Nebraska nuke plant problems

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1988
Nebraska nuke plant problems

http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/06/nebraska-nuclear-plant-at-level-4-disaster/

The link above calls it a Level 4 emergency, but the power company calls it Level One.

The Mississipi River flooding seems to be causing problems with spent fuel, and considering how that scenario played our (and is playing out in Japan) I think recriticallity is a concern. The FAA has issued a no-fly zone above this plant. Unclear exactly what is going on; what's interesting is Japanese surviviors tellign Nebraskans how to react in the comments. I'm sure we'd all apprecate techical analysis from our resident nuclear engineers here at CM.

Electrical Fire Knocks Out Spent Fuel Cooling at Nebraska Nuclear Plant

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System Stopped Working For Hours

Nebraska Nuclear Plant Lost Cooling System After Fire

NRC Monitors Second Event at Neb. Nuclear Plant Following Fire, Disruption of Spent-Fuel Cooling

No Fly Zone Over Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant Due to “Hazards”

Dam Danger, Flooding and Ft. Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant

Electrical Fire Knocks Out Spent Fuel Cooling at Nebraska Nuclear Plant

 

Full Moon's picture
Full Moon
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2008
Posts: 1258
?

 oppd   is calling it a hoax ..     how do we know who to trust anymore ?

   http://www.oppd.com/AboutUs/22_007105

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Safewrite,      You have

Safewrite,

     You have said that you are an "environmental health and safety manager." You've stated your views on Fracking, but I'm interested in how you view nuclear energy. Please tell.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Hysteria vs. Reality
safewrite wrote:

http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/06/nebraska-nuclear-plant-at-level-4-disaster/

The link above calls it a Level 4 emergency, but the power company calls it Level One.

The Mississipi River flooding seems to be causing problems with spent fuel, and considering how that scenario played our (and is playing out in Japan) I think recriticallity is a concern. The FAA has issued a no-fly zone above this plant. Unclear exactly what is going on; what's interesting is Japanese surviviors tellign Nebraskans how to react in the comments. I'm sure we'd all apprecate techical analysis from our resident nuclear engineers here at CM.

Fort Calhoun was shutdown in April for planned maintenance.  Start-up was delayed when the flooding became a concern.  A fire knocked out power for a few hours - the power was out, they didn't lose water in the spent fuel pools, only the ability to recirculate and add more.  Power was restored, OPPD can both circulate and add water to the spent fuel pools as needed.  That's why there are emergency procedures - an emergency occurred, procedures were followed, power was restored. 

Flooding has NOT caused any problems with spent fuel (what exactly does that mean anyway?)

I lived in Nebraska for 4 years while stationed at Offutt AFB.  They don't speak Japanese and don't care what the Japanese think about how they should "react".  They are concerned about the Huskers and their inaugural season in the Big Ten.  They are also all fired up about the College World Series that starts this Saturday (University of Virginia is the #1 seed)

Most nuke plants in the US have had overhead no fly zones in place since 9/11.

Recriticality is not a concern.  The plant was shutdown normally - not an emergency shutdown like Japan.  Continuity of power exists.  Flooding could cause a problem, but Nebraska has not suffered a 9.0 earthquake.  Comparing Fort Calhoun to Fukushima is ridiculous.

For now............Cool

 

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1988
Thanks, Dogs

That's what I had hoped, Dogs, but it is nice to have a professional opinion.

X-Ray Mike, as far as I can tell my views on nuclear energy are similar to Dr. Martenson's. While nuclear energy is the next best supply of concentrated energy compared to fossil fuels, there are huge issues with disaster planning and nuclear waste. If I may complicate it with some personal observations: nuclear energy has some very negative political ramificaions for me. When I lived on Long Island, NY, the Long Island Lighting Company--despite heavy local objections--saw fit to build a nuke plant on an island of three million souls with virtulally NO way to evacuate the residents in the event of an emergency. All evacuation routes lead through NYC, a city of eight million souls. It was a disaster planner's nightmare. Shoraham nuke plant was also shoddily built with improper high-pressure welds  and inferior concrete. (Take my word on this, as I was in construction and the NYC area construction firms were at the time all run by the Mafia. I knew the steamfitters that were leaned on. I heard about the concrete problems from reliable sources, which was not all that big a surprise since the Mafia was heaviest in concrete and the way to make a lot of money there was and is to short your customer on the expensive admixtures.)

Add to the political machinations of allowing Shoreham in the first place the stupidity of even testing the damn thing, which made it "hot" and hard to dismantle safely, and you had a perfect storm of greed, stupidity and arrogance. In my opinion nuclear energy is fine to run Navy ships because at least there you have accountability and technical expertise, but I am wary of nuke plants outside of the military. Human nature and nuclear energy and politicians and greed can make a lethal mix. Tepco has recently done nothing to reassure me on that count.

