U.S. Nuclear Power Plants, safe distance?
Map of U.S. Nuclear Reactor Locations
Given the the nuclear reactor meltdown disaster in Fukushima Japan, and the local area Fallout contamination that is now entering the food chain and water systems there, I have constructed a location map of the current (and decommissioned) nuclear power reactors in the United States.
Without discussing For or Against nuclear power, it may be smarter and a better use of time to learn some lessons from what happened in Japan that led to the the Fukushima meltdown, and to consider the potential risk for those living in the U.S. near one of these reactors – should a worst-case-scenario occur.
The problem at Fukushima: All electrical power was lost to the plant (earthquake – tsunami – backup generators destroyed – battery backup dead). This led to a lack of cooling of fuel rods in the reactors, which then led to a meltdown situation.
The underlying issue was a complete lack of electrical power, power sufficient enough to run the powerful cooling pumps.
Taking a simple look at the risks that may exist around any nuclear power plant, including the locations in the U.S. map above, the worst-case-scenario is always going to be one where the ‘issue’ leads to complete power failure. Without electricity, any one of these nuclear reactors will melt down, just like Fukushima, or worse.
A nuclear power plant being what it is, we would like to think that there is the utmost highest regard and oversight for safety built in to the design, construction, and operation of each one. But still, we had the disaster in Japan.
Israeli Civilian Gas Mask w/ Nato Filter
Not being qualified to asses the nuclear risk of the ‘what if’ scenarios, I still cannot help but think, what if this or what if that were to occur over here in the U.S. for example.
What if a ‘Carrington Event‘ solar flare were to occur, like what had happened in 1859. Astrophysicists know that it WILL happen again, it’s just a matter of when. If an extreme solar event like that were to take down the electrical power grid, and-or damage electronic systems from its EMP effects, how long would it be before any, some, most, or all of these nuclear power plants would runaway to meltdown?
What if a true EMP weapon, or weapons, were to detonate and take down all electrical systems of a region, or wider, what then? Are the backup generators and their associated electrical control systems impervious to EMP-type effects for example? What about the control systems of the reactors themselves, are they EMP proof?
What if the New Madrid fault zone were to unleash a magnitude 9+ earthquake, which geologists agree is possible, then how would the nuclear plants avoid catastrophe at the reactors in northern Arkansas, eastern Missouri, or others nearby?
What if the San Andreas tears loose in California, how will Diablo Canyon and San Onofre handle it?
What if there is an unforeseen ‘physical’ attack on one of these reactors? What can the containment vessels withstand with regards to missiles of various strengths?
What if there is a cyber ‘virus’ attack along the lines of the Stuxnet computer virus that attacked the Iranian nuclear development facilities?
These simple questions led me to create a map of all U.S. nuclear reactors, both operational and decommissioned, so to have a look see where the danger zones ‘might’ be, should a worst-case-scenario occur.
It is difficult to impossible to answer the question, “How far away is a safe distance from a nuclear reactor?”, so I’ve created 100 mile radius zones (200 mile diameter) around each nuclear plant to provide some visual perspective. Yellow zones are around decommissioned plants.
Remember, it’s all about the wind direction too. The prevailing winds in the U.S. are typically from west to east while normally dipping down into the south-central U.S. before bending back up the east coast.
DuPont Disposable Coverall Suit
FULL SIZE map of U.S. Nuclear Power Reactor Locations
Appreciate topics of survival, emergency preparedness – or planning for disaster?
Read our current articles on Modern Survival Blog
twitter: MSurvivalBlog
Facebook
These are power reactors which are not the only reactors. For example, the Idaho National Laboratory (formerly National Reactor Testing Station), is in south-east Idaho. Arco, Idaho was the first city powered by electricity generated by nuclear power. I don’t know of the current status, but there are at least decommissioned reactors in the Idaho desert.
If all of these active and spent rods melt down, what do you think the radiation levels will reach in the US? Where in the us do you believe will be the most sheltered from radiation? Thank you for your diligent posting on this issue…..
The solar flare a few years ago was a X19 and if it had been directed more towards the Earth, there could have been a lot of blackouts to the electric grid, to nuclear reactors especially. This will probably happen again at the next solar maximum, and it will depend on the direction of the solar flare.
New Madrid fault will probably break again when there is an earthquake in the Mid Atlantic ridge zone that is big enough to trigger it. The Mid Atlantic ridge and the New Madrid fault are thought to be connected from the ancient land masses that were once all connected and when the Mid Atlantic ridge moves it puts strees on the New Madrid fault system.
When the San Andreas breaks it will be the duration of the shaking that damages the nuclear power plants in California or it sets off hidden blind thrust faults that are under these plants that people are not aware of. In Mongolia a few decades ago a similar fault to the San Andreas broke and set off thrust faults in the area.
EMP weapon is a terrible risk to the nuclear reactors and the entire electrical system of this country and Canada because it would not take a very sophisticated missile to get a nuclear device detonated into high enough orbit to cause a lot of months or years long fry outs. Some longer range Scud missile launched from some ship off the coast could do this.
What worries me about some attack is the screening processes at these nuclear plants of the employees that could possibly do something to the plants from within, more so than from outside.
The last and probably the most likely type of nuclear reactor disaster would be a cyber attack from some foreign country that is an enemy of the United States. Other countries have the resources and the brainpower of many individuals that are quite capable of bypassing just about any computer system in the world. The computers at these plants are most likely not near as protected as military complexes, and these so called impenetrable military computers have been broken into before by suspected countries like China and others. Look at what Isreal and the US was suppose to have done with the Iranian nuclear plant.
@Anonymous, Great comment – thanks. Yes, the example of the Stuxnet virus that attacked the Iranian nuclear program is a very real and potentially disastrous possibility.
@Ken; Just to bring up a few points but not for the sake of being a contrarian, just for the intellectual clarity. The Stuxnet virus is specifically intended to infect Siemens (the European equivalent of GE)PLCs that are connected to Windows based systems and as such (no, I don’t know the entire electronics configuration of every reactor in the USA)is probably (high probability)not a danger to our reactors as U.S. manufactured systems typically don’t use Siemens units due to their relative cost and odd programming methodology. No Siemens reactor systems are installed in the U.S. Now in all fairness that doesn’t mean there are no Siemens PLCs in them but again the probability is very low as the functional use of them is significantly different than U.S. mfged controllers. Also like the military the mainframe systems are physically isolated form the internet The trail of the Stuxnet indicates some state sponsored (i.e. the Culinary Institute of America along with the International Defense Fund; read between the lines)resources due to the complexity of its function and path of travel through various servers around the world. Its obvious target was Iran’s Uranium centrifuges and it worked quite well, I might add. Again, not to duplicate another post, American reactors will under 99% of all circumstances simply scram (emergency stop/shutdown) and cause no harm and EMP/CMEs will not affect the mechanical and battery powered scram functionality of the scram systems, plus the containment vessel will stay intact. I agree with one poster’s assessment that a ship launched missile would be a danger but not for EMP as a fission-only device will not produce the “total-grid-down” effect of a thermonuclear device. It would be a significant terror threat. Military computers that control significant secure systems (not PCs)are isolated from the net, they are not online. The air defense system at NORAD (showing my age, Space Command)is on mainframes and has no external connection to the outside world like the 80′s Matthew Broderick movie would indicate “Hello, would you like to play Global Thermo-nuclear war?”. WE were also prohibited from using any “plug and play” memory devices, not allowed, even on office PCs. Any devices that are allowed have to be internally sourced and are embedded with a virtual serial number and some authentication code written into the devices, they are very secure. Everyone seems to be of the opinion that every computer is connected to the internet but that is not so in certain government computers and computers that the government deems critical to national security. Decommissioned reactors pose no external danger to people that do not actually visit the reactor site where the contamination actually exist. My 2 cents.
