San Onofre shutdown will mean tight electricity supplies

[wtmusic]

"SACRAMENTO — Southern California residents will have to get serious about energy conservation, particularly this summer, now that the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station has been permanently shut down.

Without that nuclear plant, which accounted for about 9% of the electricity generated in California, power supplies will be tight in parts of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties for at least the next three summers, officials said. That means periods of reduced use of air conditioners, lights and swimming pool pumps for customers of Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

"Losing 2,250 megawatts from the system is a big deal, and if we ask for conservation, we need them to respond," said Steve Berberich, chief executive of the California Independent System Operator, which manages most of the state's long-distance electric transmission system from a control room in Folsom, east of Sacramento."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0608-california-power-supply-20130608,0,256459.story

I am looking forward to the idea of rolling blackouts as an educational tool to help privileged Greenpeace trust fund brats understand the concept of "reliable baseload power".

Bring 'em on.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Natural gas would be a good solution.

I am looking forward to the idea of rolling blackouts as an educational tool to help privileged Greenpeace trust fund brats understand the concept of "reliable baseload power".

[kestrel91316]

12. Yeah. Because we have barely scratched the surface of conservation efforts, which

can easily make up the shortfall.

[hunter]

43. Really?

Frack away, boys...

[Buzz Clik]

44. Your ignorance is showing.

[hunter]

49. Yeah, and my feet are too big.

But I change my socks every day, whether I need to or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. I don't know if I would associate 'reliable base load' and San Onofre...

That particular plant was built in a bad spot, and poorly done as well, it seems.

[wtmusic]

3. It was built too close to ignorant antinukes

but they're everywhere these days, so the options are limited.

Contrary to Greenpeace propaganda, it provided 2.25GW of reliable baseload power for 30 years at an 84% capacity factor - 54% higher than wind, 70% higher than solar.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. And how much of a hole in the grid when a few wind turbines overspeed and break?

Not much right?

This plant is a fucking disaster, and with it representing so much base load, the consequences are enormous.
How much more oversight and over-building is needed to prevent such failures? 30 years really isn't that long for a reactor, all things considered.

[FBaggins]

6. Not much of a hole.

But when the wind dies down for a few days?

It's the same response I've given before. Nuclear leaves a big hole when it breaks (pretty rare). Variable renewables leave large holes as a part of their normal operations.

Those are entirely different planning issues.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I don't think I've ever heard of doldrums affecting an entire state grid.

The wind simply doesn't conk out like that over a distributed series of wind farms.

[kestrel91316]

10. Hell, I don't think the wind EVER dies down in the Tehachapi Pass or out in the desert........

[wtmusic]

17. Heh.

[kestrel91316]

19. Bet it didn't stop blowing for an entire year and a half........

which is about how long the San Onofre plant has been shut down (THIS time), if memory serves me correctly.

[wtmusic]

20. So this is a freak occurence, is it?

You're in denial.

[CreekDog]

62. All it takes is a little intense heat in California and the winds begin to blow

[CreekDog]

63. Ah, the electrical load in Southern California is unbearably high in February

amidst all the LA snowstorms, the sleet of Orange County and the subfreezing doldrums in Palm Springs.

[wtmusic]

11. Of course you don't hear about it - natural gas kicks in to take its place.

Which is why wind is not in the least carbon-free.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. The more distributed turbines you have

the less gas you need to spin cover.

It's an arms race, that's all.

[wtmusic]

18. That's the myth the wind industry is trying to sell, anyway.

All of the turbines in the world linked together would provide an infinitesimal fraction of what the world is using everyday.

[CreekDog]

89. the irony is that you want us to think of wind and solar as some scheming "industry"

but NEVER tell us to think of the nuclear industry with any skepticism.

i wonder which industry hires more lobbyists and whose lobbyists are paid more?

[FBaggins]

14. Then you haven't been paying attention

Germany makes an excellent test case. If you look at their daily production figures they do occassionally go 2-3 days with very little production.

[wtmusic]

25. Oh, really. Just what were those "enormous consequences"?

Amazing. Now you're arguing it provides TOO MUCH dependable power.The failure was a minor one which released no radiation, and was turned into a cause celebre by people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. In this case

the 'enormous consequence' is about a 10% hole in Cali's power grid.

Even if you start shoveling money at it, it's not coming back online any time soon.
You think of it as reliable base load, I think of it as a single point of failure that has unexpectedly gone offline at least 2 times for extended outages.

[wtmusic]

32. 2x in 30 years? Not bad.

The 10% hole is easily replaceable on a temporary basis.

Read the fine print: 100% carbon-free San Onofre is shutting down (1 reactor was still online) because it's too expensive to fight legal battles initiated by people too ignorant and fearful to understand balanced risk. Those people are sending the planet to hell.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Nuclear reactors are not carbon free.

Not to build, not to operate. Period.

Silly to claim it is.

[wtmusic]

35. They use much less carbon than wind

I know, "if only we could ignore those backup gas plants".

You can't.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. 'Less' but not 'free'.

Even ignoring gas fired backup, it would be fair to point out the mining activities for the magnets and such in wind turbines isn't carbon free either, but the initial outlay is less, and once built, the wind turbines are far less carbon intensive than the nuclear fuel cycle.

[wtmusic]

39. "wind turbines are far less carbon intensive than the nuclear fuel cycle" WRONG

You don't want to know, and I'm bored

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Whatever.

Not like my state just put a closure date on it's last coal plant or anything. Our wind turbines suck, etc.

But you are right, I really don't care to know how you spin it.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. By the way

Total generating capacity in WA:

Hydro: 21265mw
Wind: 2806mw
Gas/Coal: 4810mw

Notice how wind is more than 50% of the total hydrocarbon based generating capacity of the state?
Me too.

[NickB79]

57. And yet wind is 9.7% of the state's total capacity

That's a really good number, but still a pretty small fraction of their total generating capacity.

Not all states are lucky enough to have the massive hydro capacity that Washington has.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. And that wind capacity is growing fast.

2 years ago, it was 4.6%

I agree, our hydro backbone is pretty awesome, but in a head to head race between coal, gas, and JUST wind, wing is hauling ass, and eating into the other two at a staggering pace. Solar isn't a factor here, less than a half a percent.

My town is entirely powered by hydro, and we are about to bring online a doubling of the capacity of the turbine complex, to export power. It's pretty awesome.

