is required to review and evaluate the content and implementation of health
and safety standards, including DOE’s orders, rules, and other safety requirements, practices, and
events relating to system design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of DOE’s
defense nuclear facilities. The Board makes recommendations to the Secretary of Energy that the
Board believes are necessary to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. The
Board is also empowered to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, hold public hearings, and
establish reporting requirements."

I am not feeling an over abundance of confidence in our current nuclear related safety programs in the U.S. especially after reading some of its contents including this:


"On September 10, 2010, the Board issued a separate report to Congress on DOE’s aging
and degrading defense nuclear facilities. DOE continues to rely on aging facilities to carry out
hazardous production missions. Examples of this persistent problem include the 9212 Complex
at the Y-12 National Security Complex (portions of which are more than 60 years old), the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility at Los Alamos (nearly 60 years old), and the first
high-level waste tanks built at the Hanford and Savannah River Sites (up to 66 years old). There
are other examples of degrading and aging facilities that will require significant capital
expenditures for replacement or for repair and upgrade of key systems. The Board understands
that, in several instances, replacement facilities have been authorized by Congress to address this
aging infrastructure. However, these new facilities may not be available for another decade."

and this:

"Safety Initiatives Requiring Increased Management Focus and Staff Support
DOE accomplished a wide variety of safety improvements across the defense nuclear
complex during 2010. However, little progress was made toward carrying out several important
safety initiatives responding to the Board’s recommendations from prior years. All of these
initiatives are straightforward and could be accomplished in a timely manner, given appropriate
management focus, staff support and funding. The most prominent of these stalled initiatives are
related to the implementation of the Board’s Recommendation 2004-1, Oversight of Complex,
High-Hazard Nuclear Operations."


"The Board conducted a public hearing on May 12, 2010, addressing selected aspects of
the recommendation and plans follow-up hearings in 2011. Three areas are languishing and need
management attention: (1) limited progress was made in response to the sub-recommendation on
nuclear safety research and development, (2) DOE is more than three years behind schedule in
issuing a guide to complement Order 226.1A, Implementation of Department of Energy
Oversight Policy, and (3) NNSA continues to lag behind DOE’s Office of Environmental
Management in implementing a corporate approach toward quality assurance for safety aspects
of defense nuclear facilities. NNSA’s poor performance in developing and implementing quality
assurance plans, as required by DOE Order 414.4C, Quality Assurance, continues to be a particular
concern."

To read more of this 101 page report to Congress go here:

www.dnfsb.gov...
















edit on 3/16/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
How can anyone think it's safe to put a reaction chamber on a siezmic hotspot?
You could say the same thing about a skyscraper, but in fact it's possible to build buildings to withstand Earthquakes.

The trick is to not build directly over a fault, and to know how big the Earthquake from the nearest fault will be and to build the building (or reactor) to withstand that.

Apparently the Japan reactors were built to withstand a 7.0 quake. The problem is they experienced a 9.0 quake which is something like 100 times more powerful.

If something is designed to withstand a 9.0 quake, and a tsunami, it probably can. Even though a 9.0 is huge, it's still a finite event and there are engineering solutions as long as the ground doesn't open up underneath the plant and swallow it. They just didn't have adequate engineering specifications and solutions since you can't expect a reactor only designed to withstand a 7.0 quake to withstand a 9.0 quake.

I studied nuclear reactor design a bit in the university and the university I attended had its own nuclear reactor, a small one for educational and training purposes. One thing I remember about that reactor is that the mechanisms that lifted the control rods out of the fuel to allow fission to take place were supposed to drop back into the fuel in the event power was lost. Once this happened, the fission should shut down and the only problem you have is removing the residual heat that was created from previous fission. I would have thought 4 hours of battery backup would be plenty of time to remove this residual heat if this type of design had been employed, but the fact that it was insufficient makes me think a less safe design was used for the control rods, so I'm wondering if there were other design safety issues with the reactors in Japan.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by manta78
 

You know what the first thing I noticed looking at it was ? None of those reactors in the U. S. are any where near yellowstone.


Oh noes, you so wrongs!

Yellowstone is where the previous so-called civilization had their mega-nuclear industrial hotspot...

edit on 16-3-2011 by Chakotay because: Pfffftttt...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Well I just hope they learn the lesson on where to store spent fuel rods... Had they been stored off site or in a separate building, they wouldn't be in such a mess right now...

Also when you build diesel generators on Tsunami beach, maybe a steel and concrete bunker might have been wise



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well I just hope they learn the lesson on where to store spent fuel rods... Had they been stored off site or in a separate building, they wouldn't be in such a mess right now...

Also when you build diesel generators on Tsunami beach, maybe a steel and concrete bunker might have been wise


Two things, the rods are kept up top so they can be handled safely while they cool. Imagine plucking hot spent fuel from the top of a reactor 150ft off the ground and moving it off site. Talk about radiation exposure.

Fukushima had a 20ft sea wall, unfortunately the wave that hit was 25 feet.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


BS! You have to be a complete and utter moron to build anything dangerous on top of a faut line or anywhere close to the sea. Even a fifteen year old child knows you can't earthquake "proof" ANYTHING up to 9 richter or even 8 richter and if you could the logistics and cost requirements simply make it unfeasible.

Why not act smart and put them AWAY from danger areas?
And to store "spent" rods within the facility is even MORE retarded!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
I think we need to rethink the dangers of using reactors to produce electricity. The catastrophic implications on the human race is just too great. The NRC has always said they had safety precautions to prevent reactor melt downs. But with the events unfolding in Japan, it's proving that there is no such thing as preventing a reactor melt down.