There is a lot of ignorance on this topic, allow me to clear up some important points. I don’t claim to be an expert myself, but I know a fair bit about how BWR (boiling water reactors) at nuclear plants work.
1) When a nuclear reactor “scrams” that does NOT mean it is now safe. The residual heat still needs to be taken away by continuous cooling, otherwise the core will melt.
2) The cooling systems are powered by the electrical grid (i.e. externally). If the whole grid goes down for an extended period of time, the only backup is the diesel generators. These have, at most, 4-5 days of fuel on site. After that fuel is used up, more diesel needs to be trucked or flown in to the site to keep them running… otherwise, the core will melt.
3) In the case of core meltdown, all previous estimates by the NRC and IAEA estimated that only 1% of the radiation would ever leak from the containment vessels. At Fukushima, there were 4 reactors that experienced meltdown, so we got a chance to compare those estimates to reality. It appears that in all four reactors, pretty much 100% of the radiation escaped, not 1%. The design parameters of these BWR reactors was woefully inadequate.
If a large-scale power grid failure occurred due to a solar flare for instance, we would be relying on the continued supply of diesel fuel to every nuclear reactor site affected, until the grid was restored. If the diesel supply was interrupted to any of these plants for any reason, the cores would quickly begin to melt down and it is reasonable to expect a similar result to Fukushima.
I am not anti-nuclear, for the record. There are newer plant designs that have passive cooling systems, i.e. don’t require constant external power supply to keep the cores cool. They are truly “fail-safe.” Unfortunately, none of the U.S. nuclear facilities uses this new design – they’re all similar to the Fukushima design (as far as I know). It is a testament to the arrogance/audacity/greed of our species that these fragile and dangerous reactor designs are still in use 50 years after their initial design.
@Greg; No, really, there isn’t a lot of ignorance here on the topic, and apparently you do claim to be an expert. First, this post is similar to another topic and post where there was a fairly in-depth explanation about the Fukushima reactors. I believe the topic was EMP/CME grid down, you should check it out. Read everything before you sound off. First point, the reactors at Fukushima are not Boiling Water Reactors, they are Pressurized Water Reactors, PWRs, made by GE, and are quite robust and function significantly safer and differently than BWRs, since they only have heat exchanger contact with the steam generator loop instead of direct contact like BWRs. Most U.S. commercial reactors are of this design. There are several hundred in subs, carriers, ice breakers and “research” vessels and they have never had a significant event with them. Second point, due to my previous post mentioned above, I gave an abbreviated blurb here on scramming in this topic so it shouldn’t be considered to be all encompassing. Also there is a unit of DOE, whose sole purpose is to maintain the integrity of reactor sites under any circumstances. These people are DEADLY serious about their mission and they have brainstormed some really bizarre scenarios including EMP. The reactor site integrity is on a very short list of “must be dones” in bad times. I have enough knowledge of it that I have reasonable confidence in it. As far as scramming goes it is not directly connected to the grid, it goes through a backup UPS. They will not have any problem scramming unless there is actually a mechanical failure of the pressure vessel at the time of the scram. If you read the other post, you would know this. Most of the reactors do not operate over 80% due to their age. The pressurizer can be over-pressured to slow the fission process along with boron water injection and the automatic insertion of the control rods at scram. The external steam loop (outside the coolant loop) can also be used as a heat sink to cool it faster than just the standard cooling loop. It can be cooled down to a point below 2000 degrees so that there will be no meltdown of fuel rods, and could be done in some weeks to a month or two. Now this is not an orderly shutdown and the reactor would have to be rebuilt/replaced to run again, in all probability, but it would achieve it’s purpose, to not have an event with the fuel rods, causing a breach of the pressure vessel,much less breach the containment vessel, that’s all that counts. Now, in fairness, if they (DOE) fail to do this, it will melt down, no doubt. Point three, I have no knowledge of what will happen when a core melts down, other than the containment vessel (the big round dome you see at the nuke site)is supposed to, and the engineering math agrees, contain the MAJORITY of the contamination, it will vent over-pressure so that the vessel will not fail. When people wring their hands together and wet their pants over “oh, my God, radiation was released”, the actuality is that Xenon, Radon and Krypton gasses are released to let off pressure and it is misrepresented as a radiation leak. It is an overpressure event and dissipates into the atmosphere. If there were a real breach (there are 4 levels of containment to breach) to the atmosphere there would be Cesium, Iodine and Technetium at significant levels, this hasn’t even occurred in Japan. And comparing the Japanese “containment vessels” to American “containment vessels” is a joke. Did you not look at the videos of the Fukushima disaster? To not realize that they did everything wrong, is indicative of a purposeful dislike of Nuclear Power, or ignorance and there is not any similarity here to what happened at Fukushima. Now, you make the point that there are newer and safer designs. This is true, relative to the fact that the last commercial reactor was commissioned over 25 ya, and designed over 35 ya. Sure, in 25-35 years we have advanced greatly, but we have not designed or built a new reactor since the 70s. It is disingenuous to flaunt new reactor designs when there hasn’t been a new reactor built in the last 30 years. These reactors have served us well. Do they/should they be replaced, yes, but the public listens to the “naysayers” like you, rather than the scientists. I think you are very much the liar when you say you are not “anti-nuclear”, especially when you think that our designs are like the Fukushima designs. This is either purposeful ignorance or just plain ignorance. You apparently don’t know my friend Jack. Enjoy!
TripodXL – My goodness but that was an ignorant post. 5 out of 6 of the reactors at Fukushima are BWRs. Cesium, Iodine, Technetium HAVE been released, and in massive quantities, at Fukushima. Furthermore, uranium and even worse plutonium were ejected more than a mile off-site by the explosions that occurred there. I don’t know where you get your information TripodXL, perhaps straight from TEPCO or the Japanese government?
The Japanese didn’t do “everything wrong,” in fact the US NRC and the IAEA advised the same course of action that the Japanese took. And by any measure the Japanese are better equipped to handle this sort of disaster than we are in America.
To all the casual readers of this blog who are looking at these comments to find more information – IGNORE TripodXL as he is either a nuclear industry shill, or simply quite ignorant and foolish. If you want accurate reporting of what is occurring in Japan, go to fairewinds.com
In several of my Fukushima related articles, I described the reactors there, which are (were) BWR’s. The ‘commenter’ was indeed in error on that point, but let’s refrain from personally attacking though. The comments here are moderated, and if any of them violate the ‘rules’ (which are clearly stated via the link right above where you click-to-comment), they are usually trashed. OK though to point out errors, offer opinion, etc…
@Greg; First my apologies for flaming you. Second what I said would have been correct if I had not mixed up some documents that I had researched on some privileged sites that I have access to, too many windows open and it was late for me ( go to bed at 0730 PM). That, also is my fault. And for those, again I apologize, my bad. However, I do know what I’m talking about when all my ducks are in a row. I take a great deal of pride in my research and analysis. I do not work for the industry as such, nor do I take any orders from TEPCO. I will however, readdress the actions taken by the Japanese. They did do everything wrong, of course neither one of us was on site, so that is really an unknown, it’s only what the Japanese govt. says they did. If you think I was a shill for the industry, do you also believe the Japanese government when THEY say they did “everything we were told to do by the NRC, and IAEA”. You can’t give them the same quarter that you won’t allow me, just sayin. Also, you are right about the ejecta around the site. However, the reactors were not built completely to the specs of GE. GE was ONLY the architect/engineers, they did not build it. After initial negotiations with GE “to build it” the Japanese decided that THEY would build it with GE as consultants, so they could “expand their expertise” (i.e. steal GE technology). They did not ask for help for days, sort of like the USSR. The NRC tried to contact them for days before anyone would communicate with them. While they are not PWRs they are not standard Mark I or II BWRs, they are modified from GE’s design. I am neither ignorant nor foolish. Mistaken, yes, and for that I have apologized. OBTW, there are only 6 of that NOMINAL design in the US. You have to ask yourself, in a country that has a significant contemporary history of tsunamis, how on earth did they not build a big enough sea wall, nor build a waterproof backup generator system, seriously, that should have been a no-brainer. Anyway, survive well.
GE does make BWR, not PWR. and Japan was BWR reactors. I know because I work for GE
@bob; Appreciate your input but this equine was terminated a long time ago, over a year. You’d have to read ALL THE THREAD to see how it all turned out. The BWR issue has been cleared up. Thanks.
Well ???? Ah, Can you say huh?… Ever heard of Arnie Gundersen? Disinformation? Or just Talking for the sake of it? Have you seen the news alerts regarding New England dairy post Fukushima? How about Philly’s Metro water warnings or Boston’s? Oh, and by the way radon is radioactive. Survive-All… and peace out… We’re in this together and there are many points to focus on so lets not waste time…
yep otter. take a search of hawaii dairy. they have been adding boron in various forms to the herds’ feed for months now after seeing radiation leap in their soil and silage. they had no better choice. the worked for weeks on options with the thought that they had to eat and could not afford to just stop taking in dairy. or import that much.
and per arnie gundersen, the pacific northwest got 5 hot particles per day compared to tokyo’s 10 per day. perhaps that had something to do with the 35% infant mortality rate jump in the months that followed 3/11 in the pac nw.
so ken. thank you for the post and the excellent moderation. agreed on the tone and focus.
it seems everywhere east of the mississippi is nuke compromised. getting to the point where we are considering the old folks’ perspective around chernobyl. some just stayed and lived a peasant’s life in a much less populous world. sure their going to get cancer. they are beyond reproductive years though. almost seems like a crime to consider raising kids east of the mississippi now.
thank you again greg and ken and anonymous.
nik
ps. anyone else hear rumor or trial balloons yet about evacuating tokyo?
please do consider the questions of where can we go to survive better both east of the mississippi (for those of us stuck here) and west.
@ nik7d, Greetings from the clan and myself… There are some of us been around long enough to remember the ignorance is bliss life. Of course that ended in the 50′s ( or earlier for some of us. I lived west of the Big Miss. for 26 years. Look up “Otter posts” to get the info. on west of the river. Swore that I’d never move east of the river! So I went with the economy and ended up beyond the east coast. Though I spend much time on Sovereign Tribal land, and Canada is a horse of a different color when it comes to survival… I’m looking to up the Eastern coast and if needed inland and north central Canada if the SHTF. ( Or maybe today We talk of When The Spray starts… ) Good to see a new? commentator, join the clan… Survive-All… P.S. I have family in both the N.W. and in Hawaii… Ugh!!!
I live within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant which is designed to withstand a DIRECT HIT by an F5 tornado with winds of approximately 300 miles per hour. It is also designed to withstand a direct magnitude 6 earth-quake (which would be a major issue in Ohio where earthquakes, especially ones of that size, are VERY rare). You can pretty much design for anything, the issue is “how much will it cost” and “how likely is the event that they want us to design for?” There is very little reason to design American nuclear facilities/reactors to withstand a magnitude 9 earth-quake or a 40-50 foot tsunami.
The plant I live near can also withstand a direct hit from a commercial airliner (i.e. hijacked airliner scenario). Containment is such that I would be shocked if any sort of conventional missile were able to penetrate containment. Containment is 12.5 feet thick of concrete with a biological shield that is 2 feet thick of steel. It is not some flimsy wood or simple brick structure. They take safety VERY seriously.
People who talk about nuclear plants or reactors as though they are ticking time bombs have probably never spent a day at a plant, or even engaged in basic study of the nuclear industry.
If a reactor is shut down the only thing to worry about is residual heat removal (the heat produced by the radioactive decay of the fuel source), which is easily accomplished.
@Bryan. It is wonderful that the Ohio nuclear plant is that protected, but what about the other plants around the country? The San Onofre nuclear plant is designed to withstand a 7.5 nearby, forget about the southern San Andreas as it is too far away, and withstand I believe a 30 foot tsunami. Big problem here is that there is a fault off the coastline that goes from south of San Diego and connects with the Newport Inglewood fault and some geologists say is capable of a 8.0 magnitude if it ever broke entirely. This is a thrust fault that generates tsunamis. There are large deepwater undersea mountain ranges that could collapse and generate even a bigger tsunami on top of the motion from the fault breaking.
I saw a program on this one time and these individuals said that at least a 50 foot tsunami could be generated, way over the wall built to protect the power plant. Also, the wall could be damaged during the earthquake. It should also be noted that around 1812 tsunamis where generated off the coast of California from undersea landslides. In the south Pacific a 7.0 quake generated a tsunami that killed many from an undersea landslide, not the earthquake.
Japan thought they had their Fukushima plant totally protected, and this misnomer lead to what could be the worst environmental incident ever. Over safety for nuclear reactors is necessary and it good to hear that the Ohio plant is that safe, real good to hear. No nuclear reactor is impenetrable though, and if Pakistan or North Korea starts to sell nuclear weapons ever, or some nuclear weapons from the ex-USSR ever get into terrorists’ hands, nuclear power plants would be high on their lists of targets. Terrorism is based on making do with what they have that much worse.
A close enough nuke can go through a missile silo, missile silos are about the most secure structure there is. This is why the U.S., China, Russia will launch their ICBM’s before it gets hit. I don’t think that any nuclear plant is built close to the reinforcements of a missile silo. Also during World War 3, the nuclear reactors would be high priority targets for really large nuclear weapons. The Chinese and Russians are not going to allow the U.S. to generate power in a global war. A global war is always possible as long as countries continue to prepare for a global war.
See that map above, you can probably say that those will be targets in the next global war. There are reasons why Ken made up this chart, because nuclear reactors do pose a terrible risk IF something horrible and unexpected occurs. Someone might live in safety the rest of one’s life, on the other hand IF something does happen, radiation is not fun to deal with.
I know several people who work in the nuclear industry, I have a very good friend who works in maintenance at a nuclear plant, and as for your friend poster, I am presently studying nuclear engineering technology (as in- actively enrolled as a student). I’d like to add a few things about the nuclear power situation…
From what I have learned of nuclear missile siloes via my limited exposure to them (i.e. Ellsworth Air Force Base South Dakota), the typical American nuclear power plant’s containment/shield building is able to withstand a lot more than your typical nuclear missile silo. The silo was not designed with a nuclear strike in mind; since most nations have a doctrine that entails “launch on detection” so the siloes were not built with the idea of having to withstand a direct hit. They were built with the idea that they might have to withstand a near hit of a nuclear weapon or a near/direct hit with a conventional weapon. However, back to my original point, I am confident when I say that a typical nuclear reactor is more “hardened” (if you prefer to use that term) than your typical nuclear launch facility (aka missile silo).
As for my close friend in the nuclear industry, he informs me that typical plant security is very hardcore, usually ex-military, ex-police, armed with (well I won’t go into what they are armed with in the event any nefarious individuals with nasty intentions come across this post), and they are protected/armored with (specifics of their armor will not be discussed- but you can rest safe knowing they are well armed/armored), and most all nuclear plants have an in-house shooting range so they are always able to get range time. They also have a few tricks and aces up their sleeve (hidden bunkers, hardened foxholes, ambush sites, observation posts, etc, in and around the facility grounds).
My friend also tells me that it would be very easy to keep a plant running as long as they have two things, a fuel source and security. Most plants are on a two year fuel cycle, meaning that every two years they do a 30-40 day shut-down for removal of spent or nearly spent rods, a replacement of those rods with fresh rods, critical maintenance that cannot be done while the plant is operating, and the rearrangement of some rods in the reactor core to achieve symmetry in the event they lost symmetry for whatever reason. There’s probably no reason why they couldn’t stretch things out and skip one refueling cycle, if something major had just happened and their refueling outage was coming up, or work with a fuel fabrication facility to enrich beyond the 3-5% that is typical for the American plants (submarine reactors for the navy use about a 20-30% enrichment for a 10 year refueling cycle)…
Anyway, the point is, my friend told me that in a disaster/collapse situation, if about a half-dozen individuals are willing to provide security for the plant, a small team of 4-10 trained personnel can keep the plant operational and producing some level of power for the community, or at the very least keep the plant’s residual heat removal systems running, and he doesn’t ever expect to see every single worker abandon the plant and leave it to melt-down, he expects to see at least some workers banding together to keep the plant from falling apart and melting down and beyond that, to keep the plant operational and producing power to help the community.
Just imagine what a great asset it will be, an operational nuclear power plant turning out 1300-2500 MW of power when the coal burning plant has shut down because the trains stopped bringing coal and the oil burning plant has shut down because the trains/trucks stopped bringing oil and the pipeline went dry. As long as about 10-15 people at the plant can get on-board with the idea of continuing their work, there is no reason any American plant will ever have to be left to slide into a partial core meltdown.
As for myself, assuming I find a position in the nuclear industry, as long as my family is safe and there is no more pressing issue that requires my skills (such as they are), then I would be find with staying at whatever plant I was working at, continuing my work, and keeping the plant operational and safe.
Anyway, in a collapse situation, a well-maintained and still operational nuclear plant will be one of the safest places to be, as long as security is provided/available. The building itself can withstand the 300+ mile per hour winds of an F5, the facility is hardened against a magnitude 6 earthquake, and the facility can withstand a direct hit by a civilian airliner. It would also allow the facility personnel to engage in a lot of bargaining/bartering. If I and 10 other individuals are devoting our time to not only keeping the plant safe, but delivering power that is being used by local farmers, then we would expect that they deliver some food to us on a regular basis so we don’t starve, after all if we are delivering power to them we are helping them keep their farms operating at a level above the “bare minimal” that they would be at without power for their mechanized operations. Keeping a power plant running is a win-win situation for everybody.
I know a lot of people are “off the grid” or have plans to “make do” when the grid goes down, but I’m sure most people would appreciate a steady supply of uninterrupted power in the event of a nationwide societal collapse.
I believe nuclear power is the answer to virtually all of the energy problems that are facing the USA and that will be facing the USA in the coming decades. Every state should have at least one nuclear power plant with an output of 1300 to 2500 MW (Mega Watts).
Looking at that map, I believe that the story it tells is of a lack of nuclear power in some states, and thus a need for new plant construction… In South Dakota, one or two plants, in North Dakota one plant (maybe two), in Wyoming one plant, in Idaho one or two plants, in Montana one or two plants, in Nevada two or three plants, in New Mexico one or two plants, in Oklahoma one or two plants, etc.
In the USA we are burning a HUGE amount of coal for the purpose of generating electricity. In my opinion coal (as cheap as it is) is too precious to burn because it should be used in the production of steel. If we divert American coal from energy to steel production, we might be able to revitalize the dying American steel industry. Also, you may find this interesting, you receive more radiation if you live within 50 miles of a coal burning plant than you do if you live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant.
If you live within 50 miles of a coal fired electrical utility plant you receive approximately 0.03 mrem per year, compared with 0.009 mrem per year if you live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant. That is approximately 330% more from coal-fired than from nuclear. Now .03 mrem is neglible and largely irrelevant, but I thought it was worth mentioning, it just speaks to how dirty coal truly is when it is used as a source of energy.
If you’re a smoker you receive approximately 1,300 mrem, or 1.3 rem, per year. Just for a reference, the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has a limit for annual exposure, no nuclear power plant anywhere in the nation will cause any member of the public to be exposed to any level that is equal to or greater than 100 mrem in a single calendar year from both external and internal sources of radiation in unrestricted and controlled areas.
Thanks for the insight, Bryan. Given your field of education, I would be curious to hear your opinion regarding vulnerability (if any) to EMP. Is it valid to hypothesize an EMP disabling some of the controlling electronics to a nuclear plant, thereby creating a disaster scenario?
With my limited knowledge (just a student, not an actual plant worker), I know that the plants have to be designed to withstand lightning strikes, especially the plant near my location where fierce storms are a common occurrence. As far as I know, the plants have grounding for critical components/systems so that lightning strikes cannot disrupt them, indeed they have numerous hits by lightning each year and operations are not disrupted. I don’t know how the grounding would handle/deal with an EMP though.
My initial thought is that an EMP would probably cause some sort of problem, it might not be an absolute catastrophe but it could easily be “very bad” as far as problems/situations go. I don’t know enough about the safeguards and grounding of the critical components to know how they would hold up to an EMP (as opposed to a lightning strike).
I can run the question by one of my professors sometime in the next week and relay what his answer. I am not clear on exactly what sort of shielding/grounding is used for lightning protection, and if it does or does not carry over into EMP protection. I can make some inquiries with the nuclear professors and then if necessary make some more inquiries with the electrical/electronic professors (I am in a nuclear program and an electronic/electrical program- so I can bounce questions off professors in the nuclear department and the electronic/engineering department).
Most plants have systems that will automatically shut down the reactor to prevent a major issue… Lightning CAN shut down a plant, but it usually takes a lot to achieve such a thing.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1111411/pg1
The plant in the article, that was shut down by lightning, was hit by 24 lightning strikes before a final strike hit the lightning rod on containment and tripped the electronic reactor protection system, thereby shutting down the plant. Even though they sustained 24 lightning strikes and a system was tripped that shut down the plant, damage was limited to an auxiliary system for monitoring reactor coolant temperature.
That’s another thing about nuclear plants, you’ll often read about “secondary systems,” “backup systems,” “auxiliary systems,” they have redundancy like you wouldn’t believe… If they have a primary you can bet they have 4-5 other ways to do what they need in the event the primary fails. If they have an A valve for a system, they’ll also have a B valve, C valve, D valve, and sometimes (not often, but sometimes) an E valve.
The plant in my area had to go down for a few days because one of their transformers (which allows them to draw power from the grid, outside of the plant) went down. Even though they still have their other transformer and their auxiliary diesel generator, the NRC wouldn’t let them operate without BOTH transformers available in the event they needed to draw power from outside of the plant. The point is, they have a LOT of redundancy, for something bad to happen a LOT of things have to go bad at the same time.
They even have to design for ONE design based accident to occur during the middle of a natural disaster. A typical worst case scenario plan might be “what if there is a loss of coolant accident which occurs seconds before an F5 tornado slams into the plant” their design specs have that covered.
They have multiple systems that can deal with a LOCA (Loss of Coolant Accident).
If you’re interesting in learning more (I could go on and on about some of these things, but not necessarily many of these things as my knowledge is limited) you might consider googling “acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light water nuclear power reactors” and seeing some of the criteria they have for emergency core cooling systems.
I cannot see how a Chernobyl could EVER happen in the USA, and at this point people would REALLY have to try hard to make a Three Mile Island happen again (I doubt it could happen again due to all sorts of safeguard systems that were made mandatory for new plants and that had to be installed as upgrades to existing plants, after the TMI incident).
The “worst case” scenarios that I can foresee would mostly involve a plant that has shut down (not actively producing power) losing the ability to adequately perform residual heat removal. Residual heat removal must be achieved even if the plant is not producing power. There’s no such thing as shutting down the plant and walking away from it, never to return. Residual heat must be dealt with, period.
@Bryan; I agree with your assessment that we should build more nuke plants. Just FYI, the 100mREM exposure is for the public, not nuclear workers. I sucked up 100+ mREM one month and had to explain to my boss where it came from, must have left my badge in a room with a source. Easy way to get sent home with no pay. Non-reactor nuclear workers are allowed to get 3 REM per year if memory serves and reactor workers are allowed 5 REM. I’ve been retired for a few years, it may have been changed. Survive well.
Note, I didn’t mean to say or even suggest that a nuclear power plant can withstand a nuclear strike, but it seems to me that the typical nuclear silo may have 2-3 feet thick of concrete, while the typical nuclear power plant has at least 12-15 feet thick of concerete along with 2-3 feet of steel. I believe the nuclear power plant to be a much more hardened facility.
As for terrorists going after a nuclear power plant with a nuclear weapon, I think that is pie in the sky. They wouldn’t use their one and only nuclear weapon to destroy/damage a nuclear power plant located in an isolated area (most nuclear power plants seem to be in counties with as few people as possible). Not that I consider the DPRK (North Korea), Pakistan, Syria, or Iran to be terrorist nations. Different ideologies and complicated governments/regimes, yes, terrorist “rogue states” no. I’m not worried about the government contrived terrorist boogeyman that is frequently touted by the media as the main threat to individual Americans. I am more worried about a reckless and out of control government that seems bent on shredding the Constitution and infringing our rights.
Anyway, if terrorists had just ONE nuclear warhead they would probably use it against Israel or against a major east-coast city (New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC), possibly a major Midwest city (i.e. Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis). They almost certainly would not use it against a nuclear power plant in the middle of Georgia or Mississippi.
I don’t believe that there will ever be a terrorist nuclear incident, there may be a false flag “terrorist” incident, but it will be very unlikely that there will be a genuine terrorist nuclear incident. No state would want to be the one to give terrorists the warhead because they would become the target of massive retaliation. The leadership in North Korea does not want to wind up obliterated as their country gets obliterated via an American nuclear strike, they want to stay in power and pursue their goals, one such goal being the reunification of the Korean peninsula into one Korea. They cannot pursue that objective/goal if they are dead.
There is no such thing as a “rogue state” since all states want the same basic things. All governments want the same basic thing, to stay in power, protect the boundaries/borders of the nation, and pursue the advancement of their ideology and their internal policies. The term “rogue state” is a loaded phrase invented by Western corporate/state media to describe non-western states that won’t play ball with the NWO cabal.
Earlier this year, while looking into the Fukushima disaster (and posting on it several times), and the GE BWR reactors there, I believe that the reactor containment vessels (disregarding the concrete outer shell of the building itself) were built with 6 inches of steel – if I’m remembering correctly. I also recall reading that the majority of US reactors are BWR’s? I’m only saying this to challenge the notion of 2-3 feet of steel as you’ve indicated. That is immensely thick (for steel), and I’ve not heard of that…
Approximately one-third (1/3) of all reactors in the USA are boiling water reactors, and they are made by General Electric.
Approximately two-thirds (2/3) of all reactors in the USA are pressurized water reactors and they were made by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Babcock and Wilcox Company, and Combustion Engineering Company.
Part of the problem with the nuclear industry is that a lot of the regulatory bodies are literally PACKED with people who have no background in the industry and are without even basic education in nuclear engineering/nuclear power. For instance, in South Africa the head of their nuclear regulatory body was a political hack, just a loyal party commissar of the ANC (ruling socialist/communist party in South Africa) who was selected just because she was a loyal party member. She actually stated she was tired of the plant managers/staff treating her like an outside bureaucrat and that she didn’t believe she needed a background in nuclear engineering/power to oversee the implementation of regulations for nuclear power.
The situation is similar but not as bad in places such as Sweden, Canada, USA, etc. In the USA a large part of the problem also centers on unqualified people (usually women) being pushed ahead for reasons of PC feminism. My friend who has spent probably 25-30 years in maintenance at nuclear plants told me he personally knew a female co-worker who was literally given the answers to a test because she had repeatedly failed the test (it was some sort of certification test that was needed to be assigned to a specific sector of the plant).
My friend was basically pointing out that because of political correctness, there exists the possibility that a crisis that occurs at some given plant may have to be handled by people who failed the tests and were finally just given the answers so they could pass.
At some point in time there may very well be a major incident in an American nuclear power plant but it will not be because of some inherent danger in nuclear power or some inherent problem in the nuclear industry, it will likely be because of political correctness and the placement and promotion of unqualified individuals into sensitive areas where they don’t belong. Of course the organized anti-nuclear movement will never see it that way and if even if they did realize what the problem was, they would ignore the issues caused by rampant Political Correctness and instead focus solely on how “dangerous” nuclear plants are.
@ Bryan. Top ten U.S. targets for a terrorist with a nuke.
1. Nuclear power planet.
2. Hoover Dam.
3. Houston.
4. Port of Los Angeles/ Long Beach.
5. New York business district.
6. Washington D.C.
7. Chicago.
8. United States Mint.
9. Port Fourchon.
10. Norfolk, Virginia.
A terrorist is looking to cause more damage with what they have, case in the point the twin towers.
1. Any nuclear power plant in the breadbasket area of the U.S. would be a nightmare getting hit with a nuclear weapon. A terrorist with a small airplane could either fly the plane directly into the plant or drop the nuke on the plant. 10 kt. nuclear device will leave a crater in rock strata of 35 feet deep. The pressure of a 10 kt warhead at 1665 feet is 30 psi, massive steel concrete structures are destroyed at this pressure. The wind at this distance is 670 mph, more than double the most powerful tornado ever. Up to 1566 feet from ground zero 10 kt nuke will vaporize metal, and metal melts at 2215 feet. About a quarter of a mile and anything is toast with just a 10 kt warhead. Even a 1 kt warhead would put a crater 20 feet deep. A smaller nuke to cause the radiation hazard of a huge nuke. I think this is reason enough to be number 1.
2. Hoover dam. Terrorist flying plane into lower portion of dam and cracking enough to cause a collapse behind the 700 feet+ of water pressure behind it. Island tsunami to anyone downstream. California loses 1/4 of all their water. Massive hydro power lost. City around the dam affected.
3. Houston. Tremendous industry of petrochemicals, refining, the space program, very large city.
4. Port of Los Angeles. Tremendous Asia cargo arrival point, cannot underestimate how important to trade.
5. New York business district. Obvious.
6. Wasshington D.C. Obvious.
7. Chicago. Only second to New York in business importance.
8. U.S. Mint. Terrible as it would cause bank runs fear of lack of cash money and Philadelphia is a large city to boot.
9. Port Fourchon. 20% of all foreign oil enters here, reason why this area gets so nervous with Cat 5 hurricanes.
10. Norfolk, Virginia. Massive naval ship base.
This is not giving terrorists ideas either, those that can get a nuke are smart enough to figure out the worst spots to hit the U.S. already.