Some further things that concerned me: the whole plutonium into space debacle, actual ads I saw in NYC papers for people with a high-school diploma only to work at 3-Mile Island (and not as janitors), and more recently there has been the mess at Aiken, here in SC. State residents who are even aware of the issue are proud to be a part of dismantling nuclear weapons but are furious that the Federal Government's promised and paid for disposal facilities never happened. The state paid the Federal government $1.2 B to take the waste, and the Federal Government reneged but kept the money. As someone from the construction industry,  I disagree with the Union of Concerned Scientists on the reasons for the ten years of planning and cost overruns at the Energy Department’s Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina. We are lucky that legal challenges and changes in regulations and science kept the delays to ten years. However, it is NOT a "jobs" program, as they infer. It may, however, be based on flawed science, in that from what I have read MOX is a bitch to work with and may casue more problems thatn it solves. I am still studying the matter with great interest as the SRS is 160 miles from my home. 

Safewrite,

     You have said that you are an "environmental health and safety manager." You've stated your views on Fracking, but I'm interested in how you view nuclear energy. Please tell.

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
safewrite wrote:That's what
safewrite wrote:

That's what I had hoped, Dogs, but it is nice to have a professional opinion.

X-Ray Mike, as far as I can tell my views on nuclear energy are similar to Dr. Martenson's. While nuclear energy is the next best supply of concentrated energy compared to fossil fuels, there are huge issues with disaster planning and nuclear waste. If I may complicate it with some personal observations: nuclear energy has some very negative political ramificaions for me. When I lived on Long Island, NY, the Long Island Lighting Company--despite heavy local objections--saw fit to build a nuke plant on an island of three million souls with virtulally NO way to evacuate the residents in the event of an emergency. All evacuation routes lead through NYC, a city of eight million souls. It was a disaster planner's nightmare. Shoraham nuke plant was also shoddily built with improper high-pressure welds  and inferior concrete. (Take my word on this, as I was in construction and the NYC area construction firms were at the time all run by the Mafia. I knew the steamfitters that were leaned on. I heard about the concrete problems from reliable sources, which was not all that big a surprise since the Mafia was heaviest in concrete and the way to make a lot of money there was and is to short your customer on the expensive admixtures.)

Add to the political machinations of allowing Shoreham in the first place the stupidity of even testing the damn thing, which made it "hot" and hard to dismantle safely, and you had a perfect storm of greed, stupidity and arrogance. In my opinion nuclear energy is fine to run Navy ships because at least there you have accountability and technical expertise, but I am wary of nuke plants outside of the military. Human nature and nuclear energy and politicians and greed can make a lethal mix. Tepco has recently done nothing to reassure me on that count.

Some further things that concerned me: the whole plutonium into space debacle, actual ads I saw in NYC papers for people with a high-school diploma only to work at 3-Mile Island (and not as janitors), and more recently there has been the mess at Aiken, here in SC. State residents who are even aware of the issue are proud to be a part of dismantling nuclear weapons but are furious that the Federal Government's promised and paid for disposal facilities never happened. The state paid the Federal government $1.2 B to take the waste, and the Federal Government reneged but kept the money. As someone from the construction industry,  I disagree with the Union of Concerned Scientists on the reasons for the ten years of planning and cost overruns at the Energy Department’s Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina. We are lucky that legal challenges and changes in regulations and science kept the delays to ten years. However, it is NOT a "jobs" program, as they infer. It may, however, be based on flawed science, in that from what I have read MOX is a bitch to work with and may casue more problems thatn it solves. I am still studying the matter with great interest as the SRS is 160 miles from my home. 

Safewrite,

     You have said that you are an "environmental health and safety manager." You've stated your views on Fracking, but I'm interested in how you view nuclear energy. Please tell.

Thanks for the detailed response.

As far as the Mafia, I've read reports of them dumping loads of nuclear waste into the Mediterranean Sea, off the coast of Somalia, and God knows where else. Evidently the Italian Military was even involved with the Mafia's Mediterranean waste dumping, as revealed by a reporter who was later found dead. 

With the unsolved and mounting waste issues, horrendous and long-lived destruction caused by a nuclear mishap(from things too numerous to list and predict), as well as the infallible maxim of "to err is human," Nuclear energy should be relegated to the waste bin of really bad ideas in human history.

Unfortunately, nuclear energy has a connection to nuclear weaponry which all nation states seek to acquire for "security concerns," a madness for which there appears to be no antidote and which forms an ever-present menace for humanity.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Should vs. could
xraymike79 wrote:

Nuclear energy should be relegated to the waste bin of really bad ideas in human history.

The sobering reality is that this genie cannot be put back in the bottle. 

Humans have proven time and again that if we wait long enough, we'll come up with something worse.

We have certainly come a long way since the Zulu horns of the bull tactic nearly wiped out the British at Isandlwana - with spears.  Being dosed on amaryllis bulbs and mushrooms helped.

Imagine the conversations Shaka Zulu and Timothy Leary could have had....

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:
xraymike79 wrote:

Nuclear energy should be relegated to the waste bin of really bad ideas in human history.

The sobering reality is that this genie cannot be put back in the bottle. 

Humans have proven time and again that if we wait long enough, we'll come up with something worse.

We have certainly come a long way since the Zulu horns of the bull tactic nearly wiped out the British at Isandlwana - with spears.  Being dosed on amaryllis bulbs and mushrooms helped.

Imagine the conversations Shaka Zulu and Timothy Leary could have had....

You're an incorrigible comedian - that's a good thing in these dark times. Nanotech Weaponry sounds like the next horror show in human warfare.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments