Nebraska Nuclear Plant Flood Defenses Tested 168
mdsolar tips an article at the NY Times which begins:
"Pictures of the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant north of Omaha, Neb., show it encircled by the swollen waters of the Missouri River, which reached a height of nearly 1,007 feet above sea level at the plant yesterday. The plant's defenses include new steel gates and other hard barriers protecting an auxiliary building with vital reactor controls, and a water-filled berm 8 feet tall that encircles other parts of the plant. Both systems are designed to hold back floodwaters reaching 1,014 feet above sea level. Additional concrete barriers and permanent berms, more sandbags and another power line into the plant have been added. The plant was shut down in April for refueling and will remain so until the flood threat is passed. 'Today the plant is well positioned to ride out the current extreme Missouri River flooding while keeping the public safe,' Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor Dricks said on an agency blog this week. But a year ago, those new defenses were not in place, and the plant's hard barriers could have failed against a 1,010-foot flood, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission contends in a yearlong inspection and enforcement action against the plant's operator, the Omaha Public Power District."
Been hearing rampaint misinformation about this... (Score:5, Informative)
Two weeks ago people on the Internets here (in other forums) were talking about how the plant had basically already melted down and that Obama had ordered a news blackout of the plant to conceal mass evacuations that apparently had already begun! All of this to protect his "green jobs" initiative.
Well, guess what? I live in Omaha. There's no meltdown. No evacuation. No flooding at the site.
OPPD's official rumor control page:
http://www.oppd.com/AboutUs/22_007105 [oppd.com]
OPPD flood blog:
http://www.oppdstorminfo.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
OPPD's Twitter page:
http://twitter.com/#!/oppdcares [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those are the only kind of boots that fit the reptilians, what do you want them to do?
Re: (Score:2)
The aquadams are cool. And they were probably filled by using the plant's own electricity to pump the water's own water from the river's own river to negate the flood's flooding ability.
Nuclear power FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Doesn't worry me in the least.
OK for now (Score:2)
While I expect they have the flood thing handled, what gives me pause is when I looked up how many nuclear sites there are (440 roughly) and how many major disasters have occurred (chernoble, TMI and now Fukishima). So a quick calculation says if I have a plant within a few miles of me, there is roughly a 1% chance in a typical lifetime that my home will be un-inhabitable for the next 100 years or so. I'm not a big pro or anti nuke guy. Actually I was sort of positive on them until I considered the probabil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I expect they have the flood thing handled, what gives me pause is when I looked up how many nuclear sites there are (440 roughly) and how many major disasters have occurred (chernoble, TMI and now Fukishima). So a quick calculation says if I have a plant within a few miles of me, there is roughly a 1% chance in a typical lifetime that my home will be un-inhabitable for the next 100 years or so.
TMI did not make any private property "uninhabitable".
Be that as it may, yes, a 1% per lifetime risk of maj
Re:OK for now (Score:4, Informative)
Well yeah, that's what happens when you consolidate production. Comparing accident rate per plant (implicitly equating one nuclear plant to one coal plant), is basically the same as saying hundreds of people die when a plane crashes while only a few people die when a car crashes, therefore cars are safer. You're ignoring the fact that planes move a lot more people in fewer trips / there are a lot fewer homes around the perimeter of nuclear plants than other types of power plants for an equivalent amount of power generated. If you correctly account for the amount of power generated:
The U.S. has just 65 nuclear plants (104 reactors) with 101 GW nominal capacity. That's an average of 1550 MW per nuclear plant. Nuclear capacity factor is about 90%, for an average 1400 MW production per plant.
The U.S. has 1493 coal plants with a nominal capacity of 335.8 GW. That's an average of 225 MW per coal plant. Coal has a capacity factor of 60%-70%, for an average 135-158 MW production per plant. A single nuclear plant is equivalent to 9-10 coal plants.
