Nuclear Powerplant run by Duke Energy declares state of emergency

a reply to: wtfatta

A LOCA is a Loss of COOLANT Accident, not a Loss of Containment accident.
Both units are in cold shutdown.
The Unusual Event was declared as required by CFR due to inability of personnel to normally access the site.

a reply to: OneArmedBandit

This was answered on the first page.

originally posted by: manuelram16
Main problem in Fukushima was keeping the cooling pumps running, the emergency power generators were on the first level and got flooded, and battery power only lasts for less that a day....

originally posted by: wtfatta
a reply to: OneArmedBandit

This was answered on the first page.

originally posted by: manuelram16
Main problem in Fukushima was keeping the cooling pumps running, the emergency power generators were on the first level and got flooded, and battery power only lasts for less that a day....

That in no way answers the question asked of you.

Brunswick BWR-4

Fukishima BWR-3

You being in the industry, whats the difference?

You are implying there is little similiarity right?

a reply to: fltcui

You are correct that, in your definition, LOCA stands for Loss Of Coolant Accident which does occur; however, there is also LOCA or a Loss of Containment Accident which is when contaminants are released.

Read my posts and you'll see I wasn't talking about coolant loss, but instead, a breach in the containment system resulting in radioactive material being introduced to the surroundings and assisted in dispersal by the flood waters.

Thanks for coming out

a reply to: OneArmedBandit

Reactor designs are more like boilerplate for the facility to be built around.

Very few facilities are built identical.

Fukushima had a different facility design than Brunswick.

So, as I said, there isn't much of a similarity between them except that they use similar reactors.

a reply to: wtfatta

Well you're the expert. I was basing my post on numerous mainstream media reports that say..

The Brunswick plant's two reactors are of the same design as those in Fukushima, Japan, which infamously exploded and leaked radiation following a 2011 magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: ausername

The reactors are similar, not the plants themselves.

So can these sites ever be permanently shut down without causing problems?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Given time and the equipment, fairly easily. Just not quickly.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: howtonhawky

Given time and the equipment, fairly easily. Just not quickly.

You forgot money, lots and lots of money to decomission a nuke plant.
More money than the sum total of all the electricity the plant generated likely.
Hard to even put a price tag on it, as its not been done.

a reply to: ausername

That's the MSM not understanding what they're talking about, which puts undue fear into people.

Tell someone they just got their yearly dose from one cross-country plane trip and people would be up in arms, but it happens. People who fly often get dosed more than people who work in 2.5mRem/hour for 2000 hours

a reply to: OneArmedBandit

As of August of 2016 ten reactors had decommissioned down to spent fuel storage facilities, with another 18 in the process of decommissioning.

www.nei.org...

originally posted by: howtonhawky
So can these sites ever be permanently shut down without causing problems?

As Zaphod58 said, given time and equipment, yeah, but it also depends on the reactor, how long it was running, waste disposal/storage, and, perhaps most importantly, was it a research reactor or a power generation reactor?

AECL in Chalk River, Canada has been storing tonnes of radioactive waste since it was first activated in the mid 40s as the NRX reactor and later as the active NRU reactor which also has a unique design in that the tank is vertical instead of horizontal.

Also, thorium reactors can use spent uranium as fuel, which is probably the best way we can decommission a site; however, spent uranium is only a part of the waste. A lot of it is useless so it goes underground.

Side note: if you ever get tritium poisoning, drink as much beer as you can for three days while adding fresh water to your system. You can thank the person from AECL who discovered that

So what are the chances of shooting that waste into space?

Maybe aimed at some place that can deal with it better than earth.

Thanks for all the info from posters.

a reply to: OneArmedBandit

Big Rock Point.


Gone

And thank Carter that we can't properly move spent fuel rods.

originally posted by: mikell
And thank Carter that we can't properly move spent fuel rods.

President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981 for reprocessing which seems to tie to the Carter comment.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
So what are the chances of shooting that waste into space?

We have no cost-effective means of moving radioactive waste into orbit and beyond.

The difficulty comes in the shielding and the weight of it. The more waste you want to move, the more shielding you need which translates to a LOT of added weight.

Perhaps the most long-term cost-effective means would be a theoretical space elevator as that wouldn't have the same fuel to weight requirements as using conventional chemical combustion rockets.

Unfortunately, whether it be conventional means or otherwise, it opens the door to having an accident midway and releasing all of that waste into the atmosphere. Even one accident would be beyond catastrophic on a global scale. The fallout from Chernobyl would seem like a pleasant afternoon in comparison.

With the advent of thorium reactors, we do have a chance to clean up spent uranium rods and reduce a LOT of costs associated with properly disposing of them.

Thanks to Light Water Reactors being used pretty much everywhere, there are large numbers of Highly Enriched Uranium rods that are perfect for use in a thorium reactor.

Canada and some other places use Heavy Water Reactors so their rods aren't HEUs, but are still viable if augmented with the HEU rods.

What to do with radioactive waste has been a constant question since the dawn of the nuclear reactor and the answer hasn't really changed. Bury it.

a reply to: JasonBillung

The nuclear station is built to withstand any natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods and earthquakes.

So , what do you think ?

The best way right now to store spent and cooled fuel rods is dry storage in casks.
en.wikipedia.org...

And a good safe place to store the dry storage cask is open on pads in Nevada at the nuclear test site.
there is plenty land there and its already contaminated.

On open pads they can be inspected anytime and its in a secure location.
cache.boston.com...
www.onlinenevada.org...