Disaster Averted - But Just Barely

[Doug_Tipple]

The North Ana Nuclear Power Station in Virginia is storing 30 years of highly radioactive spent fuel rods that must be kept cool by using electrical power with backup diesel generators, which had to be put into service (one generator failed) after today's earthquake. That the containment vessels were designed to withstand a 6.1 (Richter scale) earthquake and today's quake measured 5.9, should not be a thought for much comfort. A disastrous failure of a containment area could cause a fire and explosion (similar to the one in Japan) that would contaminate a large area, perhaps even Washington, D.C., only 80 miles away.

[Whistlin' Will]

At first, I was going to say "I didn't want to hear that". But I actually want to say "I'd rather hear that then hear that it did fail".

[Redwolf]

The North Ana Nuclear Power Station in Virginia is storing 30 years of highly radioactive spent fuel rods that must be kept cool by using electrical power with backup diesel generators, which had to be put into service (one generator failed) after today's earthquake. That the containment vessels were designed to withstand a 6.1 (Richter scale) earthquake and today's quake measured 5.9, should not be a thought for much comfort. A disastrous failure of a containment area could cause a fire and explosion (similar to the one in Japan) that would contaminate a large area, perhaps even Washington, D.C., only 80 miles away.

But do be aware that 6.1 is around half again as much shaking as a 5.9. We're talking orders of magnitude here...it's not like a 6.1 is "just a little bigger" than what happened today...it's really quite a bit bigger.

Another issue, always, with earthquakes, is how deeply they're located and what kind of ground is underneath them.

I'm not a huge supporter of nuclear power...don't get me wrong. But I do live with earthquakes, and I have to tell you that there's a world of difference between a 5.9 (and actually, today's quake has been downgraded to a 5. and a 6.1.

Redwolf

[MTGuru]

it's not like a 6.1 is "just a little bigger" than what happened today...it's really quite a bit bigger.

Yes, that's right, but not your guesstimate.

On the MMS Moment Magnitude Scale (not, erroneously, Richter Scale),

Delta-Energy = 10^(1.5 * (m2 - m1))

If m1 = 5.8 and m2 = 6.1, Delta-Energy = 2.818382931264, or around 3.

So today's quake was only about 1/3 the size of what the plant was designed to withstand. And that's assuming the plant is sitting on top of the epicenter, not some distance away.

As a rule of thumb, one MMS point equals about a 30-fold difference in earthquake size, 2 points equals a 900-fold difference, and so on.

Yes, we're more used to doing these calculations here in California.

[Denny]

ah California! Where ya don't sit there wondering why the walls are shaking. You've already gotten to a doorway or better before yer next breath.

Good training!

Last one we had here I was outside before the wife finished saying "what", never mind the "is that"

[Doug_Tipple]

Having a major in geophysics in graduate school (although 45 years ago when the Richter Scale was still in vogue and plate tectonics had not yet been introduced), I am aware that the earthquake intensity scale is not a linear one. However, it doesn't strain the imagination to see a large earthquake, tornado, or hurricane happening at or near a nuclear power plant in the USA with disastrous consequences, as in Japan. My point of view is that this is a risk that we shouldn't be taking if we can do something about it. And we could, if there was a will to do so.

[chas]

One thing I'd like to point out is, this quake was very shallow, was felt all the way to Toronto, and was virtually right below the Lake Anna power plants. A local radio station pointed out that there were four Diesel backup generators, and (laughably, but admittedly unrelated to the power plant) said that there was no chance of a tsunami. (The quake was centered over 100 miles from the ocean.)

Having lived through many hurricanes and working at a synchrotron, there's no comparison between a hurricane or tornado and what happened yesterday, 100 miles from the epicenter. The earth shifted a few inches here yesterday where we are.

My point of view is that this is a risk that we shouldn't be taking if we can do something about it. And we could, if there was a will to do so.

A couple of remarks. First, at least one very prominent opponent of nuclear power has come out in FAVOR of nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. His reasoning was that if an incredible event like a magnitude 9 earthquake and 10 m tsunami leads to the locally but not globally devastating damage, that it's not as unsafe as he'd thought.

Second remark, what are the alternatives? I assume you're not talking about coal or oil. I just don't think solar is feasible as a substitute for fossil fuels, both on environmental and practical levels. I'm all for wind, and I think it might be doable, but it depends on many many factors, both practical and societal.