I agree there are better alternatives even if we disregard zero-point energy. Solar, wind, sea waves, etc.

When it comes to nuclear power I think there are better alternatives than enriched uranium and enriched plutonium such as reprocessed thorium. I have a question: How do they enrich these elements in the first place to make fuel rods and is it possible to remove and de-enrich rods back to their original state? They work on fission so maybe we need fusion?

So much of the stuff is classified and when you combine this with the poor design models of nuclear powerplants, their suspicious locations, the suppression of reliable news media, etc it kind of makes you think CONSPIRACY!

How fitting for a conspiracy message board. I suspect some people know the truth but are gagged by national "security" directives of the monsterous nwo world government. Prove me wrong batman!
edit on 16-3-2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
The wariness now towards nuclear plants could get us to look into other alternatives, such as coal power plants, that are less expensive to build and coal is plentiful in the US. My opinion is they are safer and more cost effective. We have them now and they are working on fixing the carbon dioxide issue which has the environmentalists up in arms, so to speak.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenofsheba
The wariness now towards nuclear plants could get us to look into other alternatives, such as coal power plants, that are less expensive to build and coal is plentiful in the US. My opinion is they are safer and more cost effective. We have them now and they are working on fixing the carbon dioxide issue which has the environmentalists up in arms, so to speak.


Yeah the same enviromentalists who prefer pilling up garbage at landfill sites rather than incinerating it out in the open due to carbon dioxide "concerns". Or the people who pressed government to pass a ban on hairspray and freon due to "depleting the ozone layer" outlandish bs.

Or our nwo world government leaders wanting a carbon tax on everything produced until their bs was once again debunked. Not only do our "leaders" not care about the enviroment but they want to profit out of our stupidity as well.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




No problem.


No one was using their head do not worry.

Look at the number of reactors in the New Madrid fault zone.

When the big one ever hits here we might be just as screwed, if the cooling system goes out.

Raist



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


BS! You have to be a complete and utter moron to build anything dangerous on top of a faut line or anywhere close to the sea...



let's not forget that all these blocks lasted at least a day before any release happened, plenty of time to apply many effective countermeasures - if their version is even half true, that is. after that time, decay heat falls to below 1%

en.wikipedia.org...


the danger must have been apparent from the start (no fundamental changes to the situation after the tsunami had hit) yet their press releases did not indicate such. since all blocks were of similar construction, how come the roof of #2 is (as of today) still on, while #1's is missing and #3 probably chernobyled? must have been people's action (or inaction) that made the difference.

sure, the quake served as the catalyst, but unless they failed to mention serious structural damage to the cores (stuck rods, for example) neither quake nor tsunami were directly responsible, but shoddy equipment and most importantly, ineffective or even counter-productive damage control,

note that the design is criminal on many levels, spent fuel pools on top and no emergency expansion volume to speak of, but it _did_ buy them a day to react.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
New articles published today from various sources for addition to this thread:

"Could U.S. Nuclear Plants Withstand a Tsunami?"
"In the wake of the crisis gripping Japan, should we take a second look at nuclear plants closer to home?"
Article here: news.discovery.com...

"Questions About Reactors in U.S. Resonating Louder"
Chicago Tribune 3-17-2011
Source here: www.bostonherald.com...=home&position=recent


"It's Too Risky to keep Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Open: Gov. Cuomo"
Thursday, March 17th 2011

"Gov. Cuomo on Wednesday called for shutting down the Indian Point nuclear power plant after a federal report branded it the most vulnerable to earthquakes in the nation.

"The suggestion is that of all the [104] power plants across the country, that the Indian Point power plant is most susceptible to an earthquake because Reactor No. 3 is on a fault [line]," Cuomo said as nuclear meltdown fears deepened in Japan.

"It should be closed."

Read more: www.nydailynews.com...


"Nuclear Safety: U.S. 'Near-Misses' in 2010"
March 17, 2011
"There is a very important report out today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) on the performance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)—the government agency that enforces safety regulations for U.S. nuclear reactors in the hope of preventing a catastrophe such as is occurring in Fukushima. The report looks at 14 “near-misses” at U.S. nuclear plants during 2010. A summary of the findings can be found here, but the gist is that nuclear power plant operators in many cases may have shirked their safety responsibilities. "That plant owners could have avoided nearly all 14 near-misses in 2010 had they corrected known deficiencies in a timely manner suggests that our luck at nuclear roulette may someday run out," the report concludes."

Read more: ecocentric.blogs.time.com...


"Progress Energy Led U.S. Nuclear Near-Misses, Group Says"
March 17, 2011
Progress Energy Inc. (PGN), which plans to merge with Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) to create the largest U.S. utility owner, led a list of 14 near-misses by U.S. nuclear plant operators last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group, said today in a report.

Progress, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, suffered four accidents at three reactors, the group said today in a report written by its chief of nuclear safety, David Lochbaum, a former safety instructor for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Source: www.bloomberg.com...








edit on 3/17/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
This is just a bunch of bull crap to scare people. We've had nuclear reactors for over 60 years. NOW you're scared? Get real. This is just more fear mongering from the media.

The reason why this happened in Japan is because they are situated on an active earthquake zone. For the most part, our nuclear reactors are in safe areas that don't see to frequent earthquakes, and never any serious ones.

Needless to say, I do expect the facilities to be upgraded and maintained. But we shouldn't be worried about it...
edit on 17-3-2011 by BiGGz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join