How close is your home to a nuclear power plant?

[G27]

It also makes it burn when you pee.

No, that's the Gonorrhea. You should probably go to the clinic...

[Guest bkelm18]

It also makes it burn when you pee.

Herpes is a symptom of radiation sickness. That's what the nice lady told me after she showed me around Chernobyl.

[pitt2magic]

From my back deck I can see the steam from the Sequoia cooling towers. I cant see the towers themselves because the next ridge over blocks me from seeing them. I can hear the warning sirens every Wednesday at noon. I havent missed a minute of sleep worrying about something happening. The chances are slim and nothing I can do about it anyway.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I used to lived across the lake from Sequoia. Never bothered me. I wished they built Hartsville. I never

understood why they didn't have one more in middle TN.

[Jonsaiga]

5.2 miles as a crow flies. You can see the tops of both cooling towers at Sequoia from the end of my driveway.

[Guest mikedwood]

Interesting that less than 100 miles away is the same crappy design as the Japanese plants.

I can live with a 9.0 quake and tsunami taking one out. I'd say to design much beyond that though possible I'm sure no one would want to pay for it until hindsight hit.

But the plant held to the quake and was trashed by the tsunami, if a tsumani ever hits Tennessee something has gone horribly wrong.

I'm more worried about a car wreck. So many idiots out on the road. I think they have started breeding.

50 miles from Watts Bar.

[Oh Shoot]

I can live with a 9.0 quake and tsunami taking one out.

But the plant held to the quake

The quake was 80 miles away from the nuke plants and on a fault line that does not run through Japanese land mass. Likely any nuke plant on earth would be destroyed if a 9 occurred in immediate vicinity. This was a slip fault quake -- the whole Fukushima complex would probably be "somewhere else" had the quake happened right there.

- OS

[greenego]

My Two cents. I would much rather live beside a Nuke Plant than a Coal burning plant.

[Guest mikedwood]

The quake was 80 miles away from the nuke plants and on a fault line that does not run through Japanese land mass. Likely any nuke plant on earth would be destroyed if a 9 occurred in immediate vicinity. This was a slip fault quake -- the whole Fukushima complex would probably be "somewhere else" had the quake happened right there.

- OS

I think the plant is "somewhere else" my understanding is it moved the whole island 8'. The plant was on the island.

Sorry to call it wrong but I haven't seen where it said what it was comparable to in different parts. I would be interested to know as far as what level the plant took and also what level Tokyo took. I have just heard it called a 9.0, but 80 miles isn't that far in earthquakery.

[leroy]

OS and mike:________________

Check this link out here: NEI Nuclear Notes: Evening Report. The valuable stuff is here:

...The March 11 earthquake was stronger than the Daiichi plant was designed to withstand, the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum reported. Maximum ground acceleration near reactor 3 was 507 centimeters per second squared - more than the plant's design reference values of 449. ...

Remember, this stuff aint linear, so the math difference between 507 and 449 aint the over-design number; as the units are in cm/seconds squared. It is the difference of the squares (...i think!...).

Hope this helps.

leeroy

[tnhawk]

I spent several years working a nuclear plants, including those in Japan. They are well built, maintained, and upgraded as necessary. That can't be said for many of the chemical plants I have worked at. I would have no concern about living near one or working in one again.

[Guest mikedwood]

OS and mike:________________

Check this link out here: NEI Nuclear Notes: Evening Report. The valuable stuff is here:

Remember, this stuff aint linear, so the math difference between 507 and 449 aint the over-design number; as the units are in cm/seconds squared. It is the difference of the squares (...i think!...).

Hope this helps.

leeroy

Thanks Leroy that is what I was looking for. That was a whole lot of shaking goin on!

[Good_Steward]

5 sites within 225 miles. I've always thought about this, considering the likelihood of an attempted terrorist attack on nuclear plants.

[leroy]

....Thanks Leroy that is what I was looking for. That was a whole lot of shaking goin on! ...

You are exactly right.

Here's another interesting tidbit that has come out: Fukushima faced 14-metre tsunami .

The TEPCO guys have re-estimated the wave height of the tsunami and revised it from about 7 meters (...if i remember right...) to 14 meters. The sea walls were about 5.7 meters high. That means that about 9 meters came over the wall. Thats about 29.6 feet of water. No wonder the switchyard and cable tunnels were totaled out.

Interesting and serious stuff.

leroy

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks Leroy that is what I was looking for. That was a whole lot of shaking goin on!

Certainly, there was, but that math doesn't seem to address what the forces would have been brought to bear had the fault been there at the coast rather than 80 miles away. The quake lifted the sea floor several meters over a 50 mile width by 150 mile length, then fell back into a lower depression.

Who knows what kind of destruction that would have translated to if had occurred at same depth below actual Japanese land mass. Still just not sure much of anything built could survive this happening directly below it.

- OS

[leroy]

RE: OS question:

....Certainly, there was, but that math doesn't seem to address what the forces would have been brought to bear had the fault been there at the coast rather than 80 miles away.....

An attempted answer in a couple of parts. Here they go:

1. The ground accelerations can be used to compute the forces on the individual components, supports, foundations, walls ...etc. ya get the picture. All plants are designed to a plant specific "design earthquake". That's what the "acceleration" stuff is about. This is how the individual components like the piping systems, cable trays, reactor vessels and supports (...interior and exterior...), containment vessels, structural steel, concrete structures, etc are designed within the plant structure.

2. The question about "...what if the plant sets directly on top or very near an earthquake upthrust or displacement?..." is a whole another story. If there is an "unthinkable design condition"; this is it; just like the "station blackout" thing.

