a tale of two nuclear power plants

[existentialist]

This is fact. What follows is currently happening in Nebraska.


There are two nuclear power power plants built in the Missouri River Flood Plain in Nebraska.

Both are currently in danger of being flooded, risking their cooling systems, and thereby risking scenarios similar to the Japanese problems with the power plants and storage pools.

In both cases it is certainly arguable that the power plants should never have been built where they are, or even that no nuclear power plants should have been built at all--but that is beside the immediate point. The immediate point is that in the face of these pending potential disasters the reactions of management have been diametrically different.

First the Ft. Calhoun Nuclear power plant near Blair Nebraska: It had a routine shutdown for fuel replacement and maintenance in April. Then they realized that they were facing a flooding threat, and decided that it was no time to start up again, and that instead they should shut it down, and take precautions to try to cool it down so that there would be less of a problem if there is flooding that causes cooling problems. This was the response of the Omaha Public Power District (its owners).

They did also have a fire while shut down that was reported as an "unusual event" that made some news and highlighted the type of risk that this plant, and nuclear plants in general face, in general and from flooding in particular, and there are problems there that could become severe. The fact is that the plant has been shut down since April, and although the plant operators have been trying to keep their problems quiet, they have in at least some ways been trying to deal with them, and if flooding does cause problems, the problems will be significantly less because the plant has been shut down for two months.


Second, there is the Cooper Station Nuclear power plant down where the state of Missouri rather than the state of Iowa borders Nebraska across the Missouri river. They also had an "unusual event" (this June 17, 2011) that they had to report on June 17: this "unusual event" caused by minor flooding with all signs that flooding was certainly going to get worse. The response of the Nebraska Public Power District (its owners): They announced that the public need not worry and that the power station was back to functioning at full capacity.



Therefore when flooding gets worse they will almost certainly suffer major problems that will be worse because the Plant has continued operating "at full power" of which they seem to be very proud.


sources (among others):
ncnewspress.com
examiner.com

[liberal N proud]

1. I posted a couple of threads today on this and the flooding in general

If you are interested:

Missouri River Flood updates
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1336602

Aerials of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant Flooding - No-Fly Zone Enforced as of June 14, 2011
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x593813

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. But, our media is MOSTLY silent on this

[liberal N proud]

14. Don't want to let America know about those power plants.

[Octafish]

2. Excellent summation and analysis.

Thank you for putting it into clear language, existentialist.

[ncguy]

3. Both are right.

Whether the plant is running at full power or fully scrammed makes no difference as to the amount of decay heat. That is determined by the current fuel load. Both plants are doing what is prudent. The Cooper plant will have slef generated power to power pumps should external power get interruped. Pretty smart, eh? But don't let facts get in the way of a good diatribe.

A couple of things to remember, there is a huge difference between a slow flood and a wall of water 30 meters high traveling a 100mph smashing into equipment. The later breaks things in a hurry. The earlier can be easily mitigated. You do understand that all radioactive material in the core is completely waterproof by its very nature, don't you?

BTW, solar, wind and coal all kill more people than nuclear. Nobody has ever been killed by a nuclear plant in the US. Many ahve dies from the other sources. Why do you want to kill more people?

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. So tell me, we all imagined the higher thyroid cancers

around TMI?

They do not kill immediately, but higher cancer rates are REAL.

Oh and welcome to my iggy list. I really am tired of the true believers.

[rurallib]

9. How do solar and wind kill and how much

and at what point do you count deaths from nuclear? From the mining of the ore to cancers caused by radiation or some much more narrow window?

[ncguy]

12. See the source

Most deaths from Solar and wind are from falls. If you have workers working at heights day in and day out, eventually they have accidents, either falls or dropping tools on workers below. A lot of the companies that do solar are smaller enterprises and do not have the safety training and programs that large utility companies have. Wind used to be smaller companies but is growing more mature.

The deaths from coal are coutned two ways. one from mining deaths. I believe (see the websight for complete methodolgy) the otehr is based upon breathing problems made worse by coal polution.

Very little radiation was released at Three Mile Island. I don't know of any deaths that were tied to the release. On the other hand, a few dozen orphans were created in WV last year from coal mining.

