26 Nuclear Power Plants In Hurricane Sandy's Path 392
pigrabbitbear writes "Hurricane Sandy is about to ruin a bunch of people's Mondays. In New York City alone, the storm has already shut down public transportation, forced tens of thousands to relocate to higher ground and compelled even more office jockeys to work from home. (Okay, that last part might not be so bad, especially for the folks that don't actually have to work at all.) But if it knocks out power to any of the 26 nuclear power plants that lie directly in its path, the frankenstorm of the century will ruin Tuesday, too. Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem."
I hope it gives me super powers (Score:5, Funny)
I could call myself The Hurricane!
Re:I hope it gives me super powers (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, "Storm" already owns the IP for that. See if your superpowers can protect you from a billion dollar IP lawsuit!
Hmmm . . . maybe comics need an IP Lawsuit Super Villain . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly, it has been DONE.
The story goes that, when DC sued Marvel over Captain Marvel allegedly infringing on Superman, Marvel responded by having a villain take out either copyright or patent on the letters A-Z, and then sue anybody who tried to write or print anything without paying royalties first.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as long as the authorities don't come to blame
your for something that you never done.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, HULU's MisFits is on again, new season, you Juvenal Delinquents.
Re:I hope it gives me super powers (Score:5, Insightful)
Will we get the same sensationalist headlines when nothing happens?
"The plants performed as designed! No meltdown!!!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I actually tried that and the story was rejected. This summer there were no blackouts in Japan due to lack of nuclear power, despite all the fear and doom-mongering.
Oh, you only meant pro-nuclear stories? Both sides of this polarized argument are just as bad.
Re:I hope it gives me super powers (Score:5, Funny)
I could call myself The Hurricane!
The scary scenario is two radioactive Presidential candidates. I see a Godzilla style grudge match on Tuesday with 200' tall candidates fighting over Ohio.
It's not fair (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's not fair (Score:4, Funny)
You think that's unfair? How about those of us in Ohio who have never been hit with a hurricane? I mean, Gloria came and wrecked most of New England in 1985, and Ohio got nothin'.
Re:It's not fair (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought we were limiting this to natural disasters. That river was wholly unnatural when it caught fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's because the Gulf Stream takes a right hand turn at North Carolina and heads towards the UK instead of continuing to Maine.
Re:It's not fair (Score:5, Funny)
Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way... well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't!
Re: (Score:3)
don't worry maine, sandy will visit you friday after touring montreal:
http://google.org/crisismap/2012-sandy [google.org]
Re:It's not fair (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
1998 called, it wanted to remind you about that Ice Storm.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the weather forgets abut Maine.
Typo accidental, left intentionally
Re: (Score:2)
Y'all got that Stephen King guy trying to steal your souls....
Took you long enough, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
To publish an insanely sensationalistic FUD piece from the Anti-Nuclear crowd scaremongering the most densely populated area of the world over something that is a complete and utter non-issue.
Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. While people are dealing with the *real* effects of the storm right now, these people want to talk about nuclear meltdowns? Stupid ass hyperbole if you ask me...
Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
While people are dealing with the *real* effects of the storm right now, these people want to talk about nuclear meltdowns?
Do you mean real effects like damaged windmills and solar panels ripped off roofs?
On the other hand, the extra rainfall should be good for hydroelectric.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
I live 12 miles, doesn't bother me one bit, nor did it when I lived 5 miles, nor worked 1 mile. Heck, in my 20's I used to water ski just offshore from the plant. Hmmm, maybe that's why my hair got curly? chuckle
BTW, NONE of the evacuation plans take into account there being a bad storm while attempting an evacuation from a nuke plant...they just don't consider it likely.
And, btw, the original call for an evacuation plan was for 50 miles...I was at that meeting, but we all agreed that it would be impossible to evacuate 50 miles, as it includes all of NYC. Then we cut it down to 25 miles, and it still included too much of NYC to be doable. Finally, we went down to 10 miles, which everyone felt was more realistic to evacuate. But the 10 mile evacuation zone isn't based on science, it's based on what is doable in the NY area. 10 miles wasn't enough at Fukishima.
Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It almost worked on me. The first links made me thing power outage, meh, maybe some websites go down at worst. Now the last sensationalistic link I almost clicked, thinking "is that really a realistic problem?".
Re: (Score:2)
Here is your big chance. Why is it FUD?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem.
By golly, it'll be even worser if it opens the hell-mouth.
Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. I've read both stories, and neither of them is the least bit sensationalistic. They present issues and facts, and neither of them is clearly anti-nuke. But of course anybody who suggests that there are safety issues with nuclear power must be "scaremongering".
What's weird to me is that people get all religious about nuclear power. At best, fission plants will never provide more than a fraction of the power we need. You may think that the benefit-versus-risk equation argues that we shoud build them (not that I agree) but is that really sufficient reason to treat nuclear power like the Second Coming?
Re: (Score:3)
You can practically eat the spent fuel from a fast-breeder, as all the nasty stuff is no longer in there.
Totally untrue, even just holding the stuff would expose you to a lethal does in a fairly short time period.
Reprocessed waste will still have fission products that are very radioactive in the short term (days and weeks) and still rather radioactive in the mid term (half life ~25 years or so) with some nasty gamma emitters. Unprocessed is less concentrated but also contains actinides. Fully processed waste (aka the waste stream from breeders) does have much less volume (60x less) per unit energy and much
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah! Team TEPCO is heard from!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It hasn't. /. editors have had an anti-nuke bias for years.
Re: (Score:2)
We should nuke the anti-nukers!
Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Ha, I was getting tired of all the pro-nuclear stuff on Slashdot as well. Every time there is a story about nuclear power, or even worse about any kind of non-nuclear power, the nuke-u-like brigade come out and accuse everyone of being irrational anti-nuke anti-technology anti-progress tree-hugging hippies.
Rational debate becomes impossible.
A nuclear station is built to withstand a hurricane with ease, including, loss of off-site power.
Fukushima was built to withstand a large earthquake and tsunami with ease, including, loss of off-site power. Turns out the design was flawed and contingency plans inadequate. If you would like to debate the actual, technical issues here I would be glad to.
Re: (Score:3)
And how many people have died because of Fukushima?
Re: (Score:2)
From the info I could find, it was none. However the tsunami did kill a lot of people. And in case somebody on the plant died, would that have been because of the nuclear power plant or because of the tsunami? I guess the question to ask would be, what would have happened to the people working there when the tsunami hit, in case it had been an oil or coal powered plant? Regardless of the answer, it seems pretty clear that the damage caused by the tsunami hi
Re: (Score:2)
So your answer is: none. Correct?
Re: (Score:3)
According to the Department of Energy, the people living in the area will get 1 more cancer case per 500 people. The level of radiation in the area is still lower than the natural background radiation in parts of the world.
Stop crying wolf. When you actually have a point, people simply won't listen.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in your scenario, nuclear power will be abandoned not because of the herd of lowing retards, but because of the few smart people who find their ignorance so contemptibly alien that we can't figure out how to talk down to them?
I am not my retarded brother's keeper. If we're genuinely too stupid as a species to accept that it's a choice between fission or coal to get us to fusion, then perhaps we should just step aside and give the rats and cockroaches their chance.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you do realize that it is attitudes just like yours that is part of the problem, right?
no, of course you don't
why don't you try educating yourself on a little world history about the true value of arrogance towards the common man like yours
Re: (Score:2)
No. The idea that power generation capability should be based on the fears of people with no understanding of technology or risk is the problem.
I say: shut it all down. Let them live in the dark for a few weeks and then see whether they're still saying 'nukelear is scary, ok'.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Most densely populated area of the world? Typical Yank! Look at a map and see how the [population density is around places like Beijing and New Delhi. Just because they are not milky white like you does not make them irrelevant you ignorant imbecile!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing [wikipedia.org] (pop density 1200/sq km or 3000/sq m)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_delhi [wikipedia.org] (pop density 5854/sq km or 15,164/sq m)
vs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_city [wikipedia.org] (pop density 10,518/sq km or 27,243/sq m)
So Beijing and New Delhi don't come close to NYC for density.
Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
New York City isn't even in the top 50 by population density: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density [wikipedia.org]
And.. *gasp*... look at which country makes up 7 of the top 10 densest populations in the world...
That list needs a much higher minimum population threshold.
14 of the 50 have fewer than 100k people. Only 12 of them even crack 1M. One on the list (Union City, NJ) would get counted as part of NYC if you start looking at metro areas.
But all that aside, I wasn't trying to argue that NYC is the most densely populated part of the world, but rather took issue with the anonymous poster's assertion that New Delhi and Beijing were moreso. The instruction to look at a map followed by a pair of examples that didn't support the argument he was making got to me.
Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to be as safe from the hurricane as possible, you should then find shelter in one of those nuclear plants. They\re the best built structures by a very large margin.
Only thing is, I don\t believe you'll be lucky enough to be let in.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and if the external backup power goes out (like it did in Japan) you're looking at a potential meltdown situation. And guess what: that would generate enough heat to melt all that steel and concrete.
Re:Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. (Score:4, Informative)
Then I guess I would be glad they were built several DECADES after the ones in Japan. I also guess I would be glad that the generators are located above the floodplain. Then, I would be glad that the spent fuel isn't stored with the reactor, but in another building. Lastly, I think I would be glad that after Fukishama, enough attention has probably been paid to the very, very, very unlikely event that they could probably get emergency generators air-lifted in by the US military in a big hurry, if they were required.
Re: (Score:3)
Which plant is that one? Can you name it? I'm sure you can't, since it hasn't been built.
Face it, nearly every single one of them is going to be older since the 1970s was when most were built.
Re:Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. (Score:5, Informative)
Because power plants are designed to generate a lot of power, and most are not designed to be able to generate a small amount of power. When the mains goes offline, they can't dump the power anywhere, and without that load to keep the generator speed regulated, the turbines would spin up to an unsafe speed and would damage themselves, so they have to shut down the reactor. Thus, if the plant is an older design that requires active safety systems after a SCRAM, they have to provide a backup power source to power those safety systems.
Re:Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry, where are these magic plants that don't need backup power? I did some googling and couldn't find any.
My god, this has never happened! (Score:5, Insightful)
These plants have NEVER been hit by a storm before! Whatever will we do??
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I propose synchronized panicking!
Everyone go to www.nukewebcam.edu, pick one of the 26 plants, and as soon as you see precipitation, run out the front door screaming as you run along all the easily reached streets where you live.
Around here (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> Around here, the nuclear power plants are designed to survive a 747 flying into them.
Care to share a reference ? IIRC, the last I heard the *best* designs currently in use could only survive a direct hit from a light aircraft (sorry: no ref !).
Re: (Score:3)
The wikipedia page on containment buildings has this blurb.
In 1988, Sandia National Laboratories conducted a test of slamming a jet fighter into a large concrete block at 481 miles per hour (775 km/h).[14][15] The airplane left only a 2.5-inch-deep (64 mm) gouge in the concrete. Although the block was not constructed like a containment building missile shield, it was not anchored, etc., the results were considered indicative. A subsequent study by EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute, concluded that
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes, but what if two or three 747s flew into them, at once? I'm sure just for posting this I'll have DHS all over my ass.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's NUKELEAR! Who cares about a few million dead people if someone gets a moderately high radiation dose?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The WTC was designed to survive a slow low on fuel 707 that was lost in fog on final approach that flew into them on accident not a much larger 767 at full throttle with mostly full tanks of fuel let alone a 747 that didn't even exist at the time the WTC was being designed.
Why I bother correcting a AC troll I don't know...
Unsubstatiated Claim (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't even include Canadian reactors. (Score:2, Interesting)
Then again, Canadian reactors are CANDU - and in True Canadian Style, they're a bit less efficient, but vastly more safe when it comes to the possibility of meltdown.
And when the storm has passed... (Score:4, Insightful)
So when the storm has passed, if nothing happens, will the fear mongering anti-nuke folks admit that nuclear power is safe?
*crickets*
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And if there's a meltdown, will all the obsessive nukes-will-save-us zealots admit that there's a problem?
Re:And when the storm has passed... (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely.
Re: (Score:3)
admit that nuclear power is safe
It isn't, even if nothing happens. And I'm no anti-nuke.
The US should be operating about 500 1GW MOX boosted reactors, none more than 40 years old, fed by a real domestic reprocessing fuel cycle. That we are not is a consequence of indulging a comfortable yet ignorant electorate and the politicians that train it.
Safety is a factor. It isn't the only factor. If safety precluded all other factors we would have no cars because automotive fatalities kill more than 0.01% of us every year (10 per 100 000) nev
Nuclear Technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nuclear Technology (Score:4, Insightful)
The WTC towers did survive an aircraft flying into them.
What they didn't survive was the jet fuel fire after the crash knocked the insulation off the girders.
This is stupid fear-mongering, plain and simple.
Fukushima didn't fail until AFTER a catastrophic earthquake, AFTER a catastrophic tsunami, AFTER the reactor was run past its design lifetime, and AFTER the company in charge of it did not make the manufacturer's recommended safety upgrades. Do you have any evidence we're facing anything remotely similar to those circumstances with the 26 nuclear reactors in the storm's affected area?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, you do realize that the real winner with the nuclear switch off in Germany was coal, right? You might have more windmills, but you probably would have even with the nuclear plants.
Turning off nuclear based on a scare reaction to an accident puts Germany firmly in the luddite column, even with the movement on green sources. It's more like "OMG, nuclear is scary turn it off now!", and then suddenly realizing that people would eventually realize that the thing that everyone is not scared of is the
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me, what's going to happen the next time to all those turbines and roof mounted panels then next time that Germany is hit with a really big storm?
Re: (Score:3)
Storm of the century?? (Score:5, Informative)
It is a cat 1 storm. Yawn.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. It's only Cat 1. It's being hyped up mostly because of its size and the noreaster that's going to strike it.
Heck, a Godzilla attack would be a bigger problem. (Score:5, Funny)
>> Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem.
Heck, a Godzilla attack would be a much bigger problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuke zealots actually think that their Magic Power Source has never killed anybody.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-17/fukushima-radiation-may-cause-1-300-cancer-deaths-study-finds [businessweek.com]
There's also the people who weren't hurt, but can never return to their homes or land:
http://www.japantoday.com/smartphone/view/opinions/pure-land-lost-for-fukushima-evacuees [japantoday.com]
And then there's the contamination issue:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/10/2012102510561941251.html [aljazeera.com]
Give me a break (Score:4, Informative)
A) Sandy has average winds less that 80 mph so the major danger is heavy rainfall (or perhaps snow) only.
B) "Nuclear meltdown" is largely a media myth. Real nuclear plants do not melt down in the way the popular mythology claims.
C) Real nuclear plant are designed to push in the control rods if anything like a power drop happens.
So stop with the 70s anti-nuclear FUD.
Re:Give me a break (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed.
"The Frankenstorm of the Century"? Okay, I haven't been in a hurricane since the turn of the century, granted, but I just checked and the maximum sustained winds are 90 MPH. Hurricane Gloria [wikipedia.org] had wind speeds of 145 MPH and hit Long Island--I remember going out during the eye. Hurricane Andrew [wikipedia.org] had winds of 175 MPH and was very destructive.
90 MPH? Pfft.
Interesting Fact (Score:4, Informative)
The title is an interesting fact (previously unknown to me), but the article has no real point. It has a lot of fearful speech and reads like religious propaganda. If it were calling for increased preparedness, then that would be one thing. It doesn't do that, though -- it's just appears to sound scary by using scary bullet points.
TL;DR: Crap article.
Ohnoes!!! (Score:2)
I am sure they will melt down just like the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant has done every time a tropical storm or hurricane has it it.... Oh wait... That has never happened.
Critical fact missing from TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
And they're all rated for much more severe storms than Sandy. Not sure why the fearmongering article, which goes out of its way to imply that meltdown is imminent...
If it does what, now? (Score:3)
if it knocks out power to any of the 26 nuclear power plants
I'm pretty sure the power plans have reliable sources of power, should they not be able to get any from the grid.
Coming soon, on SyFy (Score:4, Funny)
FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
What about coal fired plants? (Score:3, Interesting)
How many of those are in the direct path? And how many of them store their coal supplies outdoors?
How much coal can be expected to be scattered across massive areas in the path?
Because. Frankenstorm. (Score:5, Funny)
Shut up. Panic. Run Amok. We need footage.
Sincerely,
The Media
Now for the reality check (Score:3)
And now for the reality check. The power grid for the northeastern US is run by PJM, from a control center in Valley Forge, PA (and a backup center elsewhere). Their public PJM Dashboard [pjm.com] shows what's going on in the generation system and high-voltage transmission grids. (Retail power distribution is handled by local power companies.)
So what's going on? Just normal stuff. Load right now is 89 gigawatts, just 1% above forecast. No storm-related emergencies. A few routine problems - the 138KV line between Jay and DeSoto is out, and system voltage is running slightly high, so some switching actions were taken. No alerts from FERC or DHS. Spinning and standby reserves are above normal, in case of trouble. Some substations that normally run unattended have been staffed and sandbagged. About 3 gigawatts of extra power plant capacity are idling on standby, just in case, with another 6GW standing by to start. Wind power is looking good today. Right now, there's far more generation capacity available than load to use it, which is typical for mid-day in fall. (The peak is during the summer air-conditioning season.)
PJM's public statement notes that some nuclear plants might shut down due to high winds, but they expect to have enough reserves to deal with that.
Most trouble is on the distribution side, from trees falling on power lines in residential areas. Tornadoes can take out high tension towers, but the wind speeds for this hurricane aren't high enough to do much of that. This is mostly a coastal flooding problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a rather low standard for "a lot".
Re:Just wait until Wednesday... (Score:5, Funny)
That's not the only danger. That asteroid could be carrying mutagenic microbes from space, which could cause abnormal growth among local sea life, which could make all the fish and crustaceans into biological bombs, filled with microscopic cysts of nerve gas that will explode when ruptured, turning several thousand regional seafood restaurants into diners of death, crippling patrons and releasing airborne poisons into the jet stream to encircle the Earth with a toxic halo literally raining morbidity down on half the planet.
If you're gonna fearmonger, go big or go home.
...and have some imagination, please.
Re: (Score:3)
"Fukushima showed all you need to lose are the diesel generator building and the high-tension wires into the plant site, and it's all over melty like s'mores and Seascape and Chernobyl."
Unlike Japan, the US has ample military assets to move generators into place, and the military and commercial gensets themselves. (So many they are even available on Ebay.) Skycrane an ISO container genset or several into position with a crew and have at it.
Equipment is available throughout the US, and as "far away" as an or