I was around this stuff quite a bit, and never saw any data on this condition. My guess (...and it is a guess...) is that the design approach is similar to the design of gravity dams (...think norris dam here, this wont work with earth fill dams...). Designers look for the overall stability of the structures. They are analyzed to determine if they will either stay, tip over, or slide as a unit; and are designed accordingly. That means if you get vertical displacement at (...or under...) the structure, the whole plant would either stay put (...what they really want...); slide as a unit, but stay in tact; or "teeter" or come out of plumb by leaning as a unit (...staying in tact...); but i dont know that for sure. The concept would appear to be the building of an "indestructable box" containing all the plant equipment that contains that equipment no matter what. Kinda like shaking your fist in God's Face (...ala Titanic...).

I can tell ya the excavation and construction sequence for these plant foundations (...ive seen and worked on several...) The reactor and turbine building foundations are excavated into solid bedrock. They are notched into that rock some distance (...it seems that i remember excavations into rock greater than sixty feet; it depends on the characteristics of the rock...). Those foundation excavations are carefully inspected by geologists for any old faults (...cracks in the rock...) and, if they are clean, the foundation mat is poured.

These "foundation mats" are full of very large reinforcing steel on about an 18" centers both ways and are poured in about five foot lifts using very high quality structural concrete. The foundation base mat for these plants was probably 25 or 30 feet below the base (...think basement floor -- the reactor supports set here...) of the reactor building. The idea is to make the plant foundation a monolith socketed into, but stronger than the bedrock on which it sets.

The problem with what you are concerned about is that there is vertical displacement and shearing of the bedrock if the earthquake happens beneath your plant and the fault displacement or upthrust reaches the rock surface directly beneath the plant foundation(...many times it doesnt, it happens way down in the earth's crust...). I suspect some smart guys have (...or will...) finally look(ed) at a math model of some sort that takes into account what you are thinking about with regard to vertical displacement. My guess is that the massive weight of the foundation and the strength of the foundations would cause the buildings to move around like a building block scooting around as was described above.

It will be interesting to watch what comes out of this with regard to revised design criteria for these plants.

RE: Regarding the accuracy of my observations. Question one (1). I know that is how they do it. Question two (2). I DONT KNOW THE DETAILS, AND IVE NOT SEEN THEM PERSONALLY. I do now that the discussion about dam stability is the accepted approach for gravity dams; it would seem to fit for reactor buildings and turbine buildings as well.

Hope this gives a bit of perspective and insight. That's why these things are so expensive to build.

leroy

Edited March 27, 2011 by leroy

[Guest HvyMtl]

Hmm. Looked, but nothing too close to me in Nashvegas. 95+ miles, something beyond realism would have to happen. The general air currents would push any airborne radiation far away anyway.

The thoughts I have on Nuke Power: Is its start up and continuous updating and security costs make it too expensive to invest in? Waste storage is an issue as well...

Dont worry too much, dont have a thyroid anyway.

This has me a bit more worried: As an 8+ on that would impact a lot of us...

New Madrid Seismic Zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited March 28, 2011 by HvyMtl

[Rightwinger]

The thoughts I have on Nuke Power: Is its start up and continuous updating and security costs make it too expensive to invest in? Waste storage is an issue as well...

How expensive is it for the US to have NO energy? The race should be on for us to skip an entire generation and begin an infrastructure of smaller nuke plants with super safeguards (some quite nice ones are available to implement now and more could be drawn from these) and continue on the road to fusion. We know oil will run out eventually even if it's not in our kids lifetimes...but we either go forward and survive as a modern society or switch to TRUE GREEN which isn't Birkenstocks and weeknds eating salads and rolling your own...its humanity reduced by 90% of its current size and a return to pre-1800's style living.

I choose lights and central heat and air over tallow lamps and chopping wood (which then starts to run out by the way)

[Diragono]

I am on the southern end of Meigs county, showing 14 miles from Watts Bar and about 18 Miles from Sequoyah. I will NOT have a fun time either North or South if something happens. =/

[Guest friesepferd]

FYI, its not the security that makes it expensive to start up, its the bureaucracy.

[Guest Red5]

My Two cents. I would much rather live beside a Nuke Plant than a Coal burning plant.

Agreed. I'm 'bout 5mi from Sequoyah.

[Oh Shoot]

Wonder how well nuke plants are shielded from EMP?

Like, if a truly effective EMP burst happened, could they still safely shut them down?

We see Japan's capabilities compromised just by a flood. What if there were no power period and no way to generate it internally?

- OS

[Guest friesepferd]

Wonder how well nuke plants are shielded from EMP?

Like, if a truly effective EMP burst happened, could they still safely shut them down?

We see Japan's capabilities compromised just by a flood. What if there were no power period and no way to generate it internally?

- OS

Japan's problem was a massive combination of lack of power and lots of damage. Although it would certainly be an 'emergency' situation, it would not be anything near what is happening in Japan right now

[Oh Shoot]

Japan's problem was a massive combination of lack of power and lots of damage. Although it would certainly be an 'emergency' situation, it would not be anything near what is happening in Japan right now

No electricity to power anything, including pumps, power rod shields, nada, and no way to restore it within weeks, maybe months at minimum. THAT wouldn't be an emergency the rival or surpass the Japan situation. And it happens to ALL nuke plants in America at same time?

- OS

[Garufa]

No electricity to power anything, including pumps, power rod shields, nada, and no way to restore it within weeks, maybe months at minimum. THAT wouldn't be an emergency the rival or surpass the Japan situation. And it happens to ALL nuke plants in America at same time?

- OS

She hasn't read the book...."One Second After".