If you assume 1 MW wind turbines @ 20% capacity factor, that's an average 0.2 MW production per turbine. A single nuclear plant is equivalent to 7000 1 MW wind turbines.
If you assume 15% efficient PV panels (nominal 125 W/m^2) with 18% capacity factor (typical for desert southwest), you get 22.5 W/m^2 average production, or an average 22.5 MW production per square km. A single nuclear plant is equivalent to 62 square km of solar panels.
So if you want to compare cost, risk, and environmental impact equally, you need to compare a single nuclear plant, to 9-10 coal plants, to 7000 1 MW wind turbines, to 62 sq. km of solar panels.
Re: (Score:2)
great post!
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing accident rate per plant (implicitly equating one nuclear plant to one coal plant), is basically the same as saying hundreds of people die when a plane crashes while only a few people die when a car crashes, therefore cars are safer. You're ignoring the fact that planes move a lot more people in fewer trips / there are a lot fewer homes around the perimeter of nuclear plants than other types of power plants for an equivalent amount of power generated.
So nuclear is safer because it when it goes wrong radioactive material is released so no-one wants to live near it?
Nuclear power stations are run for profit, and like every other area of business that means that sometimes safety isn't the number one priority. That was the problem at Fukushima, they defences should have been better and TEPCO was told that, but failed to act. Air France didn't replace pitons quickly enough when advised to and they lost an aircraft. Railtrack didn't do proper maintenance and a train crashed. Why would a brand new nuclear plant be any different?
Your numbers for wind and solar are way off. The Rice Solar Energy Project in California is going to produce around 150MW in 5.7km squared. It works 24/7 too BTW, so accounting for maintenance capacity will be at least 90%, probably more since the system is much simpler than nuclear. 150MW per plant might not be that impressive next to a modern reactor but on the other hand they are simple, cheap, don't need any fuel, don't create any waste and if one goes catastrophically wrong you end up with some steam and molten salt leaking out. They last longer than nuclear plants and you can re-use the site with minimal clean-up, there is no need to situate them a long way from civilisation and in the US you have more than enough space for lots of them.
Re: (Score:3)
"people on the Internets" have said a lot of things. Who cares? I didn't read that the plant had meted down and I have been following this closely.
I am as assured by OPPD's public face as I am by TEPCO.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about a classic straw man.
Feet above sea level? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Feet above sea level? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a bit of a bizarre measurement for river waters, no? Makes it sound at first glance that it's under 1,007 feet of water.
Why not the height above the normal crest? It would make it a bit easier to visualize that's for sure.
Saying that the flood is at 1007ft of 1014ft capacity of the walls makes it sound a lot more scary that saying its at 7ft of the 14ft walls. It's nothing but anti-nuclear fud. The whole story is designed to make it hard to visualize to make it scarier.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the plant itself sits at 1004 ft [omaha.com] above sea level making the wall 10 ft high and they used to be less than 10 ft. So saying the water is at 3 ft up a 10 ft wall is a bit different still. But since most all of Nebraska is at 900-1000 ft above sea level, there's lots of room for the muddy Missouri to spread out rather than up. Nebraska is THE flattest state I have ever seen. Not that 10ft walls really inspire confidence in me when it comes to Nuclear power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be worse. They could say it was 3,069 decimeters over sea level. Not only is it a bigger number, but it also gets stupid people to associate it to the word "decimate".
(Remove 10% of the population 3,069 times and... you're left with a population far closer to zero than to one.)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit of a bizarre measurement for river waters, no? Makes it sound at first glance that it's under 1,007 feet of water.
Yeah; my first thought was "WTF sort of measurement is that? Maybe I should rewrite it giving the elevation above the Moho [wikipedia.org]." Anyone know offhand how deep that is below Omaha?
I've seen other uses of "height above sea level" for locations in the middle of a continent. I always wonder what they're trying to hide/distort/exaggerate with they do that. I tend to doubt that the writer's original sources used that base.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone says the flood will reach 1010 feet. Your foundation is at 1009 feet. You know what to do.
Someone says the river will crest 8 feet above normal. You go "what's normal? at what time on what day do they measure normal? how high is 8 feet above that where I am?"
I like their idea better. It's a lake in the middle of town, that's all you need to visualize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They've got to measure it against some baseline. MSL is commonly used in civil engineering for all sorts of things. It's not someone trying to make it sound scary, it's just a common usage.
NYT article fails to mention recent incident (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds like everything worked as designed.
A fire happened an automated fire suppression system put it out.
Re: (Score:2)
and the fuel being cooled in a pool whose circulation was controlled by that switch never got hot before they restored circulation
Re: (Score:3)
The main story can be basically summarized as;
Engineers internally and externally saw a trend of rising flood waters, and went to work on a plan to strengthen defenses. Plant management and the regulatory body had a difference of opinion, and so they lobbed paper back and forth for awhile before deciding on the current plan, which is working. Naturally, everybody has a problem with the system working and the plant remaining safe.
*headdesk*
How long? (Score:2)
As I understand it, the issue in Japan was that, while the reactor scrammed automatically when the earthquake was detected, the rods still need time to cool down before they cool enough to no longer require power to cool.
How long does that cooldown process take? Or do even "cool" rods still require power to remain cool?
Re: (Score:2)
The Ft. Calhoun nuclear plant has been offline for some time now.
Re: (Score:2)
Weeks, when the rods are somewhat depleted and due to be replaced. Months, if they're new. And after those weeks, they're still not cool enough to be moved offsite, which is why there's a cooling pool (not a static pool but one that circulates its water to cooling towers) nearby the reactor to hold them for months (after they're swapped out for fresh fuel rods) while they decay to a level of self-reactivity that doesn't generate enough heat to damage themselves if they aren't continuously cooled.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes less time to cool them down when they're new than when they're old.
Big issue for cooldown is the fission products that build up in the fuel rods from normal use. Some of them are short-lived, some long-lived, some in between.
The long-lived stuff doesn't produce much in the way of decay heat.
The short-lived stuff produces a lot of decay heat, but not for long.
The medium-term stuff is what comes into play w
pictures of the Ft. Calhoun plant? (Score:3)
hmmm. I didn't see any pictures on that NY Times page.
just because (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
This isn't 'the truth'. That doesn't exist in the world of governments and nuclear technology. At least not to us peons.
What this is, is nothing but another attempt to assuage brain-dead, Fox News-fueled, unfounded fears of a nuclear disaster at home.
The fact is, the plant is SHUTDOWN. There is no reaction occurring. There is undoubtedly hot material, but it's under control. This is never going to turn into a situation like Fukushima Daiichi. Ever. It just can't.
Also, a couple feet of water leaking into a p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that the plant is shutdown is irrelevant. The real danger is the spent fool pools which require active cooling - which relies on the constant availability of electricity. The river is at 1007 feet above sea level - expected to rise another 5-7 feet this summer. The NRC approached the plant a year ago and told them their flood contingency measures were not up to snuff. They argued for quite awhile, but finally relented and installed some, IMHO, barely adequate measures that may or may not save the p
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The real danger is the spent fool pools which require active cooling - which relies on the constant availability of electricity.
No no no.. FAIL!
Spent fuel ponds only require that they have water in them. You can do that with a freaking dingy and a portable pump if you want to.
The real danger is if you have a flash flood and the plant is running or has been recently running (eg. within a few days). So, what is the chance of a 1020ft. flash flood in the location when water levels are less than 1000ft.?? Exactly.
The river is at 1007 feet above sea level - expected to rise another 5-7 feet this summer.
So if it rises to 1020 level then what??
This is FUD because it attempts to compare Fukushima and a 50 ft. tsunami vs. a flood
Re: (Score:2)
Of course If it happened in 1927 there is no way of avoiding it close to a century later as there's no way anyone could have learned any lessons. No, if there is ANY chance of the worst occurring, IT WILL HAPPEN!!!
</sarcasm>
Long term flood (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Last few"? Apart from Fukushima, which was caused by the combination of Japanese "safe-the-face" morality and one of the biggest earthquakes to ever hit the human race, just what are you referring to? A disastre which has killed, this far, one Chinese man for overdosing on Iodine tablets in a panic, and two from the tsunami, and none whatsoever from actual radiation - that is, the nuclear plant itself.
You fearmongers want us
I don't let my children (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can your children tell the size of squares?:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-of-coal-marketing.html [typepad.com]
Which one is bigger? Now which one does the media talk the most about? Does that make any sense?
FWIW, even rooftop solar kills more people per terawatt-hour than nuclear. We know mdsolar has seen those stats, as he's been pointed to them many times. Yet he only posts stories about nuclear, while ignoring the coal and oil elephants. Why? Because he can profit more
Re: (Score:3)
It gets you closer to the Guy in the sky?
Re: (Score:2)
It gets you closer to the Guy in the sky?
So does blacklung.. RETURN;
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Woot mdsolar is posting another article about nuclear power to spread more FUD!!!
OK nutcase - go find an article that paints nuclear power in a warm, rose colored blush. That's what Firehose is for. Unfortunately, nuclear power is not getting very good press and for very good reasons. The engineering isn't all that it is cracked up to be and isn't at all what it needs to be. Even with the 'new' flood guidelines, the plant in TFA is only seven feet from breaching the walls. With a billion dollar plant hanging in the balance, I'd like just a bit more breathing room.
Again, it's not the long term waste problem that's going to kill commercial nuclear power (although that is a big issue that we're not handling well). It's going to be bad engineering decisions pushed on staff because of economic considerations. Short term gain, long term pain.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a trickle over a berm or barrier is far less water than the 10-ft instant flood at Fukushima. I'm sure a simple sump pump would be adequate to remove water and keep most systems operating at full capacity...except that the plant is SHUT DOWN. As in NOT REACTING.
Sump pump? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Fukushima reactor #4 was shut down and still caused big problems"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_heat#Power_reactors_in_shutdown [wikipedia.org]
Read up on decay heat; there's a huge difference between "shut down an hour ago" and "shut down a month ago".
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
But that is the forecast - 5-7 feet rise this summer.
Besides, TFA says that the original state of the plant was only good for 1008 above sea level - it is now at 1007 and rising - that is the thrust of the article. They were not prepared and may still not be.
What about Cooper? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
" The engineering isn't all that it is cracked up to be "
what the hell do you base that on? Fukashima with stood 10 times bigger earthquakes, and tsunami, and the island dropping 1 meter.
Again new designs of nuclear plants do not have a long term waste problem. Also, they can burn older waste we currently have.
I don't even think you know how little nuclear waste we have, how it's stored, or even the classifications of nuclear waste and what they mean.
You are an ignorant person whose ignorance spread FUD.
",
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
By "with stood", do you mean it is still visible? Because I don't think that having melt throughs at three reactors, loss of cooling of the spent fool ponds, and huge amounts of radiation leaking into the ocean due to leaks from the external water desperately being applied to be "with stood".
Re: (Score:2)
There were no melt throughs at Fukashima, there were melt downs of the core but these all were contained. See the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log [iaea.org].
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8565020/Nuclear-fuel-has-melted-through-base-of-Fukushima-plant.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
If you're getting your news filtered through the brain of a journalist just pulled off stories of cats in trees to report on Fukashima you suffer from their inability to understand the technologies involved. The first lines of your link are: "The nuclear fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has melted through the base of the pressure vessels and is pooling in the outer containment vessels, according to a report by the Japanese government.
Re: (Score:2)
Between Fukashima and Monju [japantimes.co.jp], the Japanese nuclear industry seems to have some long term, pervasiv
Re: (Score:2)
island dropping 1 meter.
Not picking on you in particular but I don't buy that. If Japan really did drop 1m then vast areas would be under water right now. The tsunami was a wave that rushed in and then back out again, and beaches are pretty much were they were before.
Similarly the idea that the whole place moved 8m horizontally doesn't seem to stack up because in the days afterwards I was able to get an accurate position from the GPS in my phone. I don't recall my friends having to update their sat-nav software either. The margin
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's going to be bad engineering decisions pushed on staff because of economic considerations.
Well, unfortunately all of the good engineering decisions, like shutting down plants before their designed lifetime suggests and replacing them with new ones, have been blocked by public hysteria along the lines of, "No new nuclear anything ever!!!!!"
So, yeah, great thing that "wisdom of the masses."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with that, the whole cost-cutting thing really is stupid and short-sighted.
Honestly though, we have power plants that are 30-60 years old and are full of highly dangerous material, and we've had a handful of accidents. I think that's a tribute to the engineering of the time. I don't see why we can't build plants just as good, if not better. It should be highly criminal to do otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you anti-nuke people are friggin stupid.
I live in Omaha, 11 blocks from the river, about 20 miles south of the plant, and am not concerned in the slightest about the OPPD nuke plant causing issues. I get far more radiation every day from the coal-fired generator plant about five miles away. I like that even less. With the insane amount of water in the river right now, even if it did breach the spent fuel pools (fool pools as another poster mistakenly said), the radioactive material would be so diluted wi
Re: (Score:2)
Amen brother! I grew up in Kearney, blocks from the busiest rails in the world (At least the country, not fully sure on that), Lost several friends and relatives to odd cancers. (Does the same line go through Alliance? I'm not sure to tell the truth, but I've been there and there's a lot of tracks there too.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah: "nuclear power plant working perfectly fine as planned" doesn't make the news.
You know, as the majority of them do, year after year, decade after decade. It's just not very exciting, you know? Not like Three-Mile Island, or Chernobyl, or Fukushima? Except, of course, that Three-Mile Island didn't blo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah: "nuclear power plant working perfectly fine as planned" doesn't make the news.
You know, as the majority of them do, year after year, decade after decade.
There are plenty of nuclear failures all the time [greenpeace.org], but of course they are not publicized. America reactors are known to contain unreported defects [readersupportednews.org]. Meanwhile areas around threatened reactors in the USA have been declared no-fly zones. You don't do this unless it's actually dangerous, or you have something to hide, or both. You know, like when they declared the entire gulf to be a no-fly zone in an attempt to hide the extent of the devastation... and of the spraying of dispersants, which occurred at a level
Re: (Score:2)
No, of course not. If there are failures, it means nuclear power is unsafe, and if there aren't any failures, it means that they are kept secret. Perfect logic.
Greenpeace has zero credibility concerning nuclear power, and frankly anything else either nowadays. Don't bother linking there; they've been caught lying too many times. Even their own founder thinks they've gone nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, oddly, this doesn't seem to cause any drama. Strange. It's almost like they were... safe.
Almost, but not quite. Remember how we treated DDT or thalidomide before we admitted they were evil?
Meanwhile areas around threatened reactors in the USA have been declared no-fly zones. You don't do this unless it's actually dangerous, or you have something to hide, or both.
Or you think some nut might be planning to ram an airplane into the plant. Which seems more likely than someone trying to hide what goes on under a roof from airplanes.
Nobody said anything about airplanes figuring out what went on under a roof, but since you don't know what you're talking about you jumped straight there. I'm talking about atmospheric monitoring. Have a nice day in lackofimaginationland.
You know, like when they declared the entire gulf to be a no-fly zone in an attempt to hide the extent of the devastation... and of the spraying of dispersants, which occurred at a level vastly above what it should be. No-fly zones are for hiding malfeasance, barring long-running ones above airports and test sites.
And this has to do with nuclear power exactly what?
You're not really this dumb, right? You're just trying to make it look like I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about? The point was to prove that our government u
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't evil, they are potentially dangerous chemicals, and both are still being used.
Atmospheric monitoring? And, pray tell, what did these supposedly monitor that cou
Re: (Score:2)
Or corporations.
I am not anti-nuclear, but corporations have a history of scrimping on engineering and safety when they can.
Personally, I'd like to see the US start building Thorium reactor to be maintained and ran by the government. remove the bonus, shareholders, board and all the profit motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
You are using the WRONG term to make your point: "Publicly Owned" means that there are stockholders; anyone from the public can buy their stock.
However, OPPD is a privately-owned company, although you can invest with them by buying OPPD bonds. See http://www.oppd.com/InvestorsFinance/index.htm [oppd.com] for more info.
Just like the confusion caused by the term "non-profit company" - the only thing that means is that they cannot be "publicly owned", which is a confusing term simply meaning that publicly-traded stocks c
Re: (Score:3)
No, OPPD is owned by the state of Nebraska. From their web page (http://www.oppd.com/AboutUs/Company/22_000593):
On Dec. 2, 1946, the state legislature created the Omaha Public Power District, a political subdivision of the State of Nebraska, which acquired the properties operated by the Nebraska Power Company.
They sell bonds to borrow money as do many other government agencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, interesting. I did not realize that. You have indeed taught me something, thank you. I always thought the "Public" part of the name was because it provided power to the public.
But, I became myopic while trying to make my point about "Publically Owned" companies. So we both get to share half a point on that one. :)
Dammit, I can look out my window now and see the OPPD building from here. But that still doesn't make me right, just embarrassed about what I thought was true about OPPD. Big duh for me...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not in Nebraska so I don't have any first hand dealings with them. A lot of "publicly owned" or "non-profit" entities seem to be operated for the benefit of the management, not the public. It would be interesting to compare how OPPD works compared to, say, Pacific Gas and Electric (they cover Northern California), which is a for-profit utility owned by stockholders (but regulated as a utility). We used to like to call them Pigs Greed and Extortion.
soulskill posted this (Score:2)
You've been corrected (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, what is really killing nuclear power is the cost and the fact that it can't be built (at least in the US) without government subsidies. When you include the lifetime costs nuclear is one of the more costly ways to generate electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
When the technology has the capability of rendering tens to hundreds of square miles uninhabitable in the case of a major malfunction I'd rather err on the side of over-regulation.
Fortuitously here [koomey.com] is a recent analysis of why the nuclear industry hasn't built any new plants since the 1970's. It's not peer reviewed but it does reference authoritative sources.
I'm not your stalker :) DaveV0.1952
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand slashdot taking lame submissions from techie magazines and such; presumably they're getting something for it, whether it's cash or (more likely) simple referrals and linkbacks.
But why this crap? Mdsolar is known here. He's just a guy with a bent agenda. He's made it clear in his comments that he won't take correction, and ignores any facts that don't fit his ideology. What does slashdot get from taki
You need to be corrected (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about stats?: Historically, rooftop solar kills more humans per terawatt-hour than nuclear. I know you've seen the source data.
NRC chair is concerned (Score:2)
Ad Hominem and Confirmation Bias (Score:2)
So, what you're saying is that, no matter what it says, you won't read any article which mdsolar links to, and anything which doesn't fit your view of the world must be FUD?
The first is the fallacy of Ad Hominem, while the second is the error of Confirmation Bias.
I'm basically pro-nuclear, but as a nuclear supporters, I think it's important for nuclear supporters to be the nuclear industry's biggest critics. Nuclear power can only be a good thing for mankind and the rest of the environment if we have a heal
Re: (Score:2)
mdsolar has a history of posting articles on nuclear power filled with ignorant FUD. Why should Lunix pointing this out be a problem for you?
You are "afraid of an industry that fights every safety requirement". I've watched the US nuclear industry smother under the anti-nuke crowds avowed tactic of death by a thousand cuts. They discovered early on that by pushing as every safety regulation they could imagine onto the pile that they could block the creation of newer, safer plants. It's not a question of saf
Re: (Score:2)
Source? Oh, right, media black-out. The absence of confirmation is clear proof.
Re:1010-ft flood? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how saying the "above sea level" water height is useful at all. Maybe to make the article sound scarier? When I sell my house I should market it as "able to withstand floods of up to 5000 ft above sea level [wikipedia.org]!".
Re: (Score:3)
It's how engineers speak, in absolute, Globally discrete values, not localized relative ones. Well, except the ocassional NASA engineer, and we know how it turns out for them.
Sea level is used so everyone is on the exact same page.
Three feet over flood stage at location A maybe 9 feet above flood at Location B, just a few miles down stream. 1010 feet above sea level however will be 1010 feet above sea level anywhere on the globe.
Our local rivers and lake operate at 216 feet above sea level normally, and a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Another. [washingtontimes.com]
The story from the plant operator [oppd.com]
The root cause of Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - especially in this case is the lack of information. The reactor is apparently on level 4 alert (accident with local consequences - this alone should have made the news at least in Nebraska), has had a fire, has had a no-fly zone extended over it since June 6 - the reason given is "the flooding". The first I heard of this was on June 17th - stumbled across it by chance while looking up information on nucl
Re: (Score:2)
They won't, because they don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain.
Re: (Score:2)
That didn't happen at Fukushima, either. They lost both grid power and their internal diesel generators.
Nuke plants should have bicycle-powered pumps as a third source of coolant flow.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not Bicycle per-say but I did think after Fukishima that they should have a giant gear and clutch system somewhere.
Tear apart your nearest semi-truck, rip out its drive shaft and weld it in. Assuming the clutch wasn't knocked out (or assuming you couldn't beat it with sledge hammers until it engages) it seems like an easier fix than getting particular electrical systems to talk to one another.
Sometimes a mechanical solution seems like it would be the best most warranted solution just as a final last
Re: (Score:2)
It might take 10 semi engines to drive the necessary generating power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your house is at 1006 feet above sea level, you want to know the water's getting to 1007. Just saying "it's a 7 foot flood" without saying the baseline is pointless. And in a flood, a few inches makes a big difference. One more course of sandbags can be the difference between zero loss and total loss.
Re: (Score:2)
So, do you know anyone who actually knows how high above sea-level their house is? Other than people who live along the beach, I mean....
Re: (Score:2)
Google Earth is your friend. So is the Army Corps of Engineers. Who have a lot of rivers to deal with, so letting them work in absolute units makes their days easier.
Re: (Score:2)
where do you suppose TFA got its data? would anyone other than the CoE pay any attention to sea level in Minot, North Dakota?
or you could google for it. i did. it's all over the summaries of the links:
http://www.google.com/search?q=corps+of+engineers+flood+feet+sea+level [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I do, 487 feet.
Re: (Score:3)
Granted, I understand that most people here would view a newspaper in Pakistan as not the most credible source for news, but I believe this newspaper to be a credible one, and they do not appear to be in the business of conspiracy theories.
âoeIf youâ(TM)re still living under the delusion that the TSA is just restricted to airports then think again. A joint VIPR âoesecurity exerciseâ involving military personnel has Transportation Security Administration workers covering 5,000 miles and three states, illustrating once again how the TSA is turning into a literal occupying army for domestic repression in America."
"But, with an already documented 35% increase in the infant mortality rate for American mothers living in the west
Re:Shoddy Japanese work... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, actually they didn't ... Until the goverment started fining the ever living shit out of them about a year ago ... Had this happened last summer, the plants barriers would already be underwater and it's still rising.
I'm not anti nuke, I'm pro actually, but had they not have been spanked hard over the last year, they'd be in trouble.