This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Discovery That Indian Point Nuke Is Most Exposed To Quake Risk Prompts Reuters To Release An Evacuation Map

Tyler Durden's picture




 

According to a recent report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the California Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant  (built in proximity to the San Andreas fault) which everyone always points to as the biggest earthquake risk in the US, is actually ranked 9th in the US in terms of earthquake risk (we somehow really doubt this). The top one? The same we wrote about yesterday as having had a leaking seal for the past 18 years according to the Union of Concerned Scientists - Indian Point in Buchanan, NY. Of course its proximity to New York City has immediately stirred cries of concern from the world's most banksterous city and demands for a shutdown by Andrew Cuomo. It has also prompted Reuters to release an evacuation map of the surroundings should "something" go wrong with Indian Point, an event which will likely only further instill a sense of soothing calmness and a "tranquility effect" in the New Yorker community.

From Reuters:

New data shows the Indian Point nuclear power plant near New York City was the nation's most vulnerable to an earthquake.

That has stirred concerns about protecting the city's eight million residents in the event of a disaster.

The plant sits about 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of New York City, inside a 50-mile radius that U.S. authorities have recommended be evacuated around the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.

And here is the map:

As to how New York could be the next Fukushima, here is the original report from MSNBC:

What are the odds that a nuclear emergency like the one at Fukushima Dai-ichi could happen in the central or eastern United States? They'd have to be astronomical, right? As a pro-nuclear commenter on msnbc.com put it this weekend, "There's a power plant just like these in Omaha. If it gets hit by a tsunami...."

It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant here. Each year, at the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there's a 1 in 74,176 chance that the core could be damaged by an earthquake, exposing the public to radiation. No tsunami required. That's 10 times more likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a ticket in the Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145.

And it turns out that the nuclear reactor in the United States with the highest risk of core damage from a quake is not the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, with its twin reactors tucked between the California coastline and the San Andreas Fault.

It's not the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, a four-hour drive down the Pacific coast at San Clemente, surrounded by fault lines on land and under the ocean.

It's not on the Pacific Coast at all. It's on the Hudson River.

One in 10,000
The reactor with the highest risk rating is 24 miles north of New York City, in the village of Buchanan, N.Y., at the Indian Point Energy Center. There, on the east bank of the Hudson, Indian Point nuclear reactor No. 3 has the highest risk of earthquake damage in the country, according to new NRC risk estimates provided to msnbc.com.

A ranking of the 104 nuclear reactors is shown at the bottom of this article, listing the NRC estimate of risk of catastrophic failure caused by earthquake.

The chance of a core damage from a quake at Indian Point 3 is estimated at 1 in 10,000 each year. Under NRC guidelines, that's right on the verge of requiring "immediate concern regarding adequate protection" of the public. The two reactors at Indian Point generate up to one-third of the electricity for New York City. The second reactor, Indian Point 2, doesn't rate as risky, with 1 chance in 30,303 each year.

The plant with the second highest risk? It's in Massachusetts. Third? Pennsylvania. Then Tennessee, Pennsylvania again, Florida, Virginia and South Carolina. Only then does California's Diablo Canyon appear on the list, followed by Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island.

The odds take into consideration two main factors: the chance of a serious quake, and the strength of design of the plant.
Advertise | AdChoices

Nuclear power plants built in the areas usually thought of as earthquake zones, such as the California coastline, have a surprisingly low risk of damage from those earthquakes. Why? They built anticipating a major quake.

Other plants in the East, South and Midwest, where the design standards may have been lower because the earthquake risk was thought to be minimal, now find themselves at the top of the NRC's danger list.

The chance of serious damage from a quake ranges from Indian Point's 1 chance in 10,000 each year, a relatively higher risk, to the Callaway nuclear plant in Fulton, Mo., where the NRC set the lowest risk, 1 chance in 500,000 each year.

The full list of top 10 riskiest NPPs in the US:

1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Increase in risk: 72 percent.

2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.

3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.

4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.

5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.

6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.

7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.

8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.

9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.

10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:16 | 1071778 AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

It's that Tsunami up the Hudson that would concern me

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:19 | 1071811 the mad hatter
the mad hatter's picture

scare monger scare monger scare monger

 

jizz in my pants.

 

serious guys, what will we do when we deplete fossil fuels?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:28 | 1071844 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

devolve

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:58 | 1072287 metastar
metastar's picture

Can't let a good crisis go to waste now can we?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:29 | 1071848 EvlTheCat
EvlTheCat's picture

Soylent green fuel!

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:34 | 1071869 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Same thing they did when they ran out of charcoal and whale oil.

Figure something out: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-cleanly-oil-tar-sands-fouled.html

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:02 | 1071993 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Exactly

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:20 | 1072389 Seer
Seer's picture

Huh?  I think that (nearly) pure (sweet crude) is just slightly a step up from charcoal and whale oil.  Tar sands represents a DIGRESSION from this trend!

"The Penn State separation method uses very little energy and water"

Ha ha!  "very little."  How fucking much?  Enough to off-set the "very little" amount of energy that gets extracted?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:07 | 1072016 Ruffcut
Ruffcut's picture

Run an extension cord from the sun.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:18 | 1072079 privet
privet's picture

> serious guys, what will we do when we deplete fossil fuels?

fusion.

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:22 | 1072429 Seer
Seer's picture

Still waiting for the flying cars that we were promised (back in the 1950s).

Energy is nothing without physical resources.  Go park your ass up on the sun and see if you can survive on just energy alone...  Look around and see how the world's resources are holding up.  Yeah, I was once a HUGE proponent of fusion, that is, until I looked at the BIG picture.  I'm grown up now, I no longer fall for these tricks...

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:16 | 1071784 plocequ1
plocequ1's picture

Now what?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:17 | 1071790 Racer
Racer's picture

More nuclear bombs on major fault lines? What??!!!!

