Skip to main content

Correcting Misleading Comments by an Anti-nuclear Extremist

In a comment to a post below, Paul Gunter of the extremist antinuclear organization NIRS, completely mischaracterized the reasons behind and the effects of shutting down plants prior to a hurricane. A very knowledgeable colleague of mine, Howard Shaffer, who spent many years working as a systems engineer and who has tangled with Gunter previously, sent me this explanation:
If the grid is lost suddenly, a plant will scram and go on to the diesel generators, as designed and tested. Emergancy Core Cooling is not needed, since there is no leak. This feature is by design choice. It is possible to design nuclear power plants, even the large ones, to have a loss of the grid, and keep running to restart the grid. This makes for a more complicated and expensive design, since when the grid is lost, and the plant is at full load, and the plant is to keep running, the 4.5 million horsepower must go somewhere for a few seconds until reactor power is cut back. A design like this is not optimum in the whole grid system, since other types of plants can be and obviously are designed for black start and reenergizing the grid. Hydro plants are ideal for this. I started up Ludington Pumped storage in Michigan, which was designed to do this. We tested it to prove it could, and it was made an annual drill for the Operators.

As I recall, Vermont Yankee was originally designed and built to take a loss of the grid at full power, (full load reject) but this capability was dropped, I think based on upgraded reactor analytical results. The steam hardware was not removed, but of course the Reactor Protection system was made to scram on full load reject.

Plants are shut down in advance of anticipated grid loss (as from a hurricane) because of the conservative operational philosophy of never depending on Safety Systems to do a function that can be done without them.

The statement is completely mixed up when Gunter talks about operating off the grid for "Backup and Safety Systems" When Safety Systems are needed, the reactor is shut down, so it won't be making electric power. Conservative design assumes loss of the grid at the same time - i.e. the scram of the reactor and subsequent trip of the generator CAUSED the loss of the grid. Thus there is an emergency power supply with 100% backup, at least.
Technorati tags: , , ,

Comments

Paul said…
Lisa and Howard,

"Extremist" ...hmmm... now that's a relative term.

I suppose Lisa that you would be referencing my arrest record for trespass during the occupations of the Seabrook construction site,(Howard,didn't you profile non-violent anti-nuclear activists for Public Service of New Hampshire?)

and BTW,this very day, Rosa Parks is being brought into the Capitol Rotunda as a result of her once thought "extremist" actions during the civil rights movement. Very courageous, man or woman, to refuse to give a white person your seat on a bus anywhere in the South in those days.

Howard, I havent seen you since the PBMR senate briefing with Andy Kadak... Exelon dropped that one like a hot potato... good reasons.

Anyways, the unnecessary tag lines led me to digress from the original point of this discuss. What's so misleading about fact that U.S. nukes can't put the lights back on after a blackout?

In fact,as Howard points out that would make for "a more complicated and expensive design," chiefly from the safety risks I would say.
How abouty those "advanced" designs?

With regard to the reference to Vermont Yankee being originally contemplated for blackstart, there is the Vernon hydro-electric dam right there on the Connecuticut River which I think is more likely the reason.

There is also nothing misleading about the fact the OSREs typically seek to quickly put a unit into Station Blackout by taking down the transmission lines, first or simultaneously. The fact that a nuclear power plant's operation is umbilically dependent on a very long, brittle and unprotected transmission lines is an outrageous energy policy with its chin out post-911.

Paul, NIRS

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…