Observing the nuke power issue in the US

[Growler]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Growler

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.

Originally Posted by Torplexed

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.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

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

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

Originally Posted by Torplexed

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]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

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.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

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]

Originally Posted by Catfish

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.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

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.

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.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Growler

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]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

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.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Growler

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]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

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.