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:17 | 1071798 Oligarchs Gone Wild
Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

Line of the day (so far):

 

world's most banksterous city

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 17:52 | 1073563 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

On a positive note, if we ever enforced the law, they'd be easy to round up

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:17 | 1071799 SilverRhino
SilverRhino's picture

Wow, what a wonderful way to start a panic in the Northeast.  

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:32 | 1071858 knukles
knukles's picture

Who, whoI ask, is the fucking genius at Reuters, a "News Agency" who decided in the middle of global discomfort bordering upon panic in many areas (actually, bordering, my ass, more like the Book of Revelations unfolding in real time) decided to pull this stunt?

Any bet it's another "never let a good panic go to waste" to be followed by the (drum roll) "solution", a larger, more centralized, controlled global government so's everything'll be taken care of and nobody'll have to worry any longer.

Damn good thing that nobody gets out of here alive.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:27 | 1072115 nonclaim
nonclaim's picture

Reuters was swallowed by Thomson a few years back and I thought it would get better with a respectable name in front (Thomson Reuters). But alas...

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:55 | 1071966 Alienated Serf
Alienated Serf's picture

no panic.  i live 20 min away.  it has been well known to all area residents for a very long time that the place is a disaster. 

viiolations reported every other day.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:35 | 1072545 Seer
Seer's picture

So, as a pesron with actual first-hand knowledge/experience, would you feel better about there being more free-market operations (less govt regulations)?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 15:02 | 1072694 Alienated Serf
Alienated Serf's picture

I am not as dogmatically libertarian/anti-statist as some.  With regards to issues like nuclear safety I am more then happy to have plenty of government oversight.

I do not think nuclear powerplants are viable as purely free market enterprises.  For example, its not a good idea to count on the fact that one plant will blow and a city gets irradiated to say "gee, that design sux, lets not buy a plant from that company again."

Like it or not, some regulation is needed.

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 19:15 | 1073818 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

An overly simplistic situation was proposed upon which a policy decision is then based ... in that light, I think a re-evaluation of motor-transit, rail transit and air transit are ll in order ... in this country, even in Japan, which annually claim greater numbers of victims?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 21:54 | 1074217 logically possible
logically possible's picture

Is this nuclear power plant anywhere near a town named Springfield?

 

Homer

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:19 | 1071802 Arch Duke Ferdinand
Arch Duke Ferdinand's picture

Today, most American citizens wouldn't mind seeing Wall Street and all its Bankers get washed away by a Tsunami.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:20 | 1071805 Bearster
Bearster's picture

In the rush to destroy property rights, let's be sure to grant unlimited and arbitrary powers to smart and honest men like politicians!  I am sure Cuomo is more honest than Spitzer...

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:54 | 1072673 Seer
Seer's picture

You really think that the rich elites are going to loose THEIR property rights?  Ha ha!

Long live the plutocracy! (but hey, we all want to be just like them, which is how they keep their game alive)

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:21 | 1071813 trav7777
trav7777's picture

PANIC NOWWWWWWWWWWWWW

DIG UP THE SILVER AND RUNNNNNNNNNNNNN

JFC...let's shut them ALL down and just burn more coal and oil.

and because of "greenhouse gases" let's stop doing that and just get "clean and renewable" energy from...somewhere.  Unicorns?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:26 | 1071827 TheGreatPonzi
TheGreatPonzi's picture

I agree with trav. 

An extraordinary following of events has been transformed into an anti-nuclear worldwide mass hysteria. 

It's like calling for the end of aviation when a Boeing 747 crashes... 

Even in Central Europe, where there's never been a single seism since the Neolithic, politicians and medias are calling for the end of nuclear plants. This is fucking ridiculous. 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:32 | 1071855 Oligarchs Gone Wild
Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

Until the 6 reactors are stable and there is a real time video stream of what the hell is going on in Fukushima and the EPA actually publishes the realtime radiation data from RADNET, why not be a bit skeptical?  Conspiracy?  Probably not, but enough evidence to be comfortable? Absolutely not.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:20 | 1072412 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture

SOLUTION: Seeing how the USSofA is the world's most obese nation, time to string grids of manually operated treadmills and stairclimbers together and tie em' into the grid.

Make sure the treadmills and stairclimbers are all built in the USSofA.  Jobs galore, everyone gets fit including Big Bertha in the corner, increased self confidence for all, and a clean source of energy. 

PROBLEM SOLVED.  YOU'RE WELCOME.

 

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:56 | 1072682 Seer
Seer's picture

Much closer to reality than perhaps most would like to admit...

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:39 | 1071880 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

I'm pro nuclear like a mother fucker. However, I am against stupidity.

How could you build a plant like that in that area. How could you store soooo many fuel rods in and around the upper level of the facilities...plutonium and mox for that matter?

Did they not fucking think?

The ring of fire is a great place to build nuclear power plants and we can even store the fuel on top! Earthquakes are so common in fact they are practically part of oour daily lives but there should be no risk in doing this!!! And let's not build one, let's do 6 and build them right next to eachother. ....how did the thinking go? was it something like that?

Those plants (and the ones in California) should be held at far greater standards then a plant in say New York. I mean, this is common sense.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:45 | 1071917 trav7777
trav7777's picture

I'm anti-nuclear.  Well, at least anti lightwater reactors.  That's because they really suck for this application.  Too big, too complex, far too expensive and unreliable.  They are superior for military propulsion applications, but that's it.

How could they store all those rods there?  Well, they have nowhere else to put them.  Worldwide anti-nuclear hysteria has prevented any kind of permanent solution so the can just kept getting kicked.

Look at Yucca Mountain.

They build tall buildings in earthquake zones, bud...the engineering is not insoluble.

People simply don't understand nuclear power or its risks.  Now fucking CNN is running "neighborhood nuke plant" OMFG.  This won't end well.