Again Bryan, do not underestimate the shear power of water around these nuclear power plants that are on the ocean. 50 feet of water can flatten just about anything, and this is the size of a tsunami that can be generated under the right conditions off of California.
By the way, you sure have a lot of good knowledge about this subject. Maybe in the future you could comment more on other subjects, I personally love it when there is an intelligent conversation on matters and the more the merrier as there are some pretty bright people that frequent this site, reminds me of the days back in college.
I’ll reply in detail to those points, point by point shortly. For now, I’ll just say, a small nuclear device, what you speak about, a 10 kt device, I don’t know if a near hit would destroy a nuclear power plant. Keep in mind that there were bank vaults that were intact in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and we’re talking about bombs that were 18kt (little boy) and about 21kt (fat man). I don’t know how thick/hardened those bank vaults were, but I doubt they were 12-16 feet thick of concrete and 2-3 feet thick of steel. I realize that damage was pretty intensive right at the impact point/ground zero, I don’t know what impact a near hit from a small nuclear device would have on containment and/or the shield building.
I know that very little can be done about a direct hit (short of a deep and well-constructed bunker, and even that is no guarantee), but I don’t know how effective a small device with an inaccurate delivery system would be against containment/shield building. Not to mention, if you try to approach a nuclear power plant from the air there are probably protocols in place for scrambling interceptors.
I wouldn’t be surprised if plant security might even have access to man-portable shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, but I won’t speculate on that and if I knew they had them I wouldn’t confirm it online or talk about it… Suffice to say, it is said that secret service has them to protect the president from aerial/air-based threats, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised if nuclear power plant security teams had one or two man-portable air-defense weapons, such as the Stinger.
I know if I were in charge of setting policy for plant security, I would make sure at least two guards on every shift are qualified/certified to operate some sort of shoulder launched SAM.
I would hope the bureaucrats in the NRC and the folks at ATF would recognize the value in having shoulder-fired SAMs available to defend nuclear facilities and thus allow plants to have access to such weapons systems if they wish to have them. I know a bit about some of the small arms that nuclear plant security has available, but I won’t comment on any of that because good guys aren’t the only ones with internet access.
I don’t know if most terrorists would know where to aim the plane. I imagine most would aim at the cooling tower as the cooling tower is typically the most recognizable feature of your typical nuclear power plant. They’d also be doing flying the plane while nervous and under pressure, they might miss the facility and it would be a near hit, which might not compromise the integrity of containment/shield building.
Is the US Mint really that high priority of a target? How much new money do they put into circulation? Also, that’s just one mint, right? There’s other mints across the nation, right? Not to mention the Federal Reserve handles printing the money, don’t they?
@Bryan. A direct hit I do not think anything could withstand from even a 10 kt. warhead. I do not think they could get anything up in the air fast enough and any small plane is not viewed as a threat. It can be done, sadly enough. The mint being hit would have a deep psychological effect on the whole country and the economics of the U.S. in whole. The country is already on edge from the economy, such a hit would crash the stock market, maybe for years. There are 3 other mints of course. Hitting Philadelphia, Denver, or San Francisco would have other impacts also as they are large places of population.
Other possible targets would include Atlanta because of the CDC and the largest airport. Pittsburgh because of the steel industry. Dallas because of size and business importance. St. Louis because of it being a major transoportation hub and junction point for the midwest. Huntington, West Virginia because of it being the largest river port in the country, especially for Ohio industry. There are of course other places, but these top 15 would probably be one of them. Houston would be an awful target as the chemical release from the petro industry would be catastrophic.
@Bryan; You are correct about the defenses at the nuke sites. I know a number of guys at the DOE and they are a no BS bunch. They are high speed and tight (military for badasses). Even more so than the GENERAL military. These guys are bad and they are WELL armed, nothing lacking. Also as you tried to explain, while a nuclear detonation presents significant overpressure, the containment domes at nuke plants are YARDS thick and the rebar, if you’ve ever seen it will blow your mind. Not 1/2″, 1″, 2″…it is 6-8 inches in diameter with 4-5 yards of concrete thickness and coated in steel. This is the difference between our nuke plants and Fukushima’s containment. It would literally take a nuclear device, up close and personal, to defeat it. Survie well.
Check out this article I wrote for Survival Blog-
http://www.survivalblog.com/2011/05/a_guide_to_chemical_warfare_pr.html
American survivalists should be MUCH more worried about the chemical industry than the nuclear energy industry. If I had to make an estimate of how many people have died (worldwide) from chemical industry negligence/accidents since 1980, I would say the low estimate is about 10,000 with a high estimate of perhaps 20,000. That is in addition to about 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 being heavily sickened by the chemical industry.
The disaster in Bhopal India saw approximately 2,500 dead within minutes of the release of the isocyanate chemical. Short of a nuclear weapon/explosion, there’s basically no way for a nuclear disaster to cause 2,500 deaths within minutes. I guess you could cram 2,500 people inside containment during a core melt incident, that would probably do it, but why would those people be there? The people most at risk in nuclear incidents are the plant personnel and the emergency workers responding to the scene. Even with TMI (Three Mile Island) the releases to the general environment/public were incredibly negligible. Even if a nasty Chernobyl situation were to occur, it might result in a 10-20% increase risk of certain types of cancer.
If a major accident occurs at a chemical production plant, it is possible that an entire community could be killed within minutes depending on what agents/chemicals are involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
With nuclear incidents, it is very rare for people outside of the plant to be put at risk. With a chemical plant, any moderate/major problem will generally put the nearby community in immediate danger/risk.
@Bryan. I read that article about chemical weapons and chemical disasters and there are some excellent points in there, I mean Excellent. Everyone is talking about getting Assad in Syria and yet they don’t realize the chemical capability of the Syrian arsenal of chemical weapons. IT AINT GOING TO BE LIKE LIBYA OR IRAQ WITH SYRIA. VX gas scares the hell out of me and any dictator nows knows to stay in power they must possess something to stop or slow down advancing armies when they are outnumbered.
By the way I believe that nuclear power is a good energy and should be safely used. I did read that fuel for nuclear plants has a 30-40 year supply, about when oil will run out. Don’t know if this figure is correct about nuclear fuel, maybe you could verify this. Again, that was really an interesting article, people just do not know how toxic chemicals are.
I don’t know what the world reserves are in regards to uranium, but so few countries use uranium, so there ought to be enough to go around, even though uranium is far more rare than crude oil. Although we don’t have to use explicit nuclear fission to obtain power. We could use radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which provide heat via the radioactive decay of the fuel element.
The Soviets had a program where they made somewhere around a few thousand small generators, a lot using Strontium 90 and some using Cobalt-65 (I believe they used Cobalt in some of them), although they failed to properly dispose of a large number of them. Every so often people find some metal object in the woods somewhere and they get very sick after going near it.
I believe it was in Georgia (former Soviet Republic, not the US state of Georgia) where one Strontium based generator had been discarded in the woods, and three men who were walking from one village to another saw that the area around “the metal object” -as they described it- was free from snow and as they approached it was very warm so they slept next to it for the night. The three also carried the sources on their backs and they wound up becoming very ill. The army had to bring in a team of specialists to cover the reactor and then prepare it for transport and each man was only allowed to work next to the reactor for about 60-90 seconds before he had to leave the area and let the next man in the work crew take over.
Basically what happened when the Soviet Union collapsed was that a lot of people stripped the generators of their shield metal because it was valuable as scrap metal, and they tossed the unshielded generators into the woods, swamps, hills, just dumping them throughout the countryside. If I had to make a wild guess, there could be at least 500 and perhaps as many as 1500, radioisotope thermoelectric generators, scattered throughout the countryside of the nations of the former Soviet Union.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull481/pdfs/rtg.pdf
Oh, addressing the EMP issue. My professor answered the question I posed to him about the threat posed by solar flares or other possible scenarios that might cause massive electrical interference in the form of an EMP. The primary/major systems inside the shield building are all grounded.
The shield building itself essentially operates as a shield against electrical interference, it is a steel+concrete jacket and when the airlocks are sealed the building is sealed from the outside world.
The professor was of the view that the operations of the plant would not be impacted by an EMP, solar flare, or any sort of electrical interference. He did concede that there was once an issue caused by a lightning strike because the people who did the grounding had done it improperly, grounding the wrong system to the wrong location. But, the system in question was not a primary system but an auxiliary one.
Plants are often struck by dozens of bolts of lightning in single storm situations, and as long as the grounding was properly done, there are no issues. Indeed I can only think of two or three instances where a plant had an issue, and none of the issues involved primary systems.
The threat posed to nuclear power plants by an EMP is probably very minimal, especially if the device is detonated far away.
Thanks for your leg-work on that Bryan. On another vein, I also wonder about a ‘stuxnet’ virus type issue… I suppose we we’ll never know until if and when it ever happens.
That would probably be covered under the “safeguards” issue and that information is closely guarded. You’d need to be in security or probably senior plant management, with the accompanying security clearance, just to have access to the information, and even then only if it was applicable to what you do at the plan. They have physical security, that much is known to all, and I would imagine they have cyber/electronic security as well, but I don’t know much about that.
I have only limited education/training in IT and I would think that one way to avoid a virus would be to make sure none of your critical systems or systems directly connected/linked to them have outside/internet connections. Computers dedicated for plant operations really don’t need to be online anyway, probably not. It’d be difficult to get a virus if the virus has to be physically introduced to the system.
@Bryan & Ken; the crux of that problem is that systems get upgraded and a lot of times the upgrades come via some physical transport involving a data carrier. The data carrier is infected with an almost genetically specific virus and stays nice and quiet til it finds the environment it was intended for. It is speculated that this is how the stuxnet virus arrived in the nuclear fuel processing centers in Iran. They purchase a lot of their stuff from Europe and in Europe Siemens is their GE. In the case of the stuxnet it was looking for Siemens PLCs…and found them. The PLCs would control all of the mechanical functionality of the Uranium processing AND they ALL talk to each other on a modified token ring “like” proprietary network. I f the system is designed as such and Siemens typically does this, is that all the PLCs talk to each other so that when there is a firmware upgrade, it can be “pushed” from one central controller. Voila, completely infected. Several years ago, the Air Force realized that all their computer systems were getting infected with “thumb drives” and other removable drives. Now only ISSUED drives and thumb drives can be used and they have security programs imbedded on them to prevent infection. Bryan is correct about having isolation from the internet, that is how basic security is achieved in the military and other government systems. DOE is more fanatic than the military about this. Survive well.
All, I think there’s a valid point being missed here. Total destruction or even breaching the containment vessel isn’t needed to cause nuclear catastrophe. Simple malfunction of the cooling systems is all that is needed. A small bomb in a water intake would suffice to get the reaction started. This is what traditionally causes all nuclear plants to melt down. Bank vaults aren’t a good comparison; they don’t have radioactive material that needs CONSTANT cooling before the core MELTS THROUGH the containment vessel finishing off what a very small mishap with a much smaller conventional explosive could do to the cooling system. Please don’t try to educate me on rods that can contain the reaction, etc.. They are mechanical and fail. Look up nuclear disasters on wikipedia–there are a lot more than you hear about. Until we have fusion which uses elements that have a VERY short halflife we should discontinue fission based nuclear reactors as they are completely unsafe and they create waste that we have no way to contain. Do you know of any containers that last 60,000 years??? Neither do I.
All nuclear plants depend on MECHANICAL devices to avoid meltdown in a coolant loss situation therefore they are ALL ticking and highly fragile bombs.
Gerard, your comments/remarks fall into one of two categories… Remarks made out of your ignorance or remarks made with an agenda counting on the ignorance of the general public/masses in order to be accepted as valid.
You state that- “simple malfunction of the cooling systems is all that is needed. A small bomb in a water intake would suffice to get the reaction started.”
“To get the reaction started” what do you mean by that? It is IMPOSSIBLE to cause a nuclear explosion at a nuclear power plant. You could take five hundred nuclear scientists/engineers, along with dozens of military nuclear experts and they could not cause a nuclear explosion at a power plant. Power plants use U-235 enriched to about 3-5%, which is well below the level needed for a nuclear explosion. Weapons grade uranium is enriched to around 95-98%, while the lowest threshold for a “low grade” weapon would be around 35%. The most you will ever see for enrichment would be about 15-20% enrichment for nuclear submarines, especially with the old Soviet navy as they did not like to do refueling for their submarine reactors (refueling entails cutting open the haul of the submarine, cutting through containment, removing the old fuel bundles, putting new ones in, then welding things back together- America does this, the Soviets never really did this, they just enriched to about 20% so that their submarines were good for 20-25 years and they were just decommissioned when the fuel reached the end of the line).
As for your remark that “one small bomb could take out the cooling systems” which system?
There are MANY ways to deliver coolant into the reactor pressure vessel.
High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS)
Low Pressure Core Spray (LCPS)
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)
There is also Stand-By-Liquid Control which can dump borated water into the core and thus stop all fission as boron is a neutron poison.
Remember that in 2003 there was a MASSIVE blackout in the Northeastern USA, parts of the Midwest, and into Ontario… This blackout caused about a dozen or so nuclear plants to experience a LOOP, Loss Of Off-site Power, meaning they had to rely on their own emergency generators to power safety systems… Some plants had to deal with this problem for 3-4 days, yet there was not a single problem or any threat to the public.
When you talk about a “small bomb” disabling the coolant systems you are admitting there are multiple systems… So which system would they disable?
A “simple malfunction” in the cooling system has never resulted in a “melt-down” anywhere.
Fukushima was due to a massive disaster that was beyond what they had built/designed for, which washed away the diesel tanks that held the tens of thousands of gallons of diesel necessary to power the safety systems once the plant scrammed (shut-down) and had no access to off-site/grid power. In the USA, for the most part (I cannot speak for every nuclear power plant as I have not been to every nuclear power plant) the standard is to keep the diesel tanks buried, not exposed above-ground.
Chernobyl was due to massive human error combined with the fact that the RBMK reactors were an inherently unsafe/dangerous/unpredictable design and the fact that the Soviets realized they could save 50% on each plant by not building containment and not building a shield building. Soviet standard operating procedure, in the event of a build-up of pressure in the reactor, was to vent (irradiated) steam into the environment/community because it was decided that the reactor/plant was too important/costly to risk and that irradiating citizens was not a major issue. Chernobyl is purely Soviet, it could only have happened in the Soviet Union or a country/culture with a similar disregard for human life. Chernobyl would NEVER have happened in France, Switzerland, the UK, or the USA.
Three Mile Island was due to poor training and the operators inability to recognize and identify a loss of coolant accident for what it was. This could NEVER happen again in the USA due to automated systems, redundant systems, back-ups to those redundant systems, tremendous improvements in training (as in 18+ months of training just to be a non-licensed operator working in the plant, 18+ months of training/classes just to be allowed to sit for an RO- reactor operator, exam, and requirements that each Reactor Operator/Senior Reactor Operator spend X weeks per year in the simulator… Usually it is 1 week every 5 weeks has to be spent in the simulator).
For hostile individuals/terrorists/invading commandos/paratroopers/whatever/etc, to cause a melt-down they would need much much more than “one small bomb” and they would need unrestricted/unhindered access to the plant, for multiple hours, and they would need to know their way around the plant, and know how to electrically AND mechanically disable about 7 or 8 different systems.
US and Canadian nuclear plants have very well trained security teams that are very well armed/equipped. They are subjected to tests by military special forces teams that try to gain entry into the plant… As far as I know not a single special forces team has ever made it into a radiologically significant area (meaning an area where they could cause damage to the plant, steal radiological materials, put the public in danger, etc). At the plant near where I live the most the special forces teams have been able to achieve was to penetrate the first fence, which is the basic security barrier to keep out the general public, and make it to the outside of the general plant building (this is not radiologically significant and they could not harm the public from that location).
They’ve never made it into the control room or the shield building.
If special forces teams cannot pull it off, I doubt that jihadist terrorists would be able to manage to do such a thing.
So not only would they have to be able to overcome the security forces (something that special forces have been unable to do), they would need to know how to identify the crucial systems/controls, how to operate those systems/controls, and then how to electrically and mechanically disable various systems, all of which are redundant and can draw power from various sources.
So in short, no, the nuclear power plants are not “ticking time bombs” waiting to destroy the communities in which they are located.
Your characterization of nuclear plants/reactors as “fragile ticking time bombs” is either erroneous (spoken out of your own ignorance as to the facts) or it is a deceptive remark made due to an anti-nuclear agenda. Whatever the case may be, your remarks are unfounded and incorrect. They have no basis in fact.
Additionally,
Other nations (such as France) manage to find the political will to recycle/reprocess spent fuel and use it again and again. As for the storage of waste, Yucca Mountain was a very viable option and remains a viable option (in terms of being viable from a technical/physical perspective, politically it has been killed by politicians who probably do not know that the cooling towers release water vapor and NOT steam, certainly not irradiated steam, nor that fission and fusion are different things). These politicians have no business regulating an industry that they know absolutely nothing about.
I bet if you asked Obama to “tell me about those fusion reactors in Japan and how they melted down” he would make some silly remark out of ignorance rather than correcting you and stating, “you mean fission reactors, right? nobody has a fusion reactor, yet.”
Most people are afraid of things they do not understand. Ultimately it boils down to a question of whether people want to sit in the dark, burn coal, burn natural gas, burn oil (which is already expensive enough), rely on heavily subsidized and poor performing wind power (because it cannot compete without massive subsidies), or use nuclear power which is cheap, easy, and safe.
The so-called green lobby, which today is merely a front for the wind industry, doesn’t talk much about solar, all they talk about is wind and how nuclear has to go. That’s because there isn’t much profit for mega corporations in solar, solar is mostly about individual households/farms getting off the grid. The mega corporations cannot make billions off of solar like they can with wind. Hence the co-opted and controlled green lobby pushes a pro-wind anti-nuclear agenda even when they know wind power cannot compete on the same level and it is horribly inefficient.
For individuals/country farms/people looking to get off the grid, solar may be an excellent answer.
For industry and for cities/suburbs, nuclear is the way forward.
If we want to stop burning oil, which is really too precious to burn for the sake of producing electricity, then we need more nuclear plants. We also need more oil refineries, but due to massive regulations they cost several billion dollars each and take years to build and bring online. Since they also reek beyond imagination, few people want one in their area. We have a massive refinery capability in this nation but it still is not enough… We need all oil resources devoted to petroleum and petroleum products, we cannot afford to squander oil by burning it to produce electricity.
Wind power is beyond laughable, it takes up a huge amount of land… There is a wind farm in Texas that sits on 600,000 acres of land and produces an underwhelming 700 MW (Mega-Watts) of power. Compare with any given US nuclear plant which has about 1,000 to 1,500 acres of land (most of which is for security/buffer reasons) with each reactor producing around 1,300 MW (Mega-Watts) of power.
Also, given that you cannot get something for nothing, wind turbines are doubtlessly impacting the climate in their areas… When you remove kinetic energy from the wind and convert it into mechanical energy or electrical energy, you are lessening the wind, changing a storm system. To my knowledge it has not been properly investigated or documented but I have no doubt that the rise in massive wind farms in states such as Texas, such as that 600,000 acre wind farm in central/west Texas, contribute to and even cause draughts down-wind.
Some others are asking similar questions-
http://www.gardenridge.net/wind-turbines-changing-weather.htm
The largest wind farm in the world goes online in Texas and then BAM the worst drought in Texas history…
Why? Because nothing is free, energy is neither created nor destroyed, it only changes forms. Potential energy to kinetic energy… Chemical energy to electrical energy, etc…
When you use the wind to create power you are taking energy out of the storm/system, thus you impact what happens down-wind of where the energy is taken out of the storm/system. Kinetic/wind to Mechanical and/or Electrical… It is not free, it has an impact.
It’s not exactly my area of study/focus but I would strongly suspect that if you were to build millions of wind turbines across the Western states, you would soon see a drought of Biblical proportion.
Actually it seems that a fair amount of people, indeed experts/scientists, are raising the alarm about the threat posed by windmills.
“Large groups of power-generating windmills could have a small influence on a region’s climate. All large wind turbines disrupt natural airflow to extract energy from wind.” Science Daily
“Results from climate modeling studies by myself and others suggest that large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate.”
David Keith
University of Calgary
“Researchers are investigating the potential for large wind farms in one region to alter weather patterns in another region downwind.”
Washington Post
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/07/can_wind_farms_change_the_weat.html
you forgot a decommitioned one in Washington. Located in Satsop, Washington to be specific.
Did anyone happen to notice the UNCANNY way that this map inversely resembles the post 2012 Navy and Edward Casey maps of America? I mean, the only anomalies seem to be decommissioned (like Colorado) and those situated around the great lakes which I would assume would be subject to flooding at least short term in most disaster situations that proceed the longer lasting changes shown in the maps. Perhaps I a simply crazy, maybe my accusers are correct
, but could that be, say…… hmm… planned?? Having the in areas where there will be an influx of water seems obviously planned since upon catastrophe they would be cooled (as they did at Fukoshima with the pumping of the water and the helicopters etc) and the meltdown would be of course devastating but the radiation would be contained within the water instead of whatever horrible things happen if there isn’t water? I am not as well versed or an expert (obviously) as you guys are. But I know the maps and when I saw the above map I saw the Navy maps inverse. Just saying…. 
All things mechanical or made by man have room for error. Nothing is perfect. Radiation scares me. Sorry but it just gives me an uneasy feeling. No matter how many facts and figures you give me to tell me how safe it is, history proves otherwise. You cannot control the forces of nature or man. Nothing is 100% perfect.
Wind turbines, I believe may have done something to our weather and they take up farming land. Just like the craziness of using corn to make ethanol!!! That is idiotic. Using corn crops is using food for fuel when oil is available, just like enviromentalists have shut down our access to it!
I agree with texas girl.
What would be safe distance for city from a ship using nuclear propulsion. Here in San Diego, US NAvy ships are berthed within a mile of populations of >25,000 people.