Tsunamis and Nuclear Power Plants (you should probably read this)

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/123004W.shtml

Tsunamis and Nuclear Power Plants
By Russell D. Hoffman
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 28 December 2004

More than 60,000 people are dead. Bodies wash ashore in a dozen countries. A train, loaded with a thousand passengers and their luggage, is swept away, engine, tracks, and all. Cars, trucks, buses, and boats are pushed more than a mile inland by the rushing water. Some of the waves were reported to be 40 feet high.

The ocean in San Diego, 1/2 a world away, rose 10 inches. It IS a small world, after all.

The "sea wall" at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ("SONGS") in Southern California is 35 feet tall, and about 35 years old. It could not have withstood Sunday's worst.

San Onofre's twin reactors were theoretically designed to withstand an earthquake up to 7.0, which is 100 times smaller than a 9.0 earthquake. Although a 9.0 earthquake is considered "unlikely" near San Onofre, it is hardly impossible. In addition, the size of the earthquake doesn't necessarily relate to the size of the ensuing tsunami. Landslides triggered by earthquakes, asteroid impacts, and volcanic eruptions can generate waves hundreds of feet tall.

Why did we build nuclear power plants near the ocean, anyway, where they are susceptible to underwater and surface attacks by terrorists and other belligerents? Because nuclear power plants need enormous quantities of water for their cooling systems, and water - especially in the western United States - is usually difficult to find except along the shoreline. The outflow from a nuclear power plant is always slightly contaminated with radioactive particles, and sometimes severely so; people don't want to drink that. So they put the plants near the oceans whenever possible.

Don't worry about tsunamis, they said - we've built you this puny little wall. Don't worry about asteroid impacts - they hardly ever happen. Don't worry about tornados or hurricanes. Don't worry about human error. So, society agreed to these poisonous cauldrons of bubbling radioactivity - these behemoths of death-rays ready to burst - these sitting ducks on our shorelines.

...more...

[quispquake]

1. Thanks Will...

I'll sleep OH SO MUCH better tonight :)

[Goathead]

2. There is a nuclear power plant in No. California

That was built right on a fault line. It is in Arcata I believe.

[Shakespeare]

4. They closed it down in 1978.

It's been out of commission for over 25 years.

[Goathead]

21. It is still dangerous

"Humboldt Bay's storage pool contains about 15,000 fuel rods. Each rod in turn holds nearly 200 uranium pellets."

and apparently they are having trouble cataloging their spent fuel rods.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/17/BUGROACUAU1.DTL&type=printable

[pmbryant]

3. Earthquakes seem to be the real concern with San Onofre

The author's concerns about earthquakes and San Onofre appear legitimate, but the tsunami concern appears way overblown. Also, his call at the end to shut down all nuclear power plants is completely out of place in this article. As most, of course, do not have the same earthquake vulnerabilites.

--Peter

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. The most innocuos looking structures survived Sunday

way overblown indeed. I can assure you a seawall and the reactor would both have survived.

[vpigrad]

8. Think it through

You're being way too optimistic. That's what kills people.

Don't look at the strongest part of the structures. You're right that some of them are still standing, but look at them in their entirety. Windows, doors, electrical conduit, plumbing, and so on are much weaker than the structural concrete, which is all you're looking at. I saw a tremendous amount of damage to buildings during Hugo that wasn't structural. In the apartment building where I lived, the owner spent over $40k per (small, 1,200 sq ft) apartment in repairs even though it first appeared that other than a few broken windows and ripped-off shingles, there wasn't any damage. Water does damage you would never think of.

Also, if the corrosive and very conductive salty water makes it's way over the wall in a nuclear power plant, it will wreak havoc. Think about shorting-out safety systems and long-term corrosion. Salt water weakens reinforced concrete due to rusting of the rebar. My boss's house at the beach recently collapsed probably due to corrosion started in 1989 during Hugo from salt water that came in contact with the reinforced concrete supports while it was under construction. You're thinking too short-term. You're right that the building will still be there, but what about the very important other components of the plant?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. Good point about optimism, but I am an architect

and we (and engineers) are duty bound to think of the worst possible scenarios.
Believe me. This reactor would have been fine.

[Cleita]

6. So as I am looking at the ocean from my living room window,

my thoughts turn to the El Diablo nuclear power plant fifteen miles north of here. Before the California energy crisis engineered by our Prezidunce's buddies at Enron, these plants were scheduled to be eventually closed and El Diablo was only producing 10% of its capacity. Thanks to the devil's own in our USA and in our government, it's climbing back to almost full capacity.

I can't help but thinking that some of the budget surplus created in the Clinton years could have used to develop solar energy, being that sunshine is something we have an unlimited supply of in the West.

[Liberty Belle]

7. Thanks from San Diego.

One more reason for nightmares now. Nuclear plants are particularly crazy in California, where a)we are prone to earthquakes, and b)our weather makes solar power extremely feasible.

I've seen stats indicating that outfitting moderate numbers of new homes with solar would eliminate the need for more power plants; retrofitting older buildings would enable us to get rid of hazards like San Onofre.

Miriam

[shance]

9. Ah, but then who would profit from no power plants?

You are right. Its what we need to be moving towards and I would love to hear more about the information you are talking about.

And part of it means moving away from solely a profit(greed) based system that exploits and abuses our natural resources.

If we don't move away from such a system we will eventually implode.

[idiosyncratic]

16. There would be profit from production of all those solar panels

I know, that isn't as ongoing as the profits to power companies, but a good solar system would create another kind of job.

My neighbor has many solar panels and a bank of batteries for backup.

The batteries require some maintenance and I was thinking if there were whole neighborhoods with solar-powered homes, someone could start a battery-maintenance business (like the hot tub and pool maintenance people) for not-handy, or too-busy home owners.

It is a service job, but I'd much rather do something like that than flip burgers.

[Liberty Belle]

18. Here's the info on solar power

This is an excerpt from a piece on energy-saving measures that I wrote for Living in Style Magazine last year:

SOLAR POWER: YOUR HOTTEST PROSPECT

Imagine paying just $5 a month for electricity. Sounds impossible?

Hundreds of thousands of American homeowners are doing just that, after installing residential solar systems to generate their own electricity.

With a solar electric system, your home produces electricity on sunny days and sends any excess electricity back into the power grid. You get credits from your utility company for every kilowatt hour (kWh) produced. On cloudy days and at night, you draw electricity from the grid, using your credits. If your produce as much electricity as you use in a year, you pay only the minimum charge for having a meter (about $5 a month in most areas).

Options include solar panels, photovoltaics (PV), or the newest option: solar roofing tiles, such as those made by Sunslate.

“The beauty of this whole roof integrated product is that it looks terrific…I had a project where the building inspector came out,” recalls Rich Castillo at Old Country Roofing in San Jose, a company that installs solar roofing tiles throughout California and neighboring states. “He called and said, `There is no solar roof.’”

Devoting 400-500 square feet of roof space on an average 2,000 to 3,000 square foot home will accommodate a 2.5 kilowatt system—enough to meet the average household’s yearly power needs.

The cost of installing a system ($20,000 to $25,000) can be largely offset through rebates and tax credits averaging $7,000 to $10,000 in California. The remaining net cost ($13,000 to $20,000) can be recouped through energy savings in 7 to 13 years, or sooner if you sell your home, since every dollar invested in a solar system raises your property value by $20.

“So if you save $1,000 a year on energy in your first year and the value of your home goes up $20,000, you are already $7,000 ahead on a system with a $13,000 net cost,” Castillo notes. “I believe that you will always get your money back, plus.”

The government strongly encourages investment in solar. The California Energy Commission currently pays rebates of $3.20 per watt for homes and up to $4.50 per watt for businessese. California also has a first year 7.5% state income tax credit for residential solar systems. Commercial businesses can qualify for an additional 1% federal investment tax credit, plus five years of accelerated depreciated.

Borrego Solar Systems advises its customers to finance solar PV electric systems through home equity loans, then deduct over $7,900 in interest with monthly payments of only $87. The company website estimates the average homeowner will save $49,000 in energy costs over the life of the system AND add $14,600 to the resale value of the home.

Installing your own solar system also protects you from future utility rake hikes, allowing you to lock in electric rates for the next 30 or 40 years or so (the estimated life of a solar system).

Solar power has other benefits besides saving you money. Solar reduces U.S. dependence on fossil fuels (including foreign oil) and lowers production of carbon dioxide (a cause of global climate change). In addition, Castillo points out, “If 135,00 homes a year installed just 2 kW of solar on each house, you would eliminate the need to build a new 65,000 megawatt power plant.”

Solar can even reduce the risk of terrorism in the U.S., Castillo believes. “If terrorists could attack a nuclear plant, they would create tremendous devastation,” he concludes. “Our best defense against an attack on centralized electricity is to decentralize it and minimize the effect that terrorism can have on our power grid.”

[left15]

19. Do you own a toaster?

You said "Devoting 400-500 square feet of roof space on an average 2,000 to 3,000 square foot home will accommodate a 2.5 kilowatt system—enough to meet the average household’s yearly power needs."

2.5kw /120V = 21 Amps of power

Unless my math is wrong, your saying the average house runs on 21 Amps? I have e 200 amp service. Sure I dont use all of it all the time, but my microwave is 1600 watts, and my toaster is 1600 watts. You couldn't run both, not to mention AC.

Solar is a nice thought, but at the moment it dosen't work very well.

Here are some energy numbers I found in another post that give a better ideal of the energy we use.

The post talked about replacing all of our oil usage with something else.

Barrles per day of oil used in US 20,000,000
Barrles per year 7,300,000,000
btu/yr 42,340,000,000,000,000
KW Hours per year 12,409,144,196,952


Nuke Plants current in use 101
total KW hrs per yr 7.28E+11
Avg KW/plan/yr 7,207,920,792

nuke plants required to replace oil 1,722

SQFT of Solar cells required to replace oil (5 W/sqft and 12 hr per day) 720,792,079,208

number of roofs covered with solar cells (1200 sqft each) 1,201,320,132

[Liberty Belle]

22. You are mistaken.

The average home could meet 80% of its electricity needs with a 2-kW system; a 2.5 kW system would be adequate for a large home.

For details, see "How to Size a Grid-Connected Solar Electric System" from the Better Buildings Series at www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31688.pdf

You may also be interested in this:

U.S. Department of Energy
Million Solar Roofs Initiative


Million Solar Roofs is an initiative to install solar energy systems on one million U.S. buildings by 2010. It was announced by President Clinton on June 26, 1997 in his speech before the United Nations Session on Environment and Development. This effort includes two types of solar technology -- photovoltaics that produce electricity from sunlight and solar thermal panels that produce heat for domestic hot water, space heating or swimming pools.

The U.S. Department of Energy works with partners in the building industry, other Federal agencies, utilities, energy service providers, the solar energy industry, financial institutions, state and local governments, and non-governmental organizations to remove market barriers to solar energy use and develop and strengthen demand for solar energy products and applications. The Initiative does not direct and control the activities at the state and local level nor does it typically pay for the installation of solar energy systems. Instead, the Million Solar Roofs Initiative brings together the capabilities of the Federal government with key businesses, state and local governments and organizations and focus them on building a strong market for solar energy applications on buildings.

Goals
Reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions. In 2010, with one million solar energy roofs in place, the Initiative could reduce carbon emissions by an amount equivalent to the annual emissions from 850,000 cars.
Create high-tech jobs.By 2010, approximately 70,000 new jobs could be created as a result of the increased demand for photovoltaic, solar hot water and related solar energy systems through the installation of one million solar energy systems.
Keep the U.S. solar industry competitive.By increasing the domestic market for solar energy, increasing domestic production and reducing the unit cost for solar energy systems, the Initiative could enable U.S. companies to retain their competitive edge in the worldwide market. By 2005, the photovoltaic market alone is expected to exceed $1.5 billion worldwide.
For More Information
By Phone: Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse 1-800-363-3732
On The Internet:www.MillionSolarRoofs.org



What are Photovoltaics?

Photovoltaics Q&A

Million Solar Roofs Initiative

PV Fact Sheets

Consumer's Guide to Buying a Solar Electric System (pdf)


Get FREE Adobe software to work with Adobe PDF files

[Tinoire]

10. Thank you Will. Haven't said thank you to you in a long time but

thank you. This is one of those things many of us don't even want to waste time arguing about.

[TO Kid]

11. This guy is clueless

I do take issue with the claim that the wastewater from nuke plants is contaminated. This is completely false and destroys the credibility of the whole article. At any rate, any sesmic event or asteroid impact that could be capable of producing 100ft waves will cause far more damage than any nuke plant could produce.

[pmbryant]

Good points

The article reeks of someone trying to latch his cause (shut down nuclear power plants) onto an unrelated news event.

--Peter

[satori]

12. Unfortunately 99.9% of all Americans ignore the nuclear dangers

I find it rather strange nuclear technology is clearly one of the most dangerous things to ever come into our world and for the past 60 years 99.9% of Americans just ignore the issue, as if it does not exist, and could care less.

I was a nuclear weapons protester and my research into it clearly shown facts that should of been on the front page of every paper in the world, and discussed by politicians daily, but nothing.

[catmandu57]

14. San Onofre has always been trouble

They had it shut down when I lived there 22 years ago, it was leaking, I thought it was decommissioned, but i see they're still using it.

[Pithy Cherub]

15. Cheery reading Will.

That is not too far out the front door for me. People around here think the Marines will save them because right behind it is Camp Pendleton...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. ". Although a 9.0 earthquake is considered "unlikely" near San Onofre, it

Actually, it is pretty close to impossible, as the type of fault (strike-slip) in that part of California isn't known to be able to generate earthquakes that large. AFAIK, nothing close to a 9.0 has been recorded on a strike-slip fault. If anyone happens to know of one, I'd like very much to hear about it.

[Tacos al Carbon]

20. "these behemoths of death-rays ready to burst"

Another sad case of journalistic suicide-by-hyperbole.