Shut them all down and run on unicorns.  BY NO MEANS have the adult conversation with people that they can't have electricity without power plants.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:55 | 1071951 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Tall buildings and nuclear power plants are not analagous.

I have seen estimates range from 100,000 deaths related to Chernobyl up to a million by good reliable sources. In my opinion this disaster will be worse.

That is a power that needs to be harnessed with the strictest standards possible. This Fukushima looks like it was 50% negligence, 50% tsunami. Thats how I view it at least

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:12 | 1072048 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Chernobyl wasn't an earthquake...

focus on what you intend to say, then speak.

I've seen estimates that billions died; I don't put much stock in insane estimates.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:17 | 1072065 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

No Chernobyl was human idiocy, an equivalent catastrophy.

And you have seen estimates that billions died? Site your sources you hyperbole slinging prick. Notice I said good/reliable not some bullshit.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:53 | 1071949 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Throw in enough regulations that basically shut down any and all movement of the fuel, and refuse to allow fuel reprocessing, and that is EXACTLY what you get.  They knew it was dangerous, but the government made it impossible to act any other way.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:15 | 1072069 trav7777
trav7777's picture

not to swerve the topic, but how's that oil peak mitigation lookin now, huh?

It may grate on the doomers here, but for there to be a chance for lights to stay on going forward, governments are going to have to bury Fukushima data and truth because the public can't HANDLE adult decisions anymore.

They expect everything for free and no risks whatsoever.  Cake plus eat.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:33 | 1072159 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

^What he said^

Where the Hell did my cake go?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 15:04 | 1072711 Seer
Seer's picture

I'm pretty much in agreement with you except in placing more emphasis on something that is also not sustainable.

What people don't want to accept are the REAL costs for stuff.  They think that it's all the fault of "regulations" (yeah, you try and live next door to a poorly mis-managed nuke plant like there's not a worry in the world), which really are no more than attempts (yeah, mostly futile due to the lobby power of those with MONEY- WHO TYPICALLY ARE _NOT_ ENVIRONMENTALISTS!) at keeping the robber barons from externalizing their costs on heaps of dead bodies.

Again, the entire system is predicated on growth.  At what point does anyone think that it's a good time to back away from the cliff?  Could this not be such a time?  Naw!  Fuck future generations, let's just party until we glow!

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 17:55 | 1073570 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

you're right, when a boeing crashes, it poisons everything within thirty miles for years

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:26 | 1071830 Cleverbot
Cleverbot's picture

That is why the sky is blue, not why the steel is cold.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:28 | 1071842 Confused
Confused's picture

I'm skeptical about coal for a few reasons, but this one in particular bothers me most. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-01/nat-rothschild-plays-his-strong...

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:42 | 1071904 Arch Duke Ferdinand
Arch Duke Ferdinand's picture

komputer glitch sorry

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:43 | 1071906 Arch Duke Ferdinand
Arch Duke Ferdinand's picture

 ""I'm skeptical about coal for a few reasons, but this one in particular bothers me most.""

I agree Confused 

"Nat Rothschild is leading a $3 billion takeover that will create the biggest exporter of coal to China.

Rothschild is leveraging his name, more than a decade of hedge-fund experience and a network that reads like a Who’s Who of commodities. He’s friends with Ivan Glasenberg, head of the biggest commodity trader Glencore International AG; advises Russian aluminum billionaire Oleg Deripaska; and is on the board of Peter Munk’s Barrick Gold Corp., the largest gold miner."

...f*ck big business and the politicians in their pockets....Rothschild et al don't need more money or power...but they are turning our planet into a hell hole. 

...We need pitchforks and assasinations of the a$$holes in power....forget world trade...Protectionism is what we need.

...and if we didn't need Oil, this world would be a happier and more pleasant place to live.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:33 | 1071864 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Another vote for trav.

Our major alternatives are the far greater pollution coal brings, or going back to the 18th century.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:48 | 1071929 trav7777
trav7777's picture

just a couple of weeks ago, in response to Peak Oil, people said oh no big deal, we'll just build nuclear plants out the yin yang.

Worried yet, deniers?

The adult conversation is coming and the compromises can no longer be put off.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:03 | 1071996 butchee
butchee's picture

San Andreas is the patron saint of the denial mechanism.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:08 | 1072012 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Exactly.  There is no such thing as technical progress.  Anyone who says there is is a "denier".  We ran out of whale oil a hundred years ago, and my home has been dark ever since.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-cleanly-oil-tar-sands-fouled.html

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:18 | 1072076 trav7777
trav7777's picture

So all we need to do is find 10T bbl of something even better than oil.

Good luck with that bro!

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 15:17 | 1072771 Seer
Seer's picture

""My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel." - Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum (in acknowledgement that oil is finite and will one day run out)

EROEI on whale oil?

EROEI for oil?

EROEI for tar sands?

Ah... increase, then decrease... way to be excited about a negative trend!

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:35 | 1071875 Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

You're right that as it looks for now nuclear energy is the future but it has to be built in proper areas, we should not make Japanese mistakes counting that something like 9.0 quake is not probable so everything is ok. I understand that .06$ a kW from nuclear is much cheaper than .8$ from solars but maybe energy from nuclear plants should be .12$/kW and relocated and build the way that almost impossible event won't cause major disaster.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:56 | 1071973 trav7777
trav7777's picture

9.0 quakes aren't probable and neither are massive tsunamis that breach 10 meter seawalls.

The reason they put reactors near water is because they require coolant, tons and tons of it.  As is being demonstrated to the nuclear-ignorant, if you don't cool these things, bad shit happens within a couple of days.

I suggest alternative power technologies such as PBMR, which are inherently more fault tolerant and won't melt down.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:11 | 1072040 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

If we are talking about a technology that could potentially kill millions than in my opinion every single reactor should be able to withstand absolute catastrophy....not withstand 7.0 they should be able to withstand a 10 and a 50 foot tsunami plus meteor impact.

This is obviously a needed technology and a dangerous technology.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:19 | 1072089 trav7777
trav7777's picture

the technology won't kill millions.

People may die in old age of certain cancers...but here we are already talking about medical rationing so that they don't burn thru a million dollars for a couple extra years of life.  The chances of acute death due to radiation exposure from plant mishaps is vanishiningly small.

ADULT DECISIONS have to be made now...grownup shit.  No more acting like children who think they can have cake and eat it.

The alternatives here are coal and nuclear...pick your poison.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 15:25 | 1072821 Seer
Seer's picture

"The chances of acute death due to radiation exposure from plant mishaps is vanishiningly small."

But... there's more to the raditation story than just the individual.  While we are definitely "evolving" (DNA changes), increased levels of radiation will impact our species well into the future, through our offspring.

What is unfortunate is that we feel that replacing or increasing energy intake is necessary, either path leading to the cliff.  It's not.  But we'll do it anyway, keep lurching toward the cliff until we find a way for there to be a calamitous culling of the human race...

The Titanic was un-sinkable.  What we're sorely lacking is humility...

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 19:18 | 1073831 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

But... there's more to the raditation story than just the individual. While we are definitely "evolving" (DNA changes), increased levels of radiation will impact our species well into the future, through our offspring.

- - - - - - - -

Like the 15-20 mrem/year due to the K-40 in the body and 10 mrem/year due to the gamma rays emitted by K-40 in the environment (primarily the soil)?

 

(K-40 being an isotope of Potassium, not the CB antenna with that model designation)

 

 

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:18 | 1072084 Greater Fool
Greater Fool's picture

Nobody is actively developing PBMR now. South Africa's project lost funding once the German AVR project had serious problems due to localized overheating that cracked the fuel pebbles, releasing radiactive dust that the air cooling system was unable to confine solely to the reactor space.

The Germans intend to develop a plan sometime in the next 60 years for how to remediate the site, and will start work sometime around the end of the century. Given the amount of Sr-90 and Cs-137 spread around, they have plenty of time; it'll still be there whenever they figure out how to clean it up.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:26 | 1072120 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Actually China is proceeding ahead with PBMR.  I seem to recall reading that AVR suffered from impurities and materials flaws in the fuel pebbles.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:41 | 1072575 Byte Me
Byte Me's picture

How are you with CANDU?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 16:00 | 1073025 Greater Fool
Greater Fool's picture

Ah yes. HTR-PM is what they call their production version of AVR; they have been operating a prototype called HTR-10 for about a decade, it looks like.

On the other hand, AVR was in operation for 20, and the operator only confirmed the scale of the problems it had 10 years after it had been shut down.

THTR-300, the successor to AVR, experienced an accidental release of radioactive dust into the environment after only 3 years of operation and was shut down permanently not long thereafter.

Generally speaking, the British experience of gas-cooled reactors with carbon moderators makes me leery of these. Windscale could easily have been lots, lots worse.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 17:59 | 1073581 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

it's not probability, it's regularity and timeline

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:21 | 1071814 TheGreatPonzi
TheGreatPonzi's picture

Tyler, please don't heat up the hype... the Fukushima disaster was caused by a 9.0 Seism with tsunami... I don't think it will happen any time soon in the US, even less in Europe. 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:37 | 1071891 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The fact is, it's an old, crappy plant design. Time to throw it out and replace it with a new one. It's a great time to build the first Thorium cycle plant.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:23 | 1072425 rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

...totally agree with you on that....new plants, new technology (even though the thorium cycle has been around for decades)...and new regulations....the current ones restrict what can actually be done with a thorium cycle design.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:40 | 1071900 nevadan
nevadan's picture

Seismically quiet areas can have major quakes.  The New Madrid area in Missouri is a case in point. The probability can be low but catastrophic when they do occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1812_New_Madrid_earthquake

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:52 | 1071948 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Not entirely true Great Ponzi.

Longish post, but if you are so inclined, jump to the middle.
Someone knows something you and I don't.

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/stairwell-sigtar/

These times are not those times, at all.

ORI

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:52 | 1071816 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

This is one of the reactors I protested against when I was a much younger lad. Sesmic information similar to this was presented at the time the plant was seeking approval and it was glossed over and under reported in the MSM. This is old news that's suddenly become relevant because the impossible is suddenly possible, precisely what was being said at the time.

Of course, how does one unravel the tangled ball of twine at this point, one of the reasons the approval process is always pushed through. Once the ball is rolling there are a thousand reasons not to stop.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:51 | 1072248 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

CD,

"...one of the reasons the approval process is always pushed through."

au contraire, monsieur.  t'weren't pushed through at e.g.: Seabrook 2, Montague, Clinch River, Bellefonte 1 and 2, Whoops! 1, 3, 4, 5, Pilgrim 2, and the beat goes on.

The plant list looks squirrely.  Where is IP 2? Where is Beaver 2?  Both on same site and same designs as units listed.  Limerick shows up, where is Peach Bottom?  North Anna has a structurally significant fault through the plot of old Unit 3, since cancelled.

- Ned

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:23 | 1071820 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

For those who remember...

Indian Point was struck by lightning in '77, which caused the worst blackout in NYC history. 

 

What really spooks New Yorkers is: Could lightning strike twice? (Figurative lightning included)

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:33 | 1071835 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

Indian Point was struck by lightning in '77, which caused the worst blackout in NYC history.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

For the record, I'm thinking it was more than just that ...

