Skip to main content

A Question of Priorities

Anthony Rogers is thinking out loud about some incidents that took place over the weekend.

Technorati tags: , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Greetings and good night,

This blog about the LaSalle "site area emergency" being such a success story... whadaya expect?

Let me just add this bit to the story---

Local police did not know the nuke was at its 2nd highest level of emergency classification as the local first responders, until about 4 hrs later around the time the plant was exiting the emergency.
Bunch of burned out blubs but they did not appreciate that. Not a good exercise, folks.

More over since this wasnt a drill good neighbors dont treat each other that way.

Given the benefit of the doubt that this was a case of "operator optimism" or some other communication breakdown its more of a critique of the Katrinaesque emergency planning (ala early notification process) that still exists for nuclear power plants.

Then again, good neighbors dont wait to get found out that they've been crapping in the water for at least 10 years.

Paul, NIRS
Anonymous said…
One more note... catch this AP wire story published as NRC closes the public comment period of the rulemaking for a "revised" Design Basis Threat for nuclear facilities.
For what its worth, I filed mine... did you?

February 22, 2006 WASHINGTON (AP) - "A government defense plan for nuclear power plants assumes an attack would come from less than half the number of Sept. 11 hijackers and they wouldn't be armed with rocket-propelled grenades or other weapons often used by terrorists overseas."

As I see there are new rules here, too [no posting full articles]you can see the whole pitiful story in the The Guardian UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5639818,00.html

Pretty lame, folks, are you really so financially marginal as to need to hold down the security bar this low... or just plain stingy?

We're getting blasted from Mogadishu to Baghdad with RPGs and you guys think the nukes are immune?

nighty, night,
Paul, NIRS
David Bradish said…
I love how you come in and stir up debate over things you're freaked out about that no one should be.

At LaSalle an indicator light showed that three of the control rods' position could not be confirmed. Call the police, local authorities, oh my gosh, a reactor tripped, run for the hills.

Sound the alarms, lets cause panic over three indicator lights that didn't work correctly for 4 minutes. Four minutes after the trip, all control rods were shown to have been inserted.

Seems like something to get all worked up to me.
Anonymous said…
Paul, maybe part of the problem is that these security provisions are super-super secret. If the industry could be a bit more open about its security provisions, maybe people would be more reassured. Like justice, it's not just about being done, it's about being seen to be done.

Furthermore, you're assuming that the more secret your security provisions are, the safer your plants will be. If those security plans depend entirely on their secrecy, then they run the risk of being exploited by somebody who gains inside knowledge about them.

Look, I'm not suggesting your security detail posts its guard changeover schedules on the internet, but some careful thought about what could be shown to the public to reassure them on this matter might be advantageous.
Anonymous said…
Gentlemen,

Thoughtful comments however dismissive.

Doesnt matter... I am just reading to you aloud the writing on the wall since there is such a deliberate effort to ignore or try to a curtain over it.

Mr. Primervara,

Your comment about "loose lips sinks ships" is first of all anti-democratic, demonstrating that nuclear power is in of itself not an appropriate power system for an open society. Second of all, your incenuations ignore or are ignorant that the National Academy of Sciences, the scientific validation arm of Congress, is one of those that has pointed out the vulnerabilities of the spent fuel storage system. Third, the RPG or TOW or whatever of concern comes as an attacked directed against target sets other than the containment dome, thus your statement reflects the same obfuscations.

According to the DBT and the AP, your security forces are not adequately guarded, equipped or trained to take on the equivalent of the September 11 attacks. Did you read that, sir?

No BS please,

Paul, NIRS
Anonymous said…
Mr. Primivera,

"A subtle traitor needs no sophister."

Shakespeare, King Henry the Sixth, Part II, Act 5 Scene I Line 195
Anonymous said…
Man, that's exactly the rebuttal I expected. Facts are totally irrelevent, speculation is the only thing that counts. If the facts don't fit the speculation, avoind them at all costs. My "thinking out loud" was exactly what is was, several emergencies at nuclear reactors over 30 years or so and still not one single death. Meanwhile, coal miners die in bunches every singal year.

Gunter, if possible, can we just discuss the actual content this post is about? Namely, how many people died at LaSalle? Almost doesn't count. Could have doesn't count, should have doesn't count. Facts are facts. No one died. No one even came close. The body count this year is about typical for any year, coal mine deaths in the several hundred world wide, nuclear deaths, 0 again. Coal, although getting cleaner, ravages the environment through mining and exhaust. Nuclear MIGHT if we don't figure some way to rocket the waste into space. ( Paul P., any clue why this has never been an option? You'd think Cassini would have softened that view some. ). And, to top it off, we wouldn't be hogtied to 3rd World countries just to keep our economy going.

Now, what's that downside of nuclear energy again? And, remember, coulda's, shoulda's, mights, and would have's don't mean a thing to anyone other than the Sheen family.

I actually a did a little more in-depth "thinking out loud" on the issue a while back. Basically, the conclusion I've come to is some people are still tethered to the logic of homo sapien and anything beyond cave man logic scares them. So, they must kill it.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...