An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

[Chris Coles]

It will pay all of us to return to the debate about the long term risks associated with building a Nuclear Power Plant close to an earthquake zone.

To open, try this from The Guardian dated October 2007

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...micproportions

And please, let us keep this on subject for the benefit of the wider public interest.

[Shakespear]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

Well Chris you hit it on the nose !!!

I wanted to mention this in one of my posts but though "Do I want to be hearing "You have no feelings for the human tragedy" ". I'm kind of tired listening to some of these wise ol experts back in their cubicles.

The problem I see is that the planners run their probability scenarios, do their environmental impacts studies and plan for their worst case (the one they "think" could happen based on historical records) within the lifetime of the reactors. They find a site that fits their criteria to be "Safe" within the lifetime of the reactors and build, in this case away from a straight fault zone region. They got away with this for nearly 40 yrs., but in the end Mother Nature is simply unpredictable and busted all the predictions to bits. Sad as hell but that region of the world lives on a constantly shaking Earth.

These "once in 100 yrs. or 200 yrs. etc. " events WILL happen and may even be worst. Period. There is simply no guarantee that it won't happen earlier or what you thought of is all that can happen.

Yes I know, "If we think this way we will do nothing in life". Fair enough, but then in this case we are live under a sword and need to decide whether we are ready to accept the consequences. Having a limited land mass in Japan's case I think it should have been moving in a different direction of energy supply as they can not afford to have contaminated land mass like for instance Russia or US. Money plays into this always, but as that time ticks by your odds are going down that "The Event" will not happen soon.

What would have happened if the prevailing wind was West ward and the reactors were in Kitakyushu and it winds were particularly strong that day?? Contaminated South Korea.

I think your title is Spot On !!!

[Thailandnotes]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

I post this not because I'm sure it's accurate. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. I link to it because it highlights a deep suspicion: Ecological disasters often happen not because the technology/design wasn't good enough, but because there is fraud. Estimates for height and wave speed for this tsunami are well below estimates for the 2004 tsunami that struck Thailand and its neighbors.

http://www.truth-out.org/tokyo-elect...operators68457

[Master Shake]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

Having a limited land mass in Japan's case I think it should have been moving in a different direction of energy supply as they can not afford to have contaminated land mass like for instance Russia or US. Money plays into this always, but as that time ticks by your odds are going down that "The Event" will not happen soon.

What different direction should they have moved in? THey have no fossil fuels of their own and wind and solar are not legitimate alternatives for an industrial economy, and certainly were even less so when these plants were built four decades ago.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

Emerging Economies with Nuclear Plans....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/bu...5power.html?hp

“The question mark about safety was really way down the agenda,” Mr. Patterson said. “This will bring it right back to the top of the agenda.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany on Monday said her country’s plan to prolong the life of the country’s nuclear power stations would be tabled while the German government reassessed the situation.

Switzerland on Monday suspended plans to build new plants and replace existing ones. The Swiss energy minister, Doris Leuthard, said in a statement that the “safety and well-being of the population have the highest priority.”

But at the same time, Italy, Russia and the Czech Republic all said they would stick to their energy policies.

Across the Middle East, countries have been racing to build up nuclear power, as a growth and population boom has created unprecedented demand for energy, and as Iran forges ahead with the Bushehr nuclear facility.

The United Arab Emirates has taken the lead with a plan to build four plants in the city of Braka, on the Persian Gulf, by 2017 to generate about a quarter of the country’s power by 2020.

The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation, the project’s developer, is “closely monitoring the situation in Japan,” a spokesman said Monday, although no reassessment of the effort is under way.

The emirates plan to use pressurized water reactors bought from Korea Electric Power Company of South Korea in a $20 billion deal, passing over French and American bids for the project.

One of the emirates, Abu Dhabi, chose Braka because it is near the water and an existing power grid, far from populated areas, and lies on a seismically stable landmass.

Because the Persian Gulf is an enclosed sea, planners say there is little threat of a tsunami in the event of an earthquake.

By contrast, Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant, also on the Persian Gulf, is much less seismically stable, which worries environmentalists. Any nuclear leak there would quickly reach the wealthy emirates of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and others because the gulf’s currents run clockwise.

The Iranian plant unloaded nuclear fuel in February after a computer worm infected the reactor.

Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Egypt are all also studying nuclear energy, and even oil-rich Saudi Arabia is considering a nuclear-powered city.

Most plants would be placed in seismically stable areas, although one planned by Jordan at the Red Sea port of Aqaba is on a major faultline.

Turkey on Monday said it would move ahead with plans for two nuclear plants, including one that may use Japanese nuclear technology from the Tokyo Electric Power Company and Toshiba. Numerous geological faultlines cross the country.

India’s nuclear energy establishment has faced stiff opposition to its ambitious plans from environmentalists and villagers at plant sites.

Many of the questions posed to energy officials at Monday’s news conference addressed a controversial nuclear project on the western coast of the country, north of Goa, a tourist destination.

As currently envisioned, it would be the world’s largest nuclear energy complex.

But analysts in India said the Japan crisis was unlikely to stir up significantly more public protest against nuclear plants here, given the pressing demand for more electricity.

[Shakespear]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

What different direction should they have moved in?

If Nuclear was the BEST direction then I would say start looking at other reactor designs and not keep riding on 40 year old technology. However to do this would have required spending MONEY !!! We do know how that one works, "If it works don't fix it".

And then Katrina arrives or the bridge falls apart in Minnesota, just to give a two examples which make my point regarding planning for the future. That planning is usually how not to spend the money "because there is none". Quick check of International News shows that plenty of money is available for bull**** that brings the country and others nothing but grief.

PS: Something tells me this story is going to get very very inter interesting,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...arpower-energy

[Chris Coles]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the real problem Japan has faced is not the earthquake, but the tsunami. Having had a conducted tour of a conventional power station some years ago, the one thing that stood out were the power transformers right next to the generators. They produced an enormous volume of sound and were right at the same level as the generators. As also the transmission lines. So the real problem would have been that all the secondary equipment, including the diesel generators, were at or near ground level. Any substantial wall of water, (particularly salt water), flowing through such equipment, would very quickly destroy it. Diesel generators via water ingestion, (destroying the pistons), and related transmission wiring, (remember these generators were a ~ 1MW system), would make any immediate reinstatement of the system impossible.

So what we have is a classic example of the process of innovation. You try something, it works for a time, and then you discover why it will not work for the longer term and have to redesign it.

There is nothing wrong with the basic design of the nuclear heat source system. The problem was in the design of the safety systems to back up the plant if a tsunami occurred.

Placing a nuclear power plant close to a major subduction zone; without suitably taking account of the potential for a tsunami destroying the emergency systems; must now be seen as a non starter. This event will in fact ensure that in future, all nuclear power plants will be much safer. That is a very worthwhile long term bonus.

[coolhand]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

50,000 Americans die every year in car accidents but no one advocates slowing the speed limit to 5 mph to end all those fatalities b/c doing so would be economically challenging.

As tragic as this is, I don't see how it's that different from a pragmatic standpoint. IMO, this is ultimately the challenge for Peak Cheap Oil - your remaining choices are all varying degrees of less good than the status quo.

[Shakespear]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

coolhand

Plannnig requires thinking more than one "move" ahead. Hence,

50,000 Americans die every year in car accidents but no one advocates slowing the speed limit to 5 mph to end all those fatalities b/c doing so would be economically challenging.

this is not a good example.

Why? Because 50,000 people do not leave radiation hazard behind that will be there for hundreds of years, making land useless and causing unknown side effects which will arising with time.

[coolhand]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

coolhand

Plannnig requires thinking more than one "move" ahead. Hence,

this is not a good example.

Why? Because 50,000 people do not leave radiation hazard behind that will be there for hundreds of years, making land useless and causing unknown side effects which will arising with time.

Agreed, it is not a good example when taken literally as an analog to Japan situation. But my point is that if we start stripping away cheap energy options due to the risk of death/incapacitation of the world's citizens/economy, then we put greater amounts at risk.

For example - not investing in more alternative energy sources years/decades ago in the US forced us to move to a shorter-term alternative, corn-based ethanol. Because of corn based ethanol, the number of poor people in the world that have suffered hunger or outright starvation would dwarf the number of killed/injured in Japan, which is pretty much a worst case scenario in terms of 10,000-yr earthquake & tsunami combo.

I am not a "green advocate" per se in advocating against corn based ethanol.

My point is that the death warrant of tens of thousands of poor people globally from starvation as a rub-off effect of corn based ethanol in the US was signed when the US decided to scrap plans for greater electrification for transport purposes decades ago, & that a decision to scrap further nuclear development now will be signing someone's death warrant somewhere in the world, sometime in the next 10-20 years at most.

That is why I say we are left with no good choices, just varying bad ones (take the risk of nukes, or take the risk of economic troubles for lack of cheap energy in 5-10 years when oil supplies start declining, & net exports declining precipitously, in the next 5 yrs, & at most 10 years.)

[c1ue]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

Why? Because 50,000 people do not leave radiation hazard behind that will be there for hundreds of years, making land useless and causing unknown side effects which will arising with time.

True, but if they lived, their kids and their kids' kids, etc will pollute the earth with their consumption and their non-radioactive wastes. /sarc

[coolhand]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

True, but if they lived, their kids and their kids' kids, etc will pollute the earth with their consumption and their non-radioactive wastes. /sarc

"In the absence of technological advances, Malthusianism is correct." -Andrew Lees

Nukes = technology. We can start discriminating against various types of cheap energy, as long as we all recognize that there are about 6B more people on this planet now that weren't here when energy was a lot more expensive (1850).

[Shakespear]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

coolhand

As much as Americans criticized/disliked Carter, he was the one president that seemed to understand something. It helps to have brains and not just family connection when you are a President.

It was on his watch that Alternate Energy had the ear of the president and not that of EXXON. Research money was there and DOE had clout. Slowly this was however eliminated until the point that if you wanted to study Solar Power at any major university you would need to find your own money to do the research. We wasted 30 yrs. thanks to Big Business.

As for corn based ethanol, do a little reading on theoildrum.com and maybe you will see how this is flawed.

[Chris Coles]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

All the reports coming in tell us that the problems are caused by a lack of rigour in design of the safety and storage systems. Tanks leaking is the same as when motor racing vehicles were prone to lose their fuel load in a crash, (now covered by flexible membranes inside the tank), and the emergency pumps not being designed to cope with a tsunami, (where placing them ten feet off the ground level would have solved the problem once and for all).

Everything we see is a simple design problem requiring a simple solution.

The long term implications will make the nuclear power industry much safer.

[c1ue]

Re: An error of seismic proportions - Building Nuclear Plants Close to Earthquake Zones

All the reports coming in tell us that the problems are caused by a lack of rigour in design of the safety and storage systems. Tanks leaking is the same as when motor racing vehicles were prone to lose their fuel load in a crash, (now covered by flexible membranes inside the tank), and the emergency pumps not being designed to cope with a tsunami, (where placing them ten feet off the ground level would have solved the problem once and for all).

I suspect part of the problem is the nuclear waste disposal issue.

I seem to recall that nuclear plants all over the world store far more spent fuel on their premises due to the politics of disposal than is normally called for in their operations.

If this is true, that is probably why there is the present problem at Fukushima #1.

And while I don't advocate nor disadvocate nuclear power - I have noted before that there are infinite possibilities for actuarial/accounting tricks involving the handling of nuclear waste.