[kristopher]

17. The blog entry is a deception.

It is a lie.

It is untrue.

It is false.

How many ways to you need to see it before you stop spreading it?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. I would appear that nobody cares - they should be fined and shut down

[ncguy]

6. Fined for what?

What have they done wrong? Produced cheap safe power?

[ncguy]

8. Speaking of facts

let's look at real fatalities

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Source:http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

So, it sounds like you want to take nuclear, the safest power and replace it with either Coal or Natual Gas, two fo the three most dangerous. (Wind and solar can't replace much nuclear because solar is generally peak power, not baseload, and wind is not really dispatable at all.)

[kristopher]

13. That comparison is a complete lie. Nuclear is 0.69, wind is 0.07, and they made up solar number

Don't believe propaganda from nuclear proponents. They lie.

Go to the original sources and check for yourself. The blogger that you took that from knows the numbers are false, yet continues to spread misinformation deliberately.

Is it part of your ethical makeup to do the same?

1) The number of fatalities associated strictly with the nuclear fuel chain (excludes major accidents) is 0.69/TWh
The 0.69 deaths/TWh represents 0.04/TWh in occupational fatalities. and 0.65/TWh in public fatalities.
(The Meaning Of Results: Comparative Risk Assessments OF Energy Options). http://www.informaworld.com/index /02X48X98DVPW7U96.pdf

2) Gipe, (2006, 2009) finds that the number derived from considering all known fatalities associated with wind as of 2009 - including incidents that strain credulity to attribute them to the technology - 0.07/TWh.

Also, there is a very strong case to be made for the position that this already low number hugely exaggerates the actual risks associated with the wind industry.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

3) The solar stat is completely fabricated.

One of the most significant issues, however, is the typical glossing over of what deaths are attributable to nuclear. Even the 0.69/TWh is a product of massive data trimming.

[ncguy]

15. If we look at your article

all but one person was killed working with wind energy. The only questionable one (I would not have put it in the stats) is the parachutest.

The authors real problem seems to be small turbines. Whether you believe small turbines should or should not be allowed to exist, when people die installing small turbines, it is a wind energy death. 20 years ago, you were seeing lots of small turbines. As the industry trends towards larger turbines installed by larger, more professional companies, the safety statistics will improve, which is exactly what I put in my post.

[kristopher]

16. THE COMPARISON IS A LIE

You've been provided accurate information and your text shows you are quoting from the lies at the blog instead of going to the original. Are you deliberately trying to support what is an OBVIOUS falsehood?

Anyone reading this should compare the original sources provided to the blog entry and your text.

[suffragette]

10. Cooper plant has also had safety issues with fire procedures recently

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2011/06/14/4df6c86c3554e

Cooper Nuclear Station will receive additional oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because of problems with procedures needed to safely shutdown the plant in the event of some fires.

The plant, operated by the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), is located in southeast Nebraska, near Brownville in Nemaha County.

NRC inspectors said some of the station’s procedures for manually operating valves – which are part of system for releasing coolants under high pressure – wouldn’t work in the event of a fire. The independent emergency cooling system is one means available to provide water to cool the reactor in case of an emergency.

“Fire protection programs are a critical component in plant safety and the NRC is paying special attention to ensure takes actions to fully correct this issue,” according to Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins.




Good informative post.
K&R

[Strelnikov_]

11. And its not even that big of a flood

Not even close to the flood of record, pre-dam of course.

I'll lay odds that in a couple of years the USACE updated FFS (flow frequency study) shows a significant shift in the discharge-frequency relationship.

Down the river well into Missouri development has progressed based on an overly optimistic assessment of the flood mitigation capability of the dams.

These plants are accidents waiting to happen.

[sad sally]

18. We certainly don't need any pesky inspections of America's aging nuclear plants

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43455859/ns/us_news-environment/?du

By JEFF DONN

updated 6/20/2011 11:21:43 AM ET

Part II of this series will appear on Tuesday and looks at corroded, buried piping that represent an escalating problem: 75 percent of the nuclear plant sites have experienced radioactive tritium leaks, often into groundwater.

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. — Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety — and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.