San Ofre Reactor

[piasabird]

San Onofre reactor leaked radiation after being misused, report says

There is a claim out that the operator/owner of the San Onofre reactor after it was rebuilt purposely ran the plant in a condition over the specifications. The report said it was run over the allowed heat limit and over the pressure limit and it caused a radiation leak.

This is the main reason why you cant trust nuclear power. Greedy people will always make bad choices. This bad choice put Californians at risk needlessly.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-san-onofre-leak-20160720-snap-story.html

So what really happened?

 

[Joepublic2]

Yeah, these are ancient pressurized water reactors. Old technology that sounds like it was pushed past it's engineering limits per the wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station

In a ten-year project completed in 2011 and costing $671 million, Edison replaced the steam generators in both reactors with improved Mitsubishi steam generators. Because of the reactors' two-loop design, uncommon for such large reactors of that era, the steam generators are amongst the largest in the industry.[9] A common shortcoming of these large steam generators was tube wear, leading to replacement being required earlier than their 40-year design life.[9] The steam generators are the largest components in the reactor, and installing them required cutting a temporary hole in the concrete containment shell. The Unit 2 replacement was completed in 2009 and Unit 3 in 2011. The company estimated that the modernization would save customers $1 billion during the plant's current license period, which ran until 2022.

I wonder what they replaced it with:

During its operation, SONGS provided about 20% of the power to large portions of Southern California.

 

[dullard]

Radiation is bad, but it is something that people generally overreact to. There isn't much data on it, because exposing people to radiation at various levels isn't ethical. But there have been studies done on areas where there were major radiation leaks.

For example, if you survive the initial leak, then thyroid cancer is the leading problem since the radiation accumulates in the thyroid. In Chernobyl, they estimate that about 0.26% of nearby residents got thyroid cancer (above and beyond the normal rate). Even assuming 100% of them died, that is still almost 1/10th the death rate of automobiles (just over 2% of people). And that was from a MAJOR radiation leakage, not a possible minor release like described here.

I'm not arguing that we should ignore radiation leaks. But we also shouldn't panic over minor leaks.

 

[PottedMeat]

i can't remember another incident caused by bad modeling

"In particular, the NRC reports indicated that MHI’s use of its computer codes in the design of the steam generators inaccurately predicted thermal hydraulic conditions in the steam generators, leading to tube vibration and wear, and a steam generator tube leak."

The steam generators are the largest components in the reactor, and installing them required cutting a temporary hole in the concrete containment shell.

I wonder what they replaced it with:

cheese, made from the delicious milk of california cows

 

[JSt0rm]

nuke power sounds good on paper until you get a "zone" thats no go for 50k years. So far we have one of these every 70 years. Imagine what the world would look like if you had a issue every 70 years in 10k years. lol.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Radiation is bad, but it is something that people generally overreact to. There isn't much data on it, because exposing people to radiation at various levels isn't ethical. But there have been studies done on areas where there were major radiation leaks.

For example, if you survive the initial leak, then thyroid cancer is the leading problem since the radiation accumulates in the thyroid. In Chernobyl, they estimate that about 0.26% of nearby residents got thyroid cancer (above and beyond the normal rate). Even assuming 100% of them died, that is still almost 1/10th the death rate of automobiles (just over 2% of people). And that was from a MAJOR radiation leakage, not a possible minor release like described here.

I'm not arguing that we should ignore radiation leaks. But we also shouldn't panic over minor leaks.

Thanks for pointing out a completely useless statistic that has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread. :whiste:

By the way, thousands of people returned to their homes within the 30km exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl illegally, undettered by the sever health risk that their surroundings impose. Less than 200 of those people are still alive.

 

[PottedMeat]

nuke power sounds good on paper until you get a "zone" thats no go for 50k years. So far we have one of these every 70 years. Imagine what the world would look like if you had a issue every 70 years in 10k years. lol.

12.4 miles radius (fukushima current no go area)
483 square miles

143 events in 10,000 years
69076 square miles

approx area of washington state

 

[JSt0rm]

12 miles near this place is like all of LA. That property is worth more then any benefit you get from nuke power.

 

[Moonbeam]

All you need to support nuclear power is to be emotionally dead. What kind of stupid fuck creates toxins that are deadly for thousands of years. Pinhead engineers would be at the top of the list.

 

[Jaskalas]

nuke power sounds good on paper until you get a "zone" thats no go for 50k years. So far we have one of these every 70 years. Imagine what the world would look like if you had a issue every 70 years in 10k years. lol.

Chernobyl - 1986
Fukushima - 2011

25 years.

 

[Screech]

12 miles near this place is like all of LA.

https://postimg.org/image/g74binmaf/

that said, I do need I5 to not go through a nuclear exclusion zone

 

[dullard]

Thanks for pointing out a completely useless statistic that has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread. :whiste:

By the way, thousands of people returned to their homes within the 30km exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl illegally, undettered by the sever health risk that their surroundings impose. Less than 200 of those people are still alive.

Thank you for pointing out a completely useless statistic that has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread. :whiste: How many people are illegally driving through a 30 km exclusion zone around a San Onofre reactor that had a major leak? Oh yeah, none.

 

[Brovane]

Their is a lot more to this than the LA Times article let's on.

The steam turbines needed to be replaced on both Nuclear Reactors. Edison contracted with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to replace the steam turbines with one's that could put out more power than the old ones. However this would also cause more water flow through the heat-exchanger pipes. Well Edison depended on Mitsubishi Heavy Industry for the engineering work, since apparently Edison didn't have the talent in-house. Well Mitsubishi didn't design it right and you had flow issues with the Heat exchanger's that lead to excess pipe wear that then lead to leaks.

Yeah Edison got hosed by Mitsubishi Engineers that apparently didn't know what they were doing. However Edison is ultimately responsible and they didn't have the necessary talent in-house. My Dad who is a Engineer used to work in nuclear power plants. Of course he is a big proponent of nuclear power. After the fiasco at San Onofre I asked him "Would you still trust Edison to run the plant properly?" His answer was hell no. Ultimately the rate payers are getting hosed for several billion dollars. Edison does have a law suit pending against Mitsubishi but I am not holding my breath anything will happen.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why is there zero interest in the newer reactors that produce less waste and effectively can't melt down. I forgot what they're called, someone please help me out.

 

[Screech]

Why is there zero interest in the newer reactors that produce less waste and effectively can't melt down. I forgot what they're called, someone please help me out.

You might mean pebble bed reactors, although there are other generation IV plants that claim to be passively safe, I think. I would be very much in favor of replacing all the older plants (ie gen 2) with newer ones, but nobody wants to pay for something like that.

 

[Joepublic2]

Why is there zero interest in the newer reactors that produce less waste and effectively can't melt down. I forgot what they're called, someone please help me out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

The technology isn't there yet, really, but it's far less pie-in-the-sky than fusion power which has been "50 years away" for the past 70 or so years despite huge investments from multiple state actors. There's no guarantee that it's even physically possible to create a controlled fusion reaction that generates more energy than it takes to create/sustain it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why is there zero interest in the newer reactors that produce less waste and effectively can't melt down. I forgot what they're called, someone please help me out.

They are called Mother Fuckers. They emit poisonous invisible rays that kill mothers children and any man who supports them will have no sex.

 

[piasabird]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-indian-point-review-20160718-snap-story.html

Here is another article. What is strange is how some of these locations are next to rivers or large bodies of water. How on earth did any intelligent human being ever approve such a location for a reactor to begin with?

 

[Brainonska511]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-indian-point-review-20160718-snap-story.html

Here is another article. What is strange is how some of these locations are next to rivers or large bodies of water. How on earth did any intelligent human being ever approve such a location for a reactor to begin with?

They're next to large bodies of water because they use the water as reactor coolant.

 

[jman19]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-indian-point-review-20160718-snap-story.html

Here is another article. What is strange is how some of these locations are next to rivers or large bodies of water. How on earth did any intelligent human being ever approve such a location for a reactor to begin with?

If you have even the slightest understanding of how these reactors operate you wouldn't find it strange at all.

 

[K1052]

Why is there zero interest in the newer reactors that produce less waste and effectively can't melt down. I forgot what they're called, someone please help me out.

Abundant fracked natural gas sent fuel costs thru the floor. This has also been the primary mover in pushing coal out with epa regs helping shut old marginal generators.

 

[Brovane]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-indian-point-review-20160718-snap-story.html

Here is another article. What is strange is how some of these locations are next to rivers or large bodies of water. How on earth did any intelligent human being ever approve such a location for a reactor to begin with?

The Boiling water reactors require large amount of water. So that requirement drives the location next to rivers or large bodies of water.

 

[Brovane]

This is a interesting reactor design, the integral fast reactor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

The reactors themselves have a feedback mechanism that prevents meltdown. When cooling is lost the rate of the chain reaction is reduced and will stop. They actually tested this with a prototype 20 MW reactor and basically they tried to get it to meltdown and it refused.

The actual reactor pulls several magnitudes of energy more from uranium than current US reactors do. It can actually use the spent fuel from 1st or 2nd generation US reactors. The fuel itself is processed onsite of the reactor so it never leaves the site itself.

It is really a great design and would give several advantage of current reactors.

The Reactor itself is several magnitudes safer than current US reactors in service.
The Reactor can use what is currently hazard waste they we are trying to find places to safely store for fuel. Which turns a liability into positive.
The Reactor is a lot more flexible in sites, it doesn't need to be next to a large body of water.
The Reactor uses almost all the energy content in Uranium, current reactors use less than 1% of the energy. This makes the high level nuclear waste stream from these reactors extremely small, less than 1% of a current reactor.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a interesting reactor design, the integral fast reactor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

The reactors themselves have a feedback mechanism that prevents meltdown. When cooling is lost the rate of the chain reaction is reduced and will stop. They actually tested this with a prototype 20 MW reactor and basically they tried to get it to meltdown and it refused.

The actual reactor pulls several magnitudes of energy more from uranium than current US reactors do. It can actually use the spent fuel from 1st or 2nd generation US reactors. The fuel itself is processed onsite of the reactor so it never leaves the site itself.

It is really a great design and would give several advantage of current reactors.

The Reactor itself is several magnitudes safer than current US reactors in service.
The Reactor can use what is currently hazard waste they we are trying to find places to safely store for fuel. Which turns a liability into positive.
The Reactor is a lot more flexible in sites, it doesn't need to be next to a large body of water.
The Reactor uses almost all the energy content in Uranium, current reactors use less than 1% of the energy. This makes the high level nuclear waste stream from these reactors extremely small, less than 1% of a current reactor.

Like mothers give a shit about what you think is logical reasoning. Solar is the safest nuclear power because the reactor is 93 million miles away and has a run time of sever billion more years.

Engineers have slide rules for ethics.

 

[Blue_Max]

I wish plant owners (and buyers) would consider the costs involved in the event of... trouble (serious, less-serious, or catastrophic.) I'm no economist, but cursory research shows the $billions lost due to relocation/cleanup in an 'event' would more than cover the cost of building newer, safer plants - then retrofitting or decommissioning older ones on a regular basis while the task is easy AND there's a surplus of energy from the new plant. I think most people would agree to a slightly larger energy bill for the comfort of knowing the likelihood of an 'accident' are several times less.

...but that would be sensible and the business model requires maximum profits, so it'll never happen.