Excerpt from wiki on the subj:

Cause

The events leading up to the blackout began at 8:37 p.m. EDT on July 13 with a lightning strike at Buchanan South, a substation on the Hudson River, tripping two circuit breakers in Westchester County. The Buchanan South substation converted the 345,000 volts of electricity from Indian Point to lower voltage for commercial use. A loose locking nut combined with a tardy upgrade cycle ensured that the breaker was not able to reclose and allow power to flow again.

A second lightning strike caused the loss of two 345 kV transmission lines, subsequent reclose of only one of the lines, and the loss of power from a 900MW nuclear plant at Indian Point. As a result of the strikes, two other major transmission lines became loaded over their normal limits. Per procedure, Con Edison, the power provider for New York City and some of Westchester County, tried to start fast-start generation at 8:45 p.m. EDT; however, no one was manning the station, and the remote start failed.

At 8:55 p.m. EDT, there was another lightning strike, which took out two additional critical transmission lines. As before, only one of the lines was automatically returned to service. This outage of lines from the Sprain Brook substation caused the remaining lines to exceed the long-term operating limits of their capacity. After this last failure, Con Edison had to manually reduce the loading on another local generator at their East River facility, due to problems at the plant. This exacerbated an already dire situation.

 

For those desiring more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977#Cause

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:34 | 1071865 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Again, I'm addressing those who actually remember. The facts may have been sanitized on wiki for obvious reasons. Haven't they sanitized Fukushima, after they sanitized Chernobyl, after they sanitized Three Mile Island??

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:40 | 1071895 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

The facts may have been sanitized ...

- - - - - - - - - -

Not to my recollection; I've see reprints of the orginal reports, so, dice not.

 

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:43 | 1071918 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Stay tuned, grasshopper. There are many forces at work. Those who know the area would get it

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:48 | 1071930 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

Allusions to conspiracy? Pls, this is not an infowars forum ...

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:53 | 1071946 plocequ1
plocequ1's picture

At least ZH does not have an Iodine Ad, Only Bobblehead Cramer and Verizon Fios

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:55 | 1071958 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Trav7777, is that you?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:01 | 1071989 trav7777
trav7777's picture

hell no, man, I have never used sockpuppets.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:23 | 1071823 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

odds of a straight flush in texas hold 'em are 72,192 to one

 

7 times higher than odds of that reactor problem

 

i've had a dozen or so, and 3 royals at almost 700k to one

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:42 | 1072595 serotonindumptruck
serotonindumptruck's picture

Probability and statistics always struck me as an arcane science. The math is easier than solving for calculus coefficients, however.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 15:30 | 1072855 Seer
Seer's picture

And what's the death count (actual risks to human life) related to achieving or not achieving a "straight flush?"

Non-sequitor...

Thanks for playing!

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:25 | 1071826 RmcAZ
RmcAZ's picture

Alright that's it, let's shut all the nuclear plants down. We didn't need the 798 billion killowatt-hours of generating capacity anyway (20% of the U.S. total electric capacity).

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerpl...

Amount of electricity generated by a 1,000-MWe reactor at 90% capacity factor in one year:
7.9 billion KWh—enough to supply electricity for 740,000 households.

If generated by other fuel sources, it would require:

  • Oil: 13.7 million barrels – 1 barrel yields 576 KWh
  • Coal: 3.4 million short tons – 1 ton yields 2,297 KWh
  • Natural Gas: 65.8 billion cubic feet – 100 cubic feet yields 12 KWh
Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:26 | 1071841 Cleverbot
Cleverbot's picture

I'm sorry I really don't know what you talking about well I should go to work nice time to meet you.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 22:42 | 1074288 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

 

she is worried about power to her vibratorz?  hasn't discovered solar-recharge-able ni-cadz, yet?   the BiCH is suffering from grid-lox, probly owns or ass-pires to a plug-in car, and wouldn't ride a bike without a gyno cunsult and a comintern meeting, first?

then again she may be short nat. gas?  maybe she bought into the uranium bull?  who knowz?  she seemed rational enuf and kinda cuddly til now. and may be suffering a pre-fallout sarc attack, and is truly jumping the sarc and showing a fabulous ass in one swell foop!

i'm with you, give her a fuking pass for now and get to werk!

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:03 | 1071920 T1000
T1000's picture

No, No, No! We need the power to turn the lights on! What about the lights! /sarc

Let's do a little cost benefit anaylsis here for this excellent energy product:

  • benefit - lights come on to read at night.
  • Cost - the complete destruction of the entire area for thousands of years in case of a meltdown. 
  • Cost - possible release of poisned air into the atmosphere next to population sizes of millions of people. 
  • Cost - contaminates food production soil for hundreds of years. 

Clearly the benefit outweigh the costs. Seems like the benefit side wins! 

Here's a hint for you: They're not going to stop the 6 reactors. They're all going to melt down. The people of Japan are going to evacuate and colonize a part of Australia. Just watch.

Japan is going to be toxic for thousands of years all so they can keep the lights on. 

Nuclear. Not worth it. 

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:05 | 1071998 RmcAZ
RmcAZ's picture

Oil:

Con: Drilling into ocean and ground potentially causing spills and ruining entire ecosystems.

Con: Burns dirty and causes poor air quality.

Con: Getting increasingly rare and more expensive.

Natural Gas:

Con: " " (Not as dirty as oil)

Wind:

Con: Doesn't create that much electricity.

Con: Kills birds.

Con: Unsightly windmills.

Solar:

Con: Ridiculously expensive.

Con: Takes up large parcels of land for power facilities and ruins habitats.

 

These aren't all my arguments... these are simply arguments that various groups will make. You can't have everything... pick your poison. Nuclear is one of the cheapest forms of power available currently... if that wasn't so, then we wouldn't have 20% of U.S. generating capacity with Nuclear. Supply and demand.

Trust me, I want solar on every rooftop as much as everyone else, but it simply isn't realistic/affordable at this point in time. Eventually it will be. Until then, we need to be realistic and deal with what we've got. Right now, we've got nuclear. And it isn't going to change anytime soon.