[XemaSab]

58. How many lines are coming in from Wyoming?

I don't think California has any coal plants, which would mean that 0% of our generating capacity is coal, but that doesn't mean we don't use hella coal power.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. None to my knowledge.

WA is a net exporter of Elecricity.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4270

We have one small reactor and one small coal plant scheduled for closure. The rest is gas/renewables.

[kristopher]

64. 8.2% in 2011

Total System Power for 2011: Changes from 2010
In 2011, Total System Power for California was marginally higher by half of a percent from 2010. The two primary reasons are the ongoing recession and continued mild temperatures. The effects of the recession resulted in a peak demand that was 5 percent less than the forecast. As for temperatures, they were lower than normal during the spring, near normal temperatures during the summer, and above normal temperatures during both the fall and winter.1 By design, California's electric generation system delivers electricity quickly to match peak air conditioning load conditions in the summer.

In-state generation declined by 2.4 percent in 2011 however net imports from the Northwest and Southwest combined made up for the difference. In particular, energy imports from the Northwest in 2011 increased by 42.7 percent due primarily to an increase in hydroelectric generation resulting from higher precipitation in the Northwest. Between March and May 2011, Oregon and Washington experienced their wettest periods in the last 116 and 117 years respectively.2

With the conversion of Mt. Poso Cogeneration coal facility to a biomass plant complete, the in-state coal category showed a slight decline from 2010. Mt. Poso Cogeneration is about 10 miles north of Bakersfield.

Large hydroelectric generation, a category based on nameplate capacity of 30 megawatts (MW) and larger, showed a significant increase of 24.8% for in-state generation. This coincides with California experiencing one of its wettest years. After three relatively dry years, statewide precipitation during the 2010 Water Year (ending September 30, 2010) was 105% of average. Precipitation during the 2011 Water Year (ending September 30, 2011) was 135% of average, and runoff was 146% of average. Though January 2011 was remarkably dry, the months of March and May were extremely wet with peak snowmelt in early July. As a result, in-state hydroelectric generation in 2011 was 127% of average compared to 101% in 2010.

Generally, when snowmelt and runoff is plentiful, California's hydroelectricity is less expensive to purchase than electricity generated by plants using natural gas-fired generation. Therefore, usage of natural gas-fired generation is reduced ("displaced&quot . This is especially so during the spring and fall months and during off-peak summer hours (afternoon and early evening hours). Wind generation increased in 2011 reflecting the continued siting of new wind projects in the state. Solar also saw some increase as commercial-scale systems came online in 2011.

Reporting requirements for Total System Power are limited to projects rated at 1MW and larger. Because most solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on residential households and businesses are less than 1 MW, data on them is not collected. As more installations of solar PV and other "behind the meter" distributed generation technologies take place, consumption of power delivered by utilities will continue to decrease. Whether to exclude these smaller systems from the Total System Power summary may need addressing in future, if the aggregate capacity and energy of such small systems becomes a significant portion of the state's generation mixture.

1 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/13
2 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2011/13

More at http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html

See also
Los Angeles Bans Coal Power
Coal Free by 2025

By Jon Carter
Friday, March 22nd, 2013
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/los-angeles-bans-coal-power/3209

[XemaSab]

66. 8.2% + 13.8% = hella

That would only be second after natural gas.

I grew up in the Bay Area, and a lot of Californians like to pretend their poo smells like flowers with regard to coal power, but it's black and smells bad just like everyone else's.

I don't know why we don't have more geothermal. There are two massive active volcanoes within 50 miles of my house, and we should be tapping that aggressively. Even if we can only up it by another few percent, it's a few percent that could save some carbon somewhere along the line.

[kristopher]

67. No, it's 8.2%. Your assumption about the 13.8% is unwarranted.

The rest of the webpage after the table is devoted to explaining the methodology used and most of that focuses on what role "unspecified power" plays.
It is primarily marginal power (bought on the spot market) and their analysis of out of state generating sources available to service that market shows that coal is unlikely to be any more than a small, fractional part of the mix. Renewables, "null power" and natural gas are probably the bulk of it but the data lacks the granularity to be able to assign specific numbers.
Follow the link for more information.

If the people of the state are proud it is because they have good reason to be proud. They are leading the nation in taking concrete action to decarbonize their domain.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. California has the highest geothermal production capacity in the nation.

(Unfortunately, such systems aren't entirely greenhouse-gas neutral)

[PamW]

101. Not 100% carbon free..

Not 100% carbon free; but orders of magnitude less than the alternatives.

The chief argument for nuclear not being carbon free is that the enrichment plant that provides ALL the enrichment for all the nuclear power plants in the USA and many other countries as well, uses about 2 Gw(e) of electric power. Even, if we supplied that energy with coal power plants, it would take about 2 large coal power plants; that is a small fraction of the approximately 2100 coal power plants in the USA. Of course, there's no reason to use coal to provide enrichment. The enrichment plant is in the TVA service area, so Uncle Sam could purchase power from himself. TVA has many nuclear power plants. Browns Ferry alone could totally power the enrichment plants.

Another carbon emission is from construction / dismantlement. However, the carbon emissions from diesel powered construction equipment is paltry compared to the emissions from coal power plants. We only use those diesel powered machines during construction, and then dismantlement. So if you amortize over the several decade life of a plant; it's paltry.

Then there is the use of diesel machines in mining fuel. However, nuclear fuel is pound for pound, MILLIONS of times more energetic than chemical fuels. That's why a chemical high explosive 1 ton bomb will destroy a building; but a nuclear explosive that weighs less than 1 ton; will wipe away the entire city. Pound for pound, you get MILLIONS of times more energy from nuclear reactions / nuclear fuel.

So for a given amount of energy; you have to mine MILLIONS of times LESS fuel to get a given amount of energy.

So although the carbon footprint of nuclear reactors is not a hard zero; it is orders of magnitude lower in life cycle carbon release than other power generators.

The carbon footprint of nuclear power is trivial.

Silly to claim that it isn't

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

109. Disagree.

If you're going to parade something around as 'carbon free', it better be. Nuclear power isn't. Neither is my beloved hydro-electric. The concrete investment has enormous up front CO2 investment. Decaying material in the reservoir also releases CO2. I cannot claim it is 'carbon free'. It's a fantastically better proposition than coal, but it is not and cannot be carbon free. Not even the 40mw that diverts some water from the Snoqualmie Falls, that powers my home. Still not carbon free, even though it's better than even a reservoir based dam that backs it up when it isn't online.

Much like the wind power folks (of which I have sort of become one) must recognize the environmental impact of mining for the copper and other earths materials that go into such a large distributed network of generators, instead of a few centralized, massive and better utilized generators.

If you don't recognize the negatives, and make allowances for/acceptable trade-offs, you're not really honestly in the conversation.

[PamW]

113. You have a reading comprehension problem?

AtheistCrusader,

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? In the post that you are responding to, I characterized nuclear power as quote:

Not 100% carbon free;...

So who is claiming that nuclear power is truly "carbon free"; certainly NOT I. Yet you "Disagree" and claim that someone is parading nuclear power as carbon free. You might want to seek remedial help for that reading comprehension problem by retaking one of the lower grades of elementary school.

As you correctly point out, no electrical energy source is truly "carbon free"; not even hydro-power. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided the following table of lifecycle greenhouse gas emission by electric generation type for this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Technology 50th Percentile Greenhouse emission (gCO2 / kwh(e))
Hydroelectric 4
Wind 12
Nuclear 16
Biomass 18
Solar thermal 22
Geothermal 45
Solar PV 46
Natural Gas 469
Coal 1001

So in terms of lifecycle CO2 emission, nuclear power is marginally worse than wind and marginally better than biomass. Nuclear power beats photovoltaic solar power by nearly a factor of 3.

So although no power source is truly "carbon free", and I don't see many making the claim that nuclear power is "100% carbon free"; nuclear power is as "carbon free" as most of the proposed low carbon footprint electric energy generation technologies.

Surely, many here strongly favor photovoltaic solar as the low carbon footprint electric energy generation technology of the future, and may even refer to it as "carbon free". However, the IPCC tells us that nuclear power beats photovoltaic solar power by nearly a factor of 3. So clearly nuclear power is a "low carbon footprint" technology for both present and future generation.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

21. It was out for a year in 1980

for steam turbine rebuild, and sea life blocking coolant pipes from the ultimate heat sink.
(Which is of course, the primary tsunami risk; loss of ultimate heat sink.)

[CreekDog]

88. you said "ignorant antinukes"

[FBaggins]

5. What was bad about where it was built?

Being next to the ocean doesn't mean there's a tsunami risk... and being near fault lines just means that it has to be designed to handle quakes of a given magnitude.

And I don't know about poorly built... but it certainly was poorly updated when they installed new steam generators.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Really?

There is most certainly a tsunami risk.
The San Onofre plant was built under 10 miles from the Newport-Inglewood fault. A fault understood to be capable of producing an 8.0.
What do you think, just offhand guess, what sized quake the plant was designed/rated to handle?

[wtmusic]

16. Nonsense

"Myth:

San Onofre isn't built for a Southern California big earthquake, and what happened at Fukushima Daiichi can happen here.

Fact

Every U.S. nuclear power plant – including San Onofre – is designed to withstand the maximum potential earthquake for its location without releasing radioactive materials. The commonly known Richter scale is not used to determine earthquake building safety for any building. Instead, building safety relies on a more accurate value known as "peak ground acceleration," which is based on the anticipated ground movement at the site during the largest potential earthquake, estimated by geologists. Additionally, the proximity of the fault and soil conditions must also be considered. So it is not accurate to simply say that San Onofre was only built to withstand a 7.0 earthquake.

As approved by the U.S. NRC, San Onofre was built to withstand a peak ground acceleration of at least 0.67g (g refers to the force of gravity). For comparison, the current California Building Code design requires any buildings built in the vicinity of San Onofre to be designed to withstand an earthquake motion that has peak ground acceleration of 0.38g."

http://www.songscommunity.com/earthquake-safety.asp#.UbdKn-ua3nA

[AtheistCrusader]

24. The 1995 Hanshin quake in Kobe was a strike-slip and even though only a 7.2, produced

ground accelerations in excess of SONGS rated 0.67g. (0.8g, single-direction, max recorded)
That site may not be directly exposed to a subduction fault, but that doesn't mean it can't be wrecked easily enough by a strike-slip.

I note you didn't say anything about Tsunami.

[wtmusic]

27. I noticed you didn't read the link I provided.

"Robust Containment and Tsunami Wall: San Onofre has a four- to eight-foot thick, post-tensioned, steel rebar-reinforced concrete containment that includes an internal steel liner. In addition, the San Onofre facility is protected by a tsunami wall that extends 30 feet above "mean lower low water," the common reference point used by geophysical professionals to talk about a structure or facility's height. The most severe tsunami for SONGS was calculated after extensive studies and assumes that it occurs at the same time as a high tide and storm surge, with wind driven waves."

[AtheistCrusader]

29. 30 feet is a joke.

And I'm not just interested in overtopping the wall, I'm interested in the water inlets for the ultimate heat sink.

[wtmusic]

33. Are you a seismologist?

You seem to know more than the professionals who built this thing.

What's your background?

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Appeal to authority!

Averages and percentiles do not address the core risk. This was a bad site. We've been lucky.

Several reactors weathered the Tohoku quake just fine, within design, engineering, and geological risk expectations... all except one site.

And that's all it takes. Just some bad luck, and all your engineering is out the window.
Again, there are better sites in the CONUS for reactors, if you must have them.

[wtmusic]

38. No, appeal to someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about.

What the hell is "core risk"? Did you just make that up?

Do you think engineers throw up their hands when faced with the prospect of "some bad luck"?

Not the way it works.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. It's called english.

Core.

2. the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything.

Risk.

1. exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance:


In this case, I was referring to quake, and ancillary issues like tsunami. You cannot engineer away all potential risks here. This site is inherently dangerous, subject to exposure to direct quake related ground accelerations, and tsunami generated some distance away. Historically, this site has been exposed to tsunami that overtopped the current location of the top of the containment domes.

We engineer around expected risks. Again, worked great for the Tohoku quake... except for one site.

The consequences of losing against these risks, in the case of a reactor, are astronomical. In some respects, we got lucky in Fukushima. Reactor four was cold and offline. Pure luck.

A pacific coastal site seems an inherently bad idea.

[PamW]

103. Engineers can engineer for the forces.

I always ask people who are so concerned about earthquakes how they would feel if when the "big one" strikes San Francisco, they happened to be in a branch office of the Wells Fargo bank. The branch manager gets all the employees and customers into the vault.

If you are fortunate enough to ride out the "big one" in a bank vault; you are really lucky. The bank vault is designed to withstand forces that are much greater than what earthquakes can engender.

Just because earthquakes can be deadly to our homes and other buildings; doesn't mean that humans can't build structures that can survive the forces of an earthquake.

The bank vault can withstand anything even a large earthquake can engender.

One just has to analyze the faults that threaten a plant. One determines what type of earthquake forces and accelerations those faults can engender. Then one designs the structure to survive those forces / accelerations.

That's what is done in nuclear power plant design.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Is the door designed not to slam shut on you?

If it's truly a big quake, you could be in there for a while. (A little bit like the retracted 'stand in a doorway/load bearing frame' urban legend. All well and good, except most doors today don't have load bearing frames at all, and if you find an old one that is, chances are the door is solid core wood, and it's going to kick your ass, getting slammed in it)

That said, yes, we can engineer structures to incredibly high tolerances. But did that happen at SONGS? Again, I am not speaking to the nuclear power industry in general, just to this particular site. (I gave the Columbia Generating Station as an example of a power plant sheltered from tsunami or seiche, but still having access to an enormous heat sink)

I think we have been given solid reason to question the engineering behind the SONGS site in general. This is not the first time that site has gone offline for an extended duration, for an issue that probably should have been a design consideration. The height of the sea wall suggests to me a similar underestimation in design, as the sea life clogging coolant inlets issue that knocked it offline after completing maintenance in 1980.

[FBaggins]

104. Where are they?

Sorry I missed this one earlier... but this one is also off-base.

Usually not a good idea to assume that Arnie knows what he's talking about... let along apply it to other scenarios.

The water inlets would be at zero risk from the largest wave.

[PamW]

105. Arnie is an IDIOT!!!

FBaggins,

If by "Arnie" you mean Arnie Gunderson; I would agree.

Arnie Gunderson is TOTALLY CLUELESS on these issues.

Arnie attempted to tell the world that the mushroom cloud of the Fukushima Unit 3 explosion was caused by a nuclear explosion that had to have occurred in the bottom of the empty spent fuel storage pool so that the side walls of the empty pool could channel the explosion upwards resulting in the upward rising stem of the mushroom cloud.

We know that the Unit 3 explosion was NOT nuclear; the fuel is too dilute for that, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization confirms that the signature of the released radionuclides match a reactor accident and not a nuclear explosion.

The mushroom cloud and rising stem of ANY explosion, nuclear or otherwise, is due to Raleigh-Taylor instability of the hot low density explosion supporting a more dense column of air above it. There's no need for any vertical walls of a deep pool to focus the explosion upwards. Look at all the mushroom clouds caused by atmospheric nuclear testing in the Nevada desert with the bomb up on a tower. There were no pools with steep vertical sides to form mushroom clouds, and those explosions formed mushroom clouds perfectly.

FBaggins also posted pictures of Fukushima spent fuel assemblies in a water-filled pool after the accident.

If you hear / read anything from Arnie; your best bet is to assume that whatever he tells you is WRONG!

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

107. I tend to agree WRT Gunderson.

I had no idea, and have no opinion of whatever he claimed about SONGS access to coolant.

[FBaggins]

23. Yes, really.

"I see the ocean" does not mean "there's a risk of a dangerous tsunami"

The geology is very different. Look it up... what's the worst tsunami ever recorded along the west coast of the US (not counting Alaska)?

The San Onofre plant was built under 10 miles from the Newport-Inglewood fault. A fault understood to be capable of producing an 8.0.

The fault's potential quake is actually estimated to be between a 6.0 and the low 7s. That's a big difference.

Just as importantly... it isn't a fault that would produce a significant tsunami.

What do you think, just offhand guess, what sized quake the plant was designed/rated to handle?

What do you mean by "handle"? It's design basis quake was about a 7... but you need to understand that "design basis" doesn't mean "it blows up once a quake exceeds that level". It means that the plant should be able to take that quake and return to service after inspection and testing. So, for instance, the two reactors in VA that exceeded their design basis quake a year or so ago weren't in any danger and resumed operation shortly afterward.

So the shorthand answer is that Newport-Inglewood could theoretically produce a quake at the top end of it's potential on just the wrong spot and it could exceed the design basis. But the worst case wouldn't be a meltdown... it would be a damaged plant that had to stay shut down for an extended period.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Tsunami don't just come from your front yard.

The Inglewood fault wouldn't be the primary risk of a tsunami that could overtop SONG's seawall.

Worst tsunami recorded? Evidence of a 380 foot tsunami. Granted, if such a thing were to happen again, SONGS would probably be low on the list of things worth discussing.

(I presume you accept geological evidence, not just recorded human history in that local area, because limiting it to the local history is a recipe for 'WE HAD NO IDEA THIS COULD HAPPEN')

[wtmusic]

30. It could get hit by an asteroid too.

You think they don't hire the top people in their professions to perform statistical evaluations?

No one says "we had no idea this could happen" except complete idiots who think there are boneheads like themselves running the show.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. The Fukushima Dai-ichi sea wall was considered adequate by some, until it wasn't.

This is essentially Russian roulette, should that site ever come back online.

On a long enough time scale, the house (mother nature in this case) always wins.
There are better sites in the CONUS for a reactor like that, ignoring the reactor/renewables debate.

[hunter]

46. The damage done by the tsunami itself was far worse than the nuclear accident.

From wikipedia: 15,883 deaths, 6,144 injured, and 2,676 people missing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami

Any deaths from the spilled radioactive elements will be lost in the statistical noise. Things like second-hand cigarette smoke, diesel exhaust, or non-radioactive environmental toxins will kill more people.

Are people going to abandon all those places where people were drowned or crushed by debris? Probably not. Are they going to pay much attention to the non-radioactive toxins that were spilled? Probably not. What makes radioactive toxins so scary in comparison?

It seems strange to me that anyone who willingly drives or rides around in a car, greatly increasing their odds of gruesome death, trauma, and disability, greatly increasing the danger to people who are not in cars, polluting the air with carcinogens, etc., etc., etc., can claim with a straight face that nuclear power is exceptionally dangerous.

I don't get it.



Once automobiles are banned, and then fossil fuels, maybe I'll pay some attention to nuclear power. Until then, opposing nuclear power just doesn't seem that urgent to me.

I have some past history with SONGs, maybe that just made me too cynical. Both sides of the argument, pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear, were polluted with lies.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hunter/34

[AtheistCrusader]

48. How many of the tsunami/quake dead are dead because

search and rescue was inhibited by the exclusion zone?

I will immediately grant that the Sendai dam killed more people than the reactor, apparently. Luck, mostly. Had the winds been different, Tokyo could have had a major problem. That's essentially luck of the draw.

[hunter]

52. I've worked in labs with radioactive stuff.

I have family who are "first responders."

Given a realistic assessment of the danger and appropriate safety gear I don't think any of us would have refused to enter the "exclusion zone."

Heck, I'd have gone in there to rescue pets too.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Well, they didn't, apparently.

One couple was discovered still living in the zone months after the evacuation. There are thousands of pets and domesticated livestock that still live in the zone.

First responders aren't always allowed into such areas. Roads are closed, areas cordoned off, and you don't go in, even if you accept the risks, because they won't allow you to.

[FBaggins]

54. Hardly any (if any at all)

Search and rescue was largely

Had the winds been different, Tokyo could have had a major problem

Not according to the scientific consensus.

Let's ignore the fact that the releases were not entirely random (they said at the time that they were timing releases for favorable winds)...and we're still left with the fact that winds in the area are predominantly westerlies.

But let's ignore that too. An estimated 80% of the fallout headed out to sea. Take the most contaminated areas and multiply the contamination by five and you still don't have levels that would be particlarly deadly. Instead of wondering whether there would be ANY identifiable cancer impact, we would be talking about how large it would be (hundreds or thousands many years later)... but levels in Tokyo would still be quite low... and the tsunami would still be the greater threat.

[FBaggins]

45. I'm not sure that I see your point.

The Inglewood fault wouldn't be the primary risk of a tsunami that could overtop SONG's seawall.

Faults that are farther away present less risk (and the nearest fault line that's prone to significant tsunami is a very long way away).

Worst tsunami recorded? Evidence of a 380 foot tsunami.

I think we're going to have to go with your "granted". There is no place on the planet that is safe from whatever caused that tsunami (meteor?). If an event kills many many millions of people and destroys major cities... it is really a significant concern that there will also be a radiation release that would have killed thousands if they weren't already dead from the wave?

I presume you accept geological evidence, not just recorded human history in that local area

Both are relevant. It isn't really "'WE HAD NO IDEA THIS COULD HAPPEN'"... it's that the risk is below some very very low threshold. Note, for instance, that Japan has increased their definition of an "active fault" to one that has been active at some point in the last 250,000 years (IIRC) instead of 100,000 years. It isn't that it's impossible for a 9.0 quake to hit an area with no faults at all... it's just the risk approaches infinitesimal in the lifetime of a reactor.

We would never build anything but tents if the standard was "absolutely zero risk". You can't build a reactor anywhere in the US because the Yosemite super volcano will take it out some time in the next million years?

The largest recorded tsunami anywhere along the West Coast (let alone just that spot) didn't come close to endangering the sea wall.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. The sea wall isn't 30 feet.

Not really, taking into account that a tsunami might arrive at something other than low tide. 14 feet above high tide is 1 foot shorter than the tsunami from Alaska that wrecked a bridge in Wreck Creek, WA during the big '64 Alaskan quake.

Obviously SONGS is sheltered from a direct hit from Alaska, but there are other potential sources. Anything from the western edge of the Cocos plate, butted up against the pacific plate, could send something right at it, at a similar distance.

Tents are not a threat thousands of miles from the tent, if something goes wrong. Reactors potentially are. For a tsunami threat, a coal plant is LESS of a threat to people elsewhere.

This reactor is broken, with a secondary cooling loop failure.
This reactor is in a tsunami risk area.
This reactor is very close to a fault capable of producing ground accelerations in excess of the plant's spec (see Kobe quake)

That's a bad combination, I think. We have been lucky so far. If you have to have reactors, there are better places to put them, and still allow access to adequate cooling water/heat sink.

[FBaggins]

50. I didn't say that it was.

I said that the largest plausible tsunami (absent catastophes that could strile anywhere) doesn't threaten what they do have.

Moreover... Even the waves didn't do much to Fukushima physically... it was that they flooded the generators and cut the emergency power. It would take quite a bit more than 30 feet (or whatever) to do that to SONGS.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. But you did say

"The largest recorded tsunami anywhere along the West Coast (let alone just that spot) didn't come close to endangering the sea wall."

And that is not true. A tsunami, generated in Alaska, hitting WA state, was 1 foot taller than the hypothetical worst-case arrival time of a tsunami versus the tide, at SONGS.

Now, assuming high tide is as unfair as assuming low tide, but the risk exists.

I can only guess what one foot of water swamping over the sea wall at SONGS would do. Maybe nothing. I don't know.

[FBaggins]

53. I did say that... and I was right.

And that is not true. A tsunami, generated in Alaska, hitting WA state, was 1 foot taller than the hypothetical worst-case arrival time of a tsunami versus the tide, at SONGS.

I doubt it... (there isn't a 16-foot swing between high and low tide)... but it hardly matters. WA is a long way away and overtopping a sea wall by a single foot doesn't endanger anything.

The claim that it's only 14-feet above high tide is because the wall is 14 feet above a path and the path has gotten wet at high tide in the past... but that's not the same thing as high tide being that level (by more than a couple feet).

From your last reply
This reactor is broken, with a secondary cooling loop failure.

Not really... but what does that have to do with whether the reactor is poorly located?

This reactor is in a tsunami risk area.

No it isn't. Those words actually mean something... and "seafront" is NOT the same thing as "tsunami risk are". There is no spot in the lower 48 states that is a tsunami risk are. The fact that Canary Island coudl collapse some time in the next 50,000 years and form a mega-tsunami that would devestate the East Coast does not mean that New York is now a "tsunami risk area"

This reactor is very close to a fault capable of producing ground accelerations in excess of the plant's spec (see Kobe quake)

Not according to the seismologists... but again that doesn't matter, because it isn't capable (in anyone's estimation) of a quake that would endanger the plant from a safety perspective... just an operational one.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. You can't say "and I was right" if what you said is technically wrong.

Overtopping a sea wall that was never intended to be overtopped at ALL, can have disastrous consequences. Upthread you seemed pretty sure it couldn't happen at all anywhere on the west coast, but the west coast HAS (ignoring a VERY tall localized bathtub-like region tsunami, that wouldn't apply to the coast) experienced tsunami higher than the top of that sea wall under some conditions. So your statement was technically wrong, even if the exception is statistically remote.

"Not really... but what does that have to do with whether the reactor is poorly located?"
It's just one of three main reasons this particular reactor going away isn't a bad thing.

"No it isn't. Those words actually mean something... and "seafront" is NOT the same thing as "tsunami risk are". There is no spot in the lower 48 states that is a tsunami risk are."

Wrong again.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5457448

There are tsunami risk areas all up and down the west coast. I live in one. I can see an evacuation route sign from my office window, and on a clear day, three evac sirens.

I'm going to go with the University of Southern California on this one, over you. Apologies for the appeal to authority, but I feel it refutes your assertion (without evidence) that the SONGS site isn't a tsunami risk.

[FBaggins]

69. Except that it wasn't "technically wrong"

Over topping a sea wall that was never intended to be overtopped at ALL, can have disastrous consequences.

Nope. That simply isn't true. You can't say that any amount of water over a seawall is dangerous. It's as oversimplified as saying "it's designed to withstand a 6.0 earthquake without damage, so a 6.1 will cause it to blow up". The backup generators are at about that level, but (unlike Fukushima) they're in waterproof bunkers. The backup batteries (and electrical switching) are 20-30 above that and have more than enough power to last until additional generators could be connected. There isn't a plausible scenario where a foot or two of water over the sea wall causes the plant to fail.

Upthread you seemed pretty sure it couldn't happen at all anywhere on the west coast, but the west coast HAS experienced tsunami higher than the top of that sea wall under some conditions.

Except that we just went through that and it wasn't. You artificially lowered the wall to 14 feet based on a fictional claim. The wall isn't 14 feet above high tide. You're also oversimplified the coastal geography. What I said was that the largest tsunami (not the tallest wave) recorded along the West Coast wouldn't endanger that wall. You'll note that there were significant differences in wave height along the coast of Japan during the tsunami... this is because the coast isn't uniform. A tsunami that forms a 14-foot wave in Seaview, WA (where the columbia river's delta impacts the hydrography) doesn't form a 15-ft wave off of San Onofre.

Here's the image that caused that misunderstanding. the creator is trying to demonstrate that 30 feet above low tide is really 14 feet above high tide... but the fact that you can see a splash at high tide is not close to the same thing as saying that high tide is at the base of that wall (and therefore 14 foot waves on top of that would overtop it).



But this isn't hard to confirm for yourself. Tide charts are online. Compare the highest tide level that you can find... you won't come close to the 16 feet required to validate their claim.

There are tsunami risk areas all up and down the west coast. I live in one. I can see an evacuation route sign from my office window, and on a clear day, three evac sirens.

See my previous reply to Creekdog. It's really not at all the same thing. California has had dozens of "tsunami" in the last century... but none of them deserve the same name as what we're talking about. A California tsunami is a warning of coastal flooding and to get off of the beach. Take a look at the map... in most areas it's just the beach. If you live in a low-lying area right along the coast it could mean minor flooding - nothing that endangers reinforced concrete seawalls.. In Japan it's a very different thing.

Apologies for the appeal to authority

Actual authoritative sources are not really the same thing as the "appeal to authority" fallacy. If they are subject matter experts (and they are) and there's no significant controversy among other experts (and there isn't)... it isn't "appeal to authority". Nevertheless... it's a misuse of the map - which doesn't take the seawall into account. This is easy enough to prove. The model used for the map generated a maximum tsunami of 20 feet above mean sea level (MSL). As has already been shown... the sea wall is well above that. This was confirmed by the California Coastal commission when the issue came up right after Fukushima.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. There have been, and there is risk of tsunami much taller than 14' hitting the west coast.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/tsunami/

(That was the 15' when it hit WA coastline, that I mentioned earlier)

There is a lot of fairly recent work to understand just how high and how often we actually get hit here.

"While the Pacific Ocean is prime tsunami territory, researchers had long believed that the U.S. coast was relatively safe from the threat of serious devastation. New evidence now suggests that a major tsunami may strike the West Coast every 300 to 500 years. Current thinking is that the Cascadia subduction zone, an area off the Pacific Northwest coast where a crustal plate carrying part of the ocean dives under the continent, last had an earthquake in the 1700s, which generated a giant and deadly tsunami.

"We guess it was about 30 meters high," says Eisner, explaining how marine sand deposits have been found in Oregon, evidence of this great event. "All along the Oregon coast, you see these swamps full of dead trees," he continues, "and these trees have been core-dated. They all died in the 1700s, correlating with the dates of the sand deposits, which were carried by powerful waves up onto the coastal bluffs."" (Richard Eisner)

Recorded human history isn't very old in this region. We mostly have to rely on geological record to infer what has happened, how big, and how often. I don't believe the evidence is encouraging. SONGS may be somewhat sheltered by the shape of the coastline from Alaska, but there are other potential sources of tsunami, even subduction zones, in the Pacific.

[FBaggins]

73. And that was in the analysis

That's why the inundation line was set at 20'. This is the "maximum credible threat" - and very likely includes the scenario you mention. The aleutians are probably the only thing (apart from larger catastrophes) that could create a tsunami that size at SONGS.

But more importantly... if we're going to rebut a statement that says there's little risk of a tsunami that endangers the plant, it isn't sufficient to hypothesize a wave that is just barely higher than the seawall... because the seawall is not the last line of defense. The generators aren't in waterproof vaults because it might rain... they're there in case the plant is flooded. The backup batteries aren't so much higher just because they like to get extra exercise carrying them up and down stairs... they're there because they back up the generators and if the generators were knocked out there's probably a reason. The portable generators that are even higher are there in case the previous lines of defense fail.

In short... it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that if SONGS were sitting on the Fukushima site... it wouldn't have been at all the same event (and that's clearly a tsunami well above the sea wall)

Recorded human history isn't very old in this region.

Sure... but it's long enough to compare areas where there are credible threats to seafront reactors from tsunami and where they would be much rarer.

As an example - you can have a significant mid-plate quake just about anywhere. But when we discuss areas that are prone to earthquakes, we don't include them.

[FBaggins]

70. I looked it up for you

The maximum tidal range for San Onofre is 8.8 feet. (usually it's more like 5-6)

http://www.surf-forecast.com/breaks/San-Onofre/tides/latest

So there's no way that a wall that's 30 feet above low tide is only 14 feet above high tide.

[CreekDog]

65. so you're saying the coast of California is not at a tsunami risk?

wow, well you have NO credibility on this topic now.

NONE.

on the California coast, with hundreds of miles of active faults, on a coast with thousands of miles of faults that can create catastrophic earthquakes in far and near regions, you are making it sound like the risk is as small and unusual as New York or the east coast.

which means that you know so little about the region that you shouldn't be taken seriously while talking about it.

or that you do know and are trying to mislead people, which means you shouldn't be taken seriously.

it's one thing to argue in favor of nuclear power, reasonable people can take such a position.

but it takes a lie to downplay the risk of tsunamis to the coast of California.

it takes a lie to downplay that.

[FBaggins]

68. Yes... that's what I'm saying.

wow, well you have NO credibility on this topic now. NONE.

Lol. Shows how much you know.

on the California coast, with hundreds of miles of active faults, on a coast with thousands of miles of faults that can create catastrophic earthquakes in far and near regions, you are making it sound like the risk is as small and unusual as New York or the east coast.

Not "as small as" New York... but both are small compared to areas with actual tsunami risks. In California, a tsunami coming in means "get off the beach!". In Japan it means "evacuate the city and head for the hills!". In tsunami-prone areas, tsunami can kill thousands to even hundreds of thousands of people... in the continental US, the worst tsunami on record killed about a dozen people. We talk about tsunami (because you can have a "tsunami" even if it's too small to notice), but it's really not the same thing. The areas in, say, San Francisco that are at risk for tsunami... are the same areas that are at risk of coastal flooding from significant storms.

which means that you know so little about the region that you shouldn't be taken seriously while talking about it.

Nope. It means that you failed your elementary school lessons in geology. Your understanding clearly extends only as far as "earthquakes cause tsunami... therefore anywhere that has earthquakes is in danger from tsunami".

What you miss is that there are different types of earthquakes caused by different types of faults... and some of them cause dangerous tsunami and some don't.

To oversimplify it for you... when you have what is called a "strike-slip" fault, earthquake motion is primarily horizontal. This doesn't tend to generate significant tsunami... and happens to be what we have along the West Coast. Normal/Reverse faults (or dip and slip faults) are different. Ground motion is primarily vertical... and when it happens on the sea floor, you can get significant tsunami. That's what they have around Japan (and what we have in Alaska). What are sometimes called "mega-thrust earthquakes" form in subduction zone (where one tectonic plate is forced under another - rather than sliding sideways along it).

There is a comparatively small subduction zone off of Oregon, but that plate (Gorda) is tiny compared to the ones that create havoc off Japan.


You see "hundreds of miles of active faults" and just assume that you understand what that means... but never noticed that will all of California's quakes, they don't ever get significant tsunami? They've had dozens of incidents that are technically tsunami... but never anything significant like what we're talking about. Are you sure that I'm the one that "knows so little of the region" (where I grew up)?

[CreekDog]

117. turns out you're wrong, Tsunamis are a risk

Tsunami study finds Southern California at risk
A theoretical 9.1 quake off Alaska could flood Long Beach and parts of O.C., and force 750,000 to evacuate.

September 4, 2013, 6:21 p.m.

A large tsunami hitting California would cause major flooding in Long Beach and parts of Orange County and force 750,000 people to evacuate coastal areas in just a few hours, according to an extensive simulation published Wednesday by the U.S. Geological Survey.

The study, released two years after a tsunami killed thousands in Japan, identified several communities that are particularly vulnerable to flooding because of their low elevation and lack of protection from waves.

They include Marina del Rey and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as well as the low-lying coastal areas extending from the ports to Newport Beach.

The report, compiled by dozens of scientists, emergency responders and industry representatives, is the most extensive examination of what a tsunami would do to California's coastline. The research simulated a 9.1 quake off the Alaska coast that would send damaging waves to California.

While waves would be larger in Northern California — between 10 and 23 feet — the damage could be greater in Southern California because the region has more coastal development and fewer coastal cliffs.

Tsunami waves of 3 to 10 feet could submerge blocks of Long Beach south of Ocean Boulevard, including the Aquarium of the Pacific and the Long Beach Convention Center as well as the Shoreline Village and Pike shopping centers. Those same-sized waves could cause flooding around the affluent communities of Newport Bay and Huntington Harbour as well.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-tsunami-study-20130905,0,1877440.story

[FBaggins]

118. Did you even read what you posted?

Note that the projected wave height at San Onofre from this imagined event would be about one foot. Far less than normal tidal variation and hardly a threat to the plant.

I also note that while you failed to limit your citation to the normal 3-4 paragraphs that DU prefers (to avoid copyright concerns)... you still left out:

There's little recorded evidence of a destructive tsunami in Southern California in modern times. But the 1964 Alaska tsunami killed 10 people in Crescent City.

[PamW]

72. Interject some science..

CreekDog,

If I may, I'd like to interject some science into this.

The faults in Japan at the western end of the Pacific tectonic plate, are different than the faults at the eastern end next to California.

Japan has subduction faults that slip vertically. That's the type of fault that gives you a lot of up/down motion in an earthquake, and that's the type of motion that causes tsunamis.

Contrarily, the California coastal faults slip horizontally in an earthquake, and generate side-to-side motions; so their tsunami generating potential is minimal.

PamW

[CreekDog]

74. incorrect, there are subduction zones off California

there are strike slip faults, but there are subduction zones as well, not to mention California is at risk from tsunamis caused by these and adjacent subduction zones.

if you don't know this, why lecture me on it?

[FBaggins]

76. Not really.

Nothing of a size that's relevant to the conversation.

The largest is off of Oregon and isn't very large (or a large threat to San Onofre - since it's hundreds of miles away and not very active).

Don't pretend that you weren't saying that the "hundreds of miles" of fault lines that you mentioned were tsunami threats. Your earlier post is clear enough and you're in no position to tell anyone else "if you don't know this".

[CreekDog]

77. PamW said there weren't subduction zones off the coast of California FALSE

she suggested that the eastern portion of the ring of fire didn't have subduction faults. FALSE.

the Cascadia subduction zone is far more than Oregon, but is off California, Washington and beyond.

it's also capable of producing a 9.0 magnitude earthquake (in the ocean no less) and 8.0+ earthquakes are realistic in the near term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendocino_Triple_Junction

[FBaggins]

78. No she didn't

she suggested that the eastern portion of the ring of fire didn't have subduction faults

She characterized the faults that were off of Japan and those that are off of California. She talked about the eastern end of the Pacific techtonic plate (not the "ring of fire&quot . Her statement was accurate.

You said "on the California coast, with hundreds of miles of active faults, on a coast with thousands of miles of faults that can create catastrophic earthquakes in far and near regions"

You're very clearly talking about the faults around San Onofre - which are different in character from faults that threaten tsunami and you did need to be educated on that (while insulting others). If you want to say that there's a fault off Oregon that technically overlaps California slightly... you're picking at nits. Because it's hundreds of miles from San Onofre and hasn't produced anything significant for hundreds of years.

it's also capable of producing a 9.0 magnitude earthquake (in the ocean no less)

And for San Onofre that takes the form of a tsunami up to 20' in height. If it pops (and you've mischaracterized the liklihood and probable intensity), the people of Oregon/Wa have much more to worry about than whether or not a concrete seawall in SoCal gets wet (because that's the extent of the risk).

[CreekDog]

79. She did say it. Or are you telling me what "she meant to say"

for some reason you seem to know.

PamW (1,199 posts)
72. Interject some science..

CreekDog,

If I may, I'd like to interject some science into this.

The faults in Japan at the western end of the Pacific tectonic plate, are different than the faults at the eastern end next to California.

Japan has subduction faults that slip vertically. That's the type of fault that gives you a lot of up/down motion in an earthquake, and that's the type of motion that causes tsunamis.

Contrarily, the California coastal faults slip horizontally in an earthquake, and generate side-to-side motions; so their tsunami generating potential is minimal.

PamW

[FBaggins]

80. You're playing childish games.

She responded to a post that clearly had no understanding of geography and she "dumbed down" the explanation for that audience. It's crystal clear what faults you were refering to and just as clear that she responded to you in that context.

The faults in Japan are different from the faults that you were refering to (and in just the way that we both gave you in our replies). You thought "earthquake in ocean = tsunami" and you didn't know what you were talking about. She corrected you without writing a 20-page paper.

[CreekDog]

81. Actually, you and PamW are all arguing peculiarly similar things, which are misleading

1) you are both arguing that tsunami risk is caused only by earthquakes in the immediate area (not outside it)
2) you and Pam are arguing that there aren't subduction zones off California (you backtracked later to say they dont' matter because (see argument #1) they aren't in the immediate area

when i pointed out that she was wrong (oh, but she was "dumbing down" the issue for me by, well, lying or ignorantly stating that there aren't subduction faults off California...).

she had to lie, and you had to assist her because telling the truth would undermine your argument.

which is the goal. right or wrong.

[FBaggins]

82. They're similar points (since they both correct the same error)... but they aren't 1 or 2

Nobody has said that tsunami are only caused by earthquakes in the area (2004 made that clear if you weren't paying attention prior to that). If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that the tsunami that have been discussed are from Alaska (and the area you've just discovered).

And nobody is arguing that there is no subduction zone anywhere off the west coast (again... Alaska is the far more common source and we did discuss that). It is, however, entirely reasonable to point out that we're talking about potential threats to create a tsunami that could impact San Onofre. Your desperation to appear less-wrong than you have... doesn't change the fact that hundreds of miles of land divide San Onofre from the theoretical source quake. The distance combined with the indirect path leaves even a 9.0 as little threat to the plant

You're grasping at straws. What both of us said remains correct. You misunderstood where tsunami came from and assumed that since California has thousands of miles of faults it must therefore have terrible tsunami risks.

The fact that Japan gets them all the time and they can kill tens of thousands of people... while California hardly ever gets them and rarely kill anyone at all... should have been a clue that you needed to borrow one (a clue).

There's no lying going on except perhaps on your end (or did you somewhere admit your earlier error?).

when i pointed out that she was wrong

You didn't point out that she was wrong. You grasped at a straw to cover your own embarasment... and did so in a transparent way.

But let's play the childish nit-picking game. What she specifically said was the eastern end of the Pacific tectonic plate. The subduction zone is actually between the Juan De Fuca plate and the western side of the North American Plate. One area of earthquakes caused by this interaction is along the Northern edge of the Pacific plate there, but that's not a subduction zone... and the eastern side of the Pacific Plate there is actually moving away from Juan de Fuca.

[CreekDog]

83. The simple fact is PamW said specifically that there aren't subduction zones off California --false

and all I have to do is paste her quote here and the only way you can attempt to make it true is to say that she meant something she didn't say.

PamW (1,199 posts)
72. Interject some science..

CreekDog,

If I may, I'd like to interject some science into this.

The faults in Japan at the western end of the Pacific tectonic plate, are different than the faults at the eastern end next to California.

Japan has subduction faults that slip vertically. That's the type of fault that gives you a lot of up/down motion in an earthquake, and that's the type of motion that causes tsunamis.

Contrarily, the California coastal faults slip horizontally in an earthquake, and generate side-to-side motions; so their tsunami generating potential is minimal.

PamW

don't say "nit picking" to me when you try to explain her three sentences away by saying in several paragraphs that what she really meant to do was talk about the Pacific plate boundary being strike slip and having less severe tsunami potential than subduction zones. you are saying she definitely was writing about the Pacific Plate boundary and NOT the Juan de Fuca plate boundary, the latter having a subduction zone and being TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to this conversation because it IS, on average, about 100 miles away from the Pacific Plate boundary. being 100 miles away, roughly, makes it totally irrelevant to a discussion of earthquakes and tsunamis in California.

what BS.

oh, and she didn't say that. you needed a page to make it seem credible that's what she meant.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Actually, I pointed out far upthread that the Cocos/Pacific plate fault can produce these tsunami.

The eastern boundary is a subduction zone, and the northern end of it has a clear direct or possibly glancing shot due to Baja cali, at the southern cali coastline. And the distance is about the same from Alaska to Wa, as it is from that plate to SONGS.

Edit: If that subduction fault lets slip off the coast of the Mexican state of Jalisco, