Observing the nuke power issue in the US

[Growler]

So, making its way around my Facebook friends today is this link:

>>How far are you from a Nuke plant? (http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/nuclear_power_plants_locations/index.html)<<

It bugged me for awhile, and I finally figured out why.

Take a look at the plant distribution. The overwhelming majority of plants are in the East, mainly east of the Mississippi, but just west of that river isn't ecatly bereft, either.

Then you get to the Rockies, which, understandably, makes for a dearth of nuke plants. Then, the West Coast: One in the Pacific Northwest, and three in the southwest (San Onofre and Diablo in SoCal, and one in Arizona).

Why the disparity? I'm curious as to what you guys think.

[Freiwillige]

Population. The east coast has more build up and denser population centers than the west.

For example Arizona's plant gives all its electricity to California:down:
But then again Most of Arizona is empty desert, Most of Nevada is empty desert, Most of Oregon and Washington are unpopulated forests etc.

[The Third Man]

Electricity once produced must be used. Storing electricity is not a viable option. Capacitors (see batteries) don't exist that can store the energy.

By logic, larger population areas are much more condusive to nuclear power generation than smaller population areas.

[Growler]

I just can't explain the vast disparity in plant concentration to population density alone - I mean, California is the most populous state in the country, but fields only 2 plants - in the south - three, if you count Arizona's contribution.

Conversely, Maryland is one of the lesser populated states (42nd, according to Wiki) and Pennsylvania (33rd), yet there are two plants less that 50m away, and four less than 100m.

OK, that's not adding up the population densities of all the states on the East Coast equal in area to California, I get that. Nonetheless, if nuke power was such a big safety deal, proximity to population centers would argue for MORE plants out west and fewer here in the east, instead of what the current situation represents - it's not like power distribution lines in So. Cal. aren't getting the juice from those three plants across mountains, deserts, and populated areas as well.

Certainly, earthquake propensity factors into it somewhat - it's not as if the East is immune to temblors, but bigger 5+ magnitude quakes aren't common here. And, as we saw in Japan, earthquake-toughening reactors isn't impossible - If I were in California, I'd be more worried about San Onofre taking a swim than a shake... but here in the East, flooding rains aren't uncommon. I routinely hear of the floodgates at Conowingo Dam Hydroelectric Plant being open to account for the Susquehanna at flood state when the central PA/MD area gets heavy rainfall.

[AVGWarhawk]

We have the plant in Southern MD Growler. Never any accidents that I'm aware of. I think what has happened in Japan is a wake up call to inspect what we have going as far as nuclear plants and handling emergency situations.

[The Third Man]

We have the plant in Southern MD Growler. Never any accidents that I'm aware of. I think what has happened in Japan is a wake up call to inspect what we have going as far as nuclear plants and handling emergency situations.

Man cannot control, nor predict nature. Building Nuclear power plants and storing used material on site along coastal plains is a bad idea. THAT WE HAVE LEARNED.

[Growler]

We have the plant in Southern MD Growler. Never any accidents that I'm aware of. I think what has happened in Japan is a wake up call to inspect what we have going as far as nuclear plants and handling emergency situations.

Calvert Cliffs, some ~80m away from where I sit; Hope Creek and Salem plants are also about that far, Limerick's a bit under 100m. Three Mile Island and Peach Bottom plants in PA are less than 50m from here.

Point is, within 80m of where I currently sit, there are more nuclear plants than there are on the entire West Coast of the US. I thought that was worth exploring, but then again, I'm strange.

I think re-evaluating safety in US plants is a good idea, but I also think any plan to do so will be over-hyped by the media until everyone living in the same state as a plant will start swearing their water's glowing.

<shrug> Just curious, I guess.

[Ducimus]

Why the disparity? I'm curious as to what you guys think.

NIMBY?

[Growler]

NIMBY?

As good a thought as any - why moreso there than here, though, Ducimus? It's not as if there isn't a strong argument for NIMBY in East, based on the amount of backyards to not be in.

[Ducimus]

As good a thought as any - why moreso there than here, though, Ducimus? It's not as if there isn't a strong argument for NIMBY in East, based on the amount of backyards to not be in.

We have more hippies out west.

[Growler]

We have more hippies out west.

I got nothin' for that.:nope:

I never really got that "hippie vibe" from Palm Springs, for instance, when I was there, but LA - yeah, definitely. Which is kinda funny, since both of California's nuke plants are in the south. <shrug>

Beats me. Do you really think it is as simple as that? I mean, Occam's Razor would say so... but it seems like there'd be as vocal a contingent out here as out there, given the amount of plants on the ground.

I'm probably way overanalyzing this - it's just seemed odd to look at it on the map and see the vast difference in numbers West to East.

[AVGWarhawk]

Hell Growler, they could build another to serve more of Baltimore. Get rid of the coal burners running around the clock for BGE.

[Ducimus]

Well i figure it like this (and this is all conjecture):

The states in the mid west aren't called "fly over" states for no reason at all. Comparatively there's not much out there, or not enough in population density to warrant the expenditure of a multimillion (billion?) dollar nuclear power plant.

So that leaves the west coast. California has (and im shooting from the hip here), the most strict enviormental laws in the country. Places like San Fran, are the traditional hippie/liberal/gay places. Oregon and Washington are full of california refugee's. Seattle is also fairly liberal. There is a reason why hardcore conservatives like to call the western seaboard the "left coast" , although i think that term is on the side of embellishment, but this is where im drawing the word "hippie" from.

Political persuasions aside, i think it comes down to strict enviormental laws on the western coast, and not enough going on in the midwest. In both cases, you can toss in NIMBY and be reasonably correct.

[Growler]

Hell Growler, they could build another to serve more of Baltimore. Get rid of the coal burners running around the clock for BGE.

What, and give those a-holes another reason to jack up our rates?

[The Third Man]

Well i figure it like this
The states in the mid west aren't called "fly over" states for no reason at all..

You mean the states which feed your family? What a poorly thought out thing to say.

[Growler]

Political persuasions aside, i think it comes down to strict enviormental laws on the western coast, and not enough going on in the midwest. In both cases, you can toss in NIMBY and be reasonably correct.

I was sorta wondering about that in the back of my coffee-deprived brain. Seems to make sense; and I can understand a business just not wanting to play by California's rules - oh, sh-! Ducimus, I think you nailed it.

On a square mileage basis, there's more national park land out there than in the East.

I think you're on to something, Ducimus.

[TorpX]

I live in Illinois and there are 8 nuc plants within 100mi. There would be 9, but Zion was decommissioned a couple years ago. As you can see on the map there are quite a few clustered around Chicago.

I think Ducimus is right about the NIMBY- hippie thing. However, I don't think any state is obligated to accept nuc plants if they don't want them. Around here, people were led to believe that they would provide energy that was "too cheap to meter". What a joke! Electric rates have gone up ever since. I'd bet there would be a lot fewer now if they had to approved today.

[tater]

Third Man was spot on on page one. CA has a large population, but they are also very spread out. In addition, as ducimus said, NIMBY. CA is well known for that. They want electric cars, but are perfectly happy for the power generation to happen at a coal plant in NM (having just moved all their tailpipes to another state, they can then be smug).

To be fair, the west coast is not as good a place for nuke plants as the east, given the earthquake situation (though it was the tsunami, not the quake that was Japan's problem).

BTW, while France leads in the % of power that is nuclear, the US has by far the most plants.

[The Third Man]

Third Man was spot on on page one.

my genious is recognized.



SPQR

[Molon Labe]

We have more hippies out west.

The herds have all been thinned out in the east.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/smallestminority/liberal_hunting.jpg

[Ducimus]

They want electric cars, but are perfectly happy for the power generation to happen at a coal plant in NM (having just moved all their tailpipes to another state, they can then be smug).

SoCal in reality, is nothing but one big honking desert bowl. Everything is piped in from somewhere. Water from NorCal, the colorodo, and every state that has a connection to the same, power from NM and adjoining areas, etc etc. I hear other states are (rightfully) upset. Cut those services, and this place would dry up in no time.


To be fair, the west coast is not as good a place for nuke plants as the east, given the earthquake situation
.

I thought of that, though we haven't had a GOOD earthquake in years. We're long overdue. I honestly wish we had ALOT more earthquakes. One, it makes life more exciting, but two, and more importantly, it relieves fault stress. All that stress is backing up. It's Like shaking a soda bottle and popping it wide open instead of cracking the tab a little to let the gas creep out.

[AVGWarhawk]

What, and give those a-holes another reason to jack up our rates?


:har: They do not need a reason. They just raise the rate when they feel like it! O'Mallet does nothing. :down:

[Rilder]

Three plants within' 130 miles, one on the Minnesota/WI. Border and two right next to each other on the Lake Michigan coast. Basically they are on both sides of me.

Edit: Hey those two plants near Lake Michigan are just 14 miles from Denmark :rotfl2:

[Torplexed]

Point is, within 80m of where I currently sit, there are more nuclear plants than there are on the entire West Coast of the US. I thought that was worth exploring, but then again, I'm strange.

Washington State alone has over forty hydroelectric dams producing electricity for both this state, Oregon and northern California, which probably explains why we have only the one nuke plant at Hanford, which in itself is just a relic of the atomic bomb project there in the 1940s.

[The Third Man]

Washington State alone has over forty hydroelectric dams producing electricity for both this state, Oregon and northern California, which probably explains why we have only the one nuke plant at Hanford, which in itself is just a relic of the atomic bomb project there in the 1940s.

Hanford has more than one Nuke plant. It has a burial ground for US Submarine nuke plants.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/tn/0857524.gif

[Torplexed]

Hanford has more than one Nuke plant. It has a burial ground for US Submarine nuke plants.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/tn/0857524.gif

I'm afraid decommissioned and entombed reactors don't generate much electricity. But is the place polluted? You bet.

[The Third Man]

I'm afraid decommissioned and entombed reactors don't generate much electricity.

neither do the reactors in Japan. And they are not active or entombed.

[Torplexed]

neither do the reactors in Japan. And they are not active or entombed.

What? This is a Fukushima thread now? Growler wanted to know why there are so few nuclear reactors generating electricity on the West Coast. I'm just giving part of the answer.

[Growler]

Washington State alone has over forty hydroelectric dams producing electricity for both this state, Oregon and northern California, which probably explains why we have only the one nuke plant at Hanford, which in itself is just a relic of the atomic bomb project there in the 1940s.


Damn. Hydroelectric, of course! /headslap I really am embarrassed not to have thought of that, especially since I went there in the earlier post with mention of Conowingo Hydroelectric Plant, and that I'm currently playing Fallout: New Vegas, with the storyline only completely dependent on the Hoover Dam. :know::88)

And with the rivers and waterways of the Northwest, of course it makes sense there'd be hydro-power instead of nuke. The East has the rivers, but also has a LOT of boat traffic on those rivers; the West made better use of rail than the East did, so the rivers can be used to generate power more than they're needed for shipping.

Thanks, Torplexed, for that additional contribution. I think I'm starting to get the picture a little better, between the mentions here by several folks, and my own recollection this morning of the huge wind farm at Banning Pass east of LA.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Theres nothing wrong with nuclear power.

And the funny thing is that since Japan's plants exploded after suffering a tsunami AND a 9 point something earthquake, people thing nuclear power is unsafe because it cant withstand a 9 point something earthquake and a tsunami.