P.S. - I LOVE all the bandwagoners that jumped on this and are now anti-nuclear, whereas a week ago most people couldn't give a shit less about nuclear. Matter of fact, most people complaining probably don't know where their nearest nuclear plant is, and they probably don't know if they even get any electricity from a nuclear plant.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:13 | 1072052 T1000
T1000's picture

"but it simply isn't realistic/affordable at this point in time"

In the pursuit of 'reality/affordability' this will ultimately kill the exact thing it's supposed to provide. It will destroy life and lifestyle in the pursuit of lifestyle sustainability.

How about this. Instead of increasing, increasing, increasing production, let's simply cut consumption. Let's turn off the lights so we don't have to consume so god damn much.

P.S. wind and solar have one hellva benefit - they don't condemn the people and land to death by poisen in case of earthquakes. You know, no risk whatsoever in case of natural causes. 

Japan will teach us all a profound lesson. We're not smart enough to handle this technology. We're not smart enough. Our biggest folly is our belief in our own minds and our own abilities. 

 

 

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:22 | 1072091 RmcAZ
RmcAZ's picture

In the pursuit of 'reality/affordability' this will ultimately kill the exact thing it's supposed to provide.

I see, so you are advocating being unrealstic and buying solar panels with money that you do not have. Interesting. I will make a call and have the solar-shitting unicorn arrive at your house shortly to install your imaginary solar panels.

In the meantime, enjoy using your computer and all of your other electronics, because the only reason you can use them is partly because of nuclear.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:27 | 1072131 T1000
T1000's picture

"I will make a call and have the solar-shitting unicorn arrive at your house shortly to install your imaginary solar panels."

I'm almost positive the glowing Japanese would agree with your arguments. /sarc

Have fun eating your plutonium food and radiated positive food products. Death by poison for you, your kind, and your children.

I'll try to make space for some of the lost minds, perhaps even yours, in the upcoming biosphere, radiated-free, life zones (the kind will have to create in order to survive this new nuclear reality).

But really, what's the point for you. Try sunbathing in the coming gamma rays. Get your gamma tan on!


  


Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:41 | 1072196 RmcAZ
RmcAZ's picture

Mmm plutonium food, yummy.

People like yourselves do not have any grip on reality, are in complete denial, and have no understanding on how the power generation, transmission, and distribution businesses work at all. All you care about is getting electricity. Wake up from your dreamworld where energy is produced from nothing and start doing some of your own research.

In the meantime I suggest you take your own advice, shut off all your electronics, and sit around with some candles.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:49 | 1072237 T1000
T1000's picture

"People like yourselves do not have any grip on reality, are in complete denial"

The Japanese are losing, and are about to lose, their land and life. If that's not important to you and worth re-examing your assumptions, then what's the god damn point?


Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:57 | 1072271 RmcAZ
RmcAZ's picture

You're right, it sucks... but I haven't heard any suggestions from you on how to make it any better. I don't see the Japanese rushing out to buy solar panels because they don't want nuke plants anymore.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 15:40 | 1072912 Seer
Seer's picture

You want to talk reality?  You can't handle reality!

Reality: 2/3 of the world's population lives on $3/day or less

Reality: modern technology is ONLY a process, highly dependent upon PHYSICAL resources

Reality: physical resources (intact- yeah, there are a lot of atoms running around, but the trick is to harvest them- EROEI) are rapidly depleting (mostly because of the 1/3 of the world's population)

Reality: nukes rely on physical resources

You and all the other skittles and unicorn believers make the unfortunate assumption that those warning of such poor thinking are wanting things to be "bad."  Not so.  I don't want to see a degradation of lifestyle, but wanting something doesn't trump reality.

ALL systems fail.  Big systems fail BIG.  Reality.  Deal with it (rather than look to externalize, help the plutocracy continue to rule).

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:44 | 1072213 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

I will ask you the same question I ask others, and seldom get an answer.  Are you ready, willing and able to accept the change in lifestyle, and the loss of human life that will be the end result of your espoused lifestyle? 

The only way we can continue to support the growth of our ponzis and thus our population is to burn, pollute, and radiate, always in the pursuit of something new and better.  If you mean what you say, then cool.  Most people like the "feel goodies" they get from dreaming about green, but few think it through very far or are really willing to live that way. 

I'm all for it, but I'm a redneck moonbat. 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:03 | 1072302 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

AND.... as is the case more often than not, when one realizes that in order to agrue their position to its conclusion it means advocating the elimination of a couple of hundred million people, the only response is: Crickets.

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 15:52 | 1072967 Seer
Seer's picture

I've battled "Greenies" and "non-Greenies" alike.  I take no sides.  I hedge based on history and reality.

But yeah, people need to understand that there is a cost to everything!  This isn't a game, this is going to be extremely serious/big.  That we could magically solve all our problems via green or black solutions, I wish, but wishing ain't going to get it done.

There's a reason why subsistance farmers live like they do: non-subsistance just doesn't work (if it's Above subsistance then that pretty much means over-consumption; Under, well, that'll also be where one will be if practiced for long enough).

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 16:01 | 1073024 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

Bingo.  I don't necessarily have a side in this either, I just want a rational discussion, and for somebody to admit that shutting down nuclear means serious haircuts to the typical western lifestyle.  Any argument otherwise is based on hopium.  I asked Mosley where that was on the periodic table, and he hasn't gotten back to me on that.

I am not "pro-nuclear".  I want people to think about what they say, and think it through past the point where they hit the save button.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 18:23 | 1073670 BenLightYear
BenLightYear's picture

Last time I checked we spend money every day that we dont have...since we gonna print and spend with no intention of paying it back why not put it into solar? just a thought

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 19:05 | 1073794 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

That'll work.  By the time we get the lights on, they'll be shut off because we can't pay the bill.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:27 | 1072130 trav7777
trav7777's picture

if you examine the full lifecycle, you'll find that the semiconductor industry (solar) is incredibly toxic

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:42 | 1072206 T1000
T1000's picture

I always enjoy your realism and truth telling, Trav. You know, when I think about it, perhaps many of us are going overkill on this one. 

You know who could really use your common sense and level-headed thinking right now, Trav? The Japanese. You should probably head right over there next to those 'panicky' people and do some truth telling analysis. Let them know that it's all in their heads and they aint got nuttin to worry about. You should probably get right next to those non-problem reactors and give the straight truth facts about the harmless radioactivity. Aint nuthin but a little bannana style radiation, right Trav :) 

It's just a little MOX fuel. 

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 23:08 | 1074319 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

 

 

 

lol!  RmcAZ has hijacked the whole freaking string and has Col C talking to himself early this weekend!  fabulous wench 4 the aegis, mages!  march madness, hatterz and hitterz!  go masque-teerz!  she doesn't have ears, but is fighting like there is no tomorrow, with or without nukes, at this point!  so BE it!  showtime, shoetime, and bongtime for bongo...

solar battery charging may be toxic as the day is long, trav, but if the grid goes down, is sabatoged, or shut down to help the birth pangs of the NWO, i'm gonna have led lights, bikes,  headlights, and radios.  forever, too.  candles are nice.  and so are radios with cranks, but slewie is going with solar-recharge AA ni cads.  i bought two vintage walkman cassette players last week for $1 and new headphones for $4.99, today.  party like it's 1979.  NOW!

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:24 | 1071829 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

this is just the news we needed to send the /ES over 1300 and make the $DXY bidless. More good news.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:27 | 1071847 Cleverbot
Cleverbot's picture

Yes, as real as a unicorn.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:26 | 1071833 velobabe
velobabe's picture

bruce krasting, you wrote about this one last week. how fortuitous of you. hope you are safe from harmful leaks.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:14 | 1072066 earnyermoney
earnyermoney's picture

And the evacuation route starts with a bus ride. LOL

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:31 | 1071856 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Anyone ever seen Indian Point? It's only one little bend in the river away from greater NYC, in a densely populated area. It's old. It's unreliable. But nobody wants to touch it because of cost and fear that would stir up opposition. So it ages and ages like Fukushima, slowly fading under the radar of risk assessment that was based on rosy assumptions from way back when. Keep in mind nuclear always needs a healthy dose of rosy risk assessment to get approval. Any body remember Shoreham? It was finally de-commissioned because the county could not be safely evacuated in case of emergency. Think about that re Indian Point.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:36 | 1071886 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

 

Wiki sez: Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) is a three-unit nuclear power plant station located in Buchanan, New York just south of Peekskill. It sits on the east bank of the Hudson River, 38 miles north as the crow flies of New York City.

The power plant provides up to 30% of the electricity used by New York City and Westchester County.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center

Commision dates:
Unit 2: August 1, 1974
Unit 3: August 30, 1976

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:40 | 1071899 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Yes, that's agreeing with what I've said: it's old. And it is very very close to NYC. You must see it to believe adn understand. As we've seen in Japan, older reactors are less safe and are being taken off line. But there's politics. The power company here is reluctant to touch the plant for fear that political forces will force it to close, as they did at Shoreham. It helps if you've watched these issues in real time 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:44 | 1071919 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

It's also not a GE design, i.e., a BWR type:

 

Reactor type(s): PWR (not BWR)

Reactor supplier(s) Westinghouse (not GE)

 

I lived next to Cook during the TMI event - Cook is across the lake from Chicago...

 

Are we playing 'Fear Factor' here?

 

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:57 | 1072281 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

and AEP got out of their "deal with the GE devil" on the cleanest coal plant thingie.  Board intends to put a ton of effort and $$ into both Cook units.

- Ned

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:07 | 1072022 trav7777
trav7777's picture

turn the lights off in NYC.  Let them make an adult decision for once.

Shut all the plants down and force people to act like fucking grownups.

The can kicking while at the SAME TIME continuing to demand the electricity from these plants, some of which should have been decommissioned already and replaced is childish and absurd.

We haven't built a new nuke plant in forever...this has forced the old plants to continue operating or else the LIGHTS GO OUT.  With NIMBY and AGW raging, good luck getting a coal plant built.  The windmills sound great, but people are IDIOTS to think they are a sole solution. Solar is the same.

WTF remains?  Don't burn oil, gas, or coal...AGW.  Don't build ANY plant IMBY.  Don't put the windmills here either bc they're ugly.

How in the fuck can we survive if everyone is a BITCH?

GIVE ME POWER but DON'T GIVE ME POWERPLANTS

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:15 | 1072056 RmcAZ
RmcAZ's picture

+++++

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:46 | 1072226 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

++++.  Self regenerating cake?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:06 | 1072316 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

"What do you mean there's no power?  I plugged my computer into the wall."

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:33 | 1072161 Bob
Bob's picture

According to a guy I saw last night on MSNBC, the plant is currently supplying only 6% and if it's gonna be shut down this is the perfect time of year for it, with minimum power demands.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:01 | 1072239 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

by Bob , on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:33, #1072161 

According to a guy I saw last night on MSNBC, the plant is currently supplying only 6% and if it's gonna be shut down this is the perfect time of year for it, with minimum power demands.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

At odds with published info from here (as of March 18, 2011 13:44 EDT):

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-statu...

Indian Point 2 -- 100%
Indian Point 3 ------ 0%

 

Was that *'guy' by any chance Rachel Maddow? Those plants as a rule run flat-out unless they are being ramped up or down ...

 

 

 

* Functional equivalent as far as any living and breathing, normal, male heterosexual is concerned ...

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:58 | 1072685 whoopsing
whoopsing's picture

Caviar, Talk about rosy projection's,Shoreham was supposed to cost 200 mill.,the story went that the power produced would be "too cheap to meter".Well,many year's,design change's.reg change's,political fight's later,the thing ended up costing 5 billion! Even in the face of strong poitical headwind's,Lilco was still allowed to fire the thing up "for testing" thereby contaminating everything. P.S. it never produced one penny's worth of commercial power,but we are still paying for it 20 yr's later

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:32 | 1071859 Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

In the event of a meltdown at Indian Point, all banksters will report immediately to the station to be used as radiation shielding/flame retardant/neutron absorbers.

It's the least we can ask of them after giving them two generation's worth of the national wealth.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:38 | 1071884 Oligarchs Gone Wild
Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

Remember how Tyler published that great empty container ship map in 2008?  ZH should start tracking all the Gulfstream 5's and 6's as they domino from one banksterous escape plan to another.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:00 | 1071985 Oligarchs Gone Wild
Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

LMAO - Tyler again right, NYC is definitely the most Banksterous city.  The gulfstream activity is irrefutable.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:35 | 1071868 americanspirit
americanspirit's picture

Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand a 7.5 magnitude quake. Plenty of margin there don't you think. I mean, the San Andreas fault is a pussy, right?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:45 | 1071924 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

Let me play the role of Beaurocrat on the approval board: The "100 year" quake is estimated to be 7.0.  Since the design life of the reactor is less than a 100 years, things are good to go.  Granted, I am probably giving them the bennefit of the doubt in terms of their due diligence.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:06 | 1072006 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Diablo is at risk from a Cascadia subduction zone tsunami...so, San Andreas is not the only risk factor.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:25 | 1072108 RmcAZ
RmcAZ's picture

DCPP is 85 ft. above sea level. The only part that would be affected is the water intake... but this really isn't much of a problem. Worst case they can run gravity-fed water intake from up on top of a hill that is above the plant, but they have other means of cooling as well (generators, etc.)

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 15:15 | 1072764 serotonindumptruck
serotonindumptruck's picture

I'm wondering if we may be overdue for a 'super-quake' (10.0+) followed by a 'mega-tsunami'.

Geologically speaking, it is within the realm of possibility, especially if there is a cyclic nature to such phenomenon.

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:36 | 1071877 The Axe
The Axe's picture

Con Ed     just said you FUCK YOURSELF

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:36 | 1071882 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nukes both sit on the pacific coast and are subject to tsunamis.

There's also the Atlantic tsunami risk from a major landslide in the Canary Islands, but if that happens, there might not be a New York to worry about anyway.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:38 | 1071883 Sweet Chicken
Sweet Chicken's picture

Interesting that it is named diablo canyon.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:36 | 1071885 The Axe
The Axe's picture

Dogs and Cats living together...

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:41 | 1071905 Blano
Blano's picture

Just curious, and I'm too lazy to google it....as far as this plant being exposed to quake damage, has there actually ever been one around there??

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:51 | 1071944 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

Recently, but I don't feel like googling it.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:55 | 1071959 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

Im too lazy to reply.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 15:21 | 1072804 serotonindumptruck
Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:43 | 1071909 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Because they haven't been falsifying records for decades like they do in Japan?

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:45 | 1071916 tahoebumsmith
tahoebumsmith's picture

Wow that didn't take long now did it. Remember, never let a good crisis go to waste... Now move on with the clean energy agenda and find a way to get that carbon tax money flowing immediatly or else this 14.5 trillion dollar debt ridden ship is going down...

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:55 | 1071969 Oligarchs Gone Wild
Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

Ding!  9/11 was to cheap credit bubbles and war business as Fukushima will be to Green energy and carbon trading business.

Banksters & Oligarchs 2, serfs 0.

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:49 | 1071935 Franken_Stein
Franken_Stein's picture

 

What will happen once the Hudson river rises to a flood because of weeklong torrential rainfall and the nuclear power plant gets inundated ?

 

Would it withstand such a scenario ?

 

Would the emergency diesel generators provide enough power to the cooling system for one week, two weeks, or how long it may take until the water recedes ?

 

Because all nuclear power plants have to be built next to a river or the sea in order to extract enough water for their secondary cooling circulation system.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:55 | 1071957 Franken_Stein
Franken_Stein's picture

 

I only know that the Rockefeller family has their giant estate which is open to the public near Sleepy Hollow near the shores of Hudson river.

Keyword: Kykuit.

They'd be contaminated first if they cannot board their Gulfstream quickly enough.

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:12 | 1072347 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

"Because all nuclear power plants have to be built next to a river or the sea in order to extract enough water for their secondary cooling circulation system."

Except when they aren't: http://www.aps.com/general_info/AboutAPS_18.html

- Ned

{but it makes the thermal engineering more efficient.}

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:49 | 1071938 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

Hey New York,

Party time!!!! Your Tsunami is looking for you.

Boom Boom, Out Go the Lights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bZTSUt84YA

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:52 | 1071943 Mal
Mal's picture

 

I live 28 miles away and I work 24 miles away from Indian Point.  I'm doomed!!!

 

 

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:12 | 1072043 Alienated Serf
Alienated Serf's picture

see you in hell

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 13:17 | 1072068 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

I work 30 miles away from Indian Point (#1) and live 20 miles away from Limerick (#3). There is no escape!

EDIT: At least if I'm home I can get on the PA Turnpike and head west-right toward Three Mile Island (#10)!

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 14:15 | 1072357 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

ya, and don't go up mainline, 'cuz Susquehanna will getcha'

- Ned

Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:53 | 1071950 Mae Kadoodie
Mae Kadoodie's picture

When TSHTF i'll just hit the Southern State Pkwy and be in the Hamptons away from the evac zone.  Just in time for martinis.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!