I'm curious what you think what "we could do if there was a will", and how we could do it.

[I.D.10-t]

Well it all comes down to a cost benefit analysis. Human impact, nature, general safety, etc. When damages are caped or the risks companies are allowed to take are such that those risks can cause more in damages than can be recouped, then the cost benefit system fails miserably. Solar, turbine, Oil, coal, fusion, can all be done better or worse, and can all leave a mess. One thing that could be done is to work towards efficiency and storage. The less we use (to a point) the better.

Contrary to part of that, wasteful practices have taken root in some ways because of the desire to run plants a near full capacity because they run more efficiently that way. Hourly rate changes in some countries have allowed business to use this to their advantage in heating and cooling applications, but for the most part it has been a problem. Which is why I mentioned storage with efficiency.

Personally I'd like to see houses rewired to fit modern lives better. Something like the USB or Micro USB could replace many wasteful transformers in the homes, but in reality it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the main energy users in business. Of course waste seems to be a big part of the business model with designed obsolescence and no thought put towards durability. But this is turning into a rambling pondering so I'll drift off for

[mutepointe]

what are the alternatives?

My personal scheme at the moment is trying to figure out a way to get rid of at least 5 billion people within a generation while at the same time (I can't never spell simotaneously correctly), shutting down or minimizing the pollution effects of all the stuff they leave behind, while ensuring that we have the right mix and location of professionals, artists, farmers, etc. who are not traumatized by the tremendous loss of life. And just so no one thinks I'm selfish, I'll volunteer just so I don't have to do all the cleanup. I'm thoughtful like that.

[MTGuru]

efficiency and storage.

Bingo. Storage is the key to everything. And Alessandro Volta died in 1827.

[Doug_Tipple]

I'm curious what you think what "we could do if there was a will", and how we could do it.

I think that we should be focusing more on using energy from the sun, wind, and the tides, no question about that. With regard to the nuclear power plants, currently large amounts of highly radioactive waste are being stored at these plants, making them more vulnerable to larger scale disasters if there is a problem in cooling the spent fuel rods. More effort needs to be made to look for more permanent storage of the radioactive waste in geologically stable underground chambers removed from highly populated areas.

[I.D.10-t]

Our entire energy infrastructure is pretty much out of date it seems. Much has changed since the last nuclear plant was approved in the 70s (?). From there it goes to transmission lines that have their own set of problems to the house filled with expansion power strips. Even some of the basic concepts like having massive centralized providers should be rethought to potentially allow for a more decentralized, diverse, and redundant system of generation, transmission, and storage.

[chas]

I agree with most of what's been said. I think that for real change to happen, and it must, we need a carbon tax. I also agree that the spent-fuel issue must be addressed.

[BigDavy]

Hi Doug

If the waste is highly radioactive, then energy can be extracted from it. Instead of burying it we should be finding ways to utilise it for energy production.

David

[Doug_Tipple]

Hi Doug

If the waste is highly radioactive, then energy can be extracted from it. Instead of burying it we should be finding ways to utilise it for energy production.

David

As you would expect, this is a complicated subject about which I have no expertise. However, reading from online sources, it seems that we need both nuclear reprocessing of the spent fuel rods and long-term geologic burial of the waste. Here is a short quote from Wikipedia:

"Nuclear reprocessing technology was developed to chemically separate and recover fissionable plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel. Reprocessing serves multiple purposes, whose relative importance has changed over time. Originally reprocessing was used solely to extract plutonium for producing nuclear weapons. With the commercialization of nuclear power, the reprocessed plutonium was recycled back into MOX nuclear fuel for thermal reactors.The reprocessed uranium, which constitutes the bulk of the spent fuel material, can in principle also be re-used as fuel, but that is only economic when uranium prices are high. Finally, the breeder reactor can employ not only the recycled plutonium and uranium in spent fuel, but all the actinides, closing the nuclear fuel cycle and potentially multiplying the energy extracted from natural uranium by more than 60 times.

Nuclear reprocessing reduces the volume of high-level waste, but by itself does not reduce radioactivity or heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository. Reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting (a problem that applies equally to direct disposal of spent fuel), and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle. The Obama administration stepped back from President Bush's plans for commercial-scale reprocessing and reverted to a program focused on reprocessing-related scientific research ".