Thats why i just wanna slap the idiots on the news who think they know whatt heyre talking about, who think nuclear power is way unsafe. Its VERY safe. And theyre undereducated Idiots who honestly dont know what theyre talking about. It annoys me so dam much. Its like the people who have some minor symptom like chills and vomiting and go on WEb M.D and it tells them they have Malaria and they believe it.

But S**t happens. Just like everything else in the world, S**T happens. If a gas main explodes after somebody F-ed up, does that mean we need to stop using gas to heat our homes to keep us warm? no. Same CONCEPT applies here.

granted we should take more safety backups. because radiation doesnt just go away. it lingers. But honestly this is to be expected when something like this happens.

[TLAM Strike]

13 miles from trusty Ginna nuclear power plant. :up:

For those who don't know Ginna is right on Lake Ontario. Luckily there is very little risk of a Tsunami there! :03:

[Gargamel]

You also have to remember when these plants were built. The vast majority are from the 70's and early 80's. While The western states were no slouches in population then, it was reasoned that all of the power needed could be done by hydro or oil/coal plants. The resources for those were plentiful then.

But as the east coast found out, Coal runs out. Or at least gets harder and more expensive to mine as the easy stuff disappears. Hydro on the east is good for local communities (Check out the Northern part of New York, Adirondack park, Most of the villages through out the park have little hydro plants of their own), but aside form Niagara, there aren't a lot great places to put any more hydro plants that weren't already done or n the process of.

Nuclear was deemed to be the best way to supply large quantities of power without requiring huge amounts of infrastructure to be built, which the east had little room for. The west did, and kinda still does have plenty of room for those types of construction projects.

[Torplexed]

And with the rivers and waterways of the Northwest, of course it makes sense there'd be hydro-power instead of nuke. The East has the rivers, but also has a LOT of boat traffic on those rivers; the West made better use of rail than the East did, so the rivers can be used to generate power more than they're needed for shipping.


The irony is that the environmental crowd out here is always lobbying like mad to have some of these dams torn down to restore salmon runs and make the rivers "wild" again. I love salmon as much as the next guy, but I have a feeling that keeping about 90 million people in electricity is probably more important right now.

[Growler]

The irony is that the environmental crowd out here is always lobbying like mad to have some of these dams torn down to restore salmon runs and make the rivers "wild" again. I love salmon as much as the next guy, but I have a feeling that keeping about 90 million people in electricity is probably more important right now.

I guess fish ladders just don't do enough, but I can't argue with the power to the people logic, either - I was lucky enough to avoid the consequences of the East Coast Blackout of 2003 by virtue of being a few miles outside the directly-affected areas, but I remember the edge of panic in the media that went with it.

I think it's safe to say that there's a ton of variables that have played a role in the dispersal of nuclear plants in the States.

Would I be happier with "cleaner" power? Truth be told, there really is no cleaner power out there, once you remove the spent fuel from the equation. We're basically talking steam-generated power, which is tremendously efficient; it's just our means of generating the steam that have been the problem all along, whether it was coal, oil, or nuclear.

I think that whoever finds something to do with spent nuclear fuel that doesn't involve shoving it under a mountain with a "Do Not Open Until 20,000 CE" on the door will be a very rich person.

I'd rather see one mountain turned into a nuclear waste repository than see all the mountains reduced to gravel while they try and pry the coal out of them, or see the oceans with an oily sheen over them.

And like MattJ said, it's not like the Fukushima reactors didn't just go through a metric shed-load of grief before having the problems they're having; certainly more trouble than any reactors anywhere else in the world have had to go through. And while we're hearing about Fukushima, we're NOT hearing about all the other Japanese reactors that are still online and working fine.

[Catfish]

I'm afraid decommissioned and entombed reactors don't generate much electricity. But is the place polluted? You bet.

When i asked this here some time ago, someone provided a photo, where all the Navy reactors were stored in the open, visible on a photo.

So you say they put the reactor hulls there, and buried the fuel rods elsewhere ?

The reason me asking this some time ago was that according to Bellona net, the US had sunk severeal reactors in the Bering strait - which was - according to the post back then - wrong.


As far as i know the US west (edit .. gawd) coast is a bad idea for reactors just because of the plate tectonics and earth quakes, and less due to political influence or reasons. At least that is what i would think looking at the map, as a geologist. As well as long as you have terrain suitable for water power (like i.g. in Switzerland) you do not need nuclear energy, because there is enough terrain altitude differences to use gravitational (water) power via turbines.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Torplexed]

So you say they put the reactor hulls there, and buried the fuel rods elsewhere ?



I never brought up the decommissioned naval reactors. The Third Man did in his usual, breezy "let's go off-topic" manner. I was speaking more to the nine civil and military nuclear reactors that used to be on that site which have since been closed. However, the naval reactors are there. They are placed in a large open pit about seven miles from the Columbia River. I can't speak for where the fuel rods are. Needless, to say that with 60 plus years of heavy-duty nuclear activity behind it, Hanford is the most polluted nuclear site in the US and the clean-up costs have and will continue to be enormous. By design and planning, it was established on a remote tract of land. But it's not as remote as it was when it opened in 1943.

[ASWnut101]

I think that whoever finds something to do with spent nuclear fuel that doesn't involve shoving it under a mountain with a "Do Not Open Until 20,000 CE" on the door will be a very rich person.

I'd rather see one mountain turned into a nuclear waste repository than see all the mountains reduced to gravel while they try and pry the coal out of them, or see the oceans with an oily sheen over them.


It interests me that so many people don't know about Deep Borehole Disposal. You basically just dig a 3-4 km deep hole, dump about 1km worth of high level waste into it, then fill the hole back up.

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

I'd say definitely the most promising method of disposal. 3-4 km deep holes makes any potential recovery extremely difficult, and the amount of space between the surface and the waste level is so great that peak irradiation of the surface should any material leak out would occur millions (movement of about 200m/1Ma) of years later, and be many times below the natural background rate.

We do have a realistic solution for nuclear waste disposal. The only reason we aren't using it is because some people think we may have a use for all that crap in the future. Sounds to me that they're just hedging their bets.


As far as i know the US west (edit .. gawd) coast is a bad idea for reactors just because of the plate tectonics and earth quakes, and less due to political influence or reasons. At least that is what i would think looking at the map, as a geologist. As well as long as you have terrain suitable for water power (like i.g. in Switzerland) you do not need nuclear energy, because there is enough terrain altitude differences to use gravitational (water) power via turbines.I agree, to an extent. The western US has quite a few options for large scale power generation. Since most of the issues with earthquakes and tsunamis could be resolved by placing NPPs far away from the coast line, I really like the idea of solar thermal towers (in the desert SW) and underground hydroelectricity (in the NW) agumenting a base load powered by NPPs and the Hoover Dam.

[Growler]

It interests me that so many people don't know about Deep Borehole Disposal. You basically just dig a 3-4 km deep hole, dump about 1km worth of high level waste into it, then fill the hole back up.

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

I'd say definitely the most promising method of disposal. 3-4 km deep holes makes any potential recovery extremely difficult, and the amount of space between the surface and the waste level is so great that peak irradiation of the surface should any material leak out would occur millions (movement of about 200m/1Ma) of years later, and be many times below the natural background rate.

We do have a realistic solution for nuclear waste disposal. The only reason we aren't using it is because some people think we may have a use for all that crap in the future. Sounds to me that they're just hedging their bets.



Sweet - I learned something new today. Thanks for this - I did NOT know of this until today.

[Catfish]

"Deep borehole disposal"
The inner earth is radioactive deep down, but it isn't done with some 4 kilometers of drill hole depth to get rid of radiating stuff.
You need liners and cementation and this whole idea may easily be more expensive than switching technologies all over.
At interesting reservoir dump depthts (interesting, financially speaking because any bit deeper it is not worth the drilling costs) you still have ground water, gas pressure releases, stress - strain cracks in the deeper ground. Guaranteed for the next some 10,000s of years to come ?
Scientists here already thought about that, and gave it up quickly.

But then as long as it's not visible any more lol :up:

Greetings,
Catfish

[Growler]

No doubt, the solution will be expensive - after all, isn't that what free market economies are all about?

From the things I've read so far, deep boreholes, or subcritical reactors look to be good solutions - maybe not great, but good, at least. Certainly better than storing the stuff in big swimming pools under perfectly good water, running lots of power to keep cool.

[ASWnut101]

"Deep borehole disposal"
The inner earth is radioactive deep down, but it isn't done with some 4 kilometers of drill hole depth to get rid of radiating stuff.
You need liners and cementation and this whole idea may easily be more expensive than switching technologies all over.

Eh, as opposed to hollowing out a mountain to put just a fraction of all the stuff, spending countless hours and billions of dollars (We're up to $10 billion USD, and the Yucca mountain site hasn't even been finished yet) in an attempt to do something never before accomplished in human history (building a structure that will not be entered for thousands of years)? I doubt it. ;)


At interesting reservoir dump depthts (interesting, financially speaking because any bit deeper it is not worth the drilling costs) you still have ground water, gas pressure releases, stress - strain cracks in the deeper ground.3-4km is well below the crystalline basement rock and all but the deepest of aquifers (which would be avoided, obviously). There's no ground water to seep up, and the waste would be sealed at the top of the hole before having 3 km of dirt and rock piled on top.

The radionuclide seep rate in the vertical is estimated to be around 200m per 1 million years. You do the math to see how long it takes to reach even the deepest aquifers.

If digging very deep holes were such a problem, we wouldn't have our precious oil to drive our SUVs around, would we?


Guaranteed for the next some 10,000s of years to come ?
Scientists here already thought about that, and gave it up quickly.As guaranteed as it gets for on Earth storage, yes. Only other option that would last longer would be to shoot it off into the sun or out of the solar system altogether, something just not feasible at the moment.

And if anyone really goes looking for and tries to recover the waste, it wont be an accident.

I know some anti-nuclear activists would just like to say "Oh nuclear is evil, there is no solution so we shouldn't even try." Sorry, but we humans are a little too damn creative to just throw the towel in when we hit the first obstacle. For the longest time, space travel was impossible. Look at us now, naysayers. :cool:

[Rilder]

For the longest time, space travel was impossible. Look at us now, naysayers. :cool:

Not doing anything particularly mindblowing on that front in years? :O:

[Growler]

Not doing anything particularly mindblowing on that front in years? :O:

Missed the whole ISS thing, have you? :DL

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Missed the whole ISS thing, have you? :DL
What is so special in ISS? It is basically expanded version of Soviet space stations. First of which was Salyut I in 1971. Ofcourse ISS has more advanced technology but in my opinion it's nothing really revolutionary although certainly evolutionary.

[Growler]

What is so special in ISS? It is basically expanded version of Soviet space stations. First of which was Salyut I in 1971. Ofcourse ISS has more advanced technology but in my opinion it's nothing really revolutionary although certainly evolutionary.

Evolutionary being the point; where the former orbital platforms (Mir, SKYLAB) were essentially launched as is from the ground, and modified by necessity, they were not truly in-flight assembled platforms from components sent into orbit. Also, the other platforms were not hugely multi-national efforts; ISS is. It's "revolutionary" in that its designed intent is to be as near a permanent orbital station involving crew from many nations, rather than an orbital game of oneupsmanship to prove which nationality is technically superior.

[ASWnut101]

...nuclear power, guys. Ah, I knew I shouldn't have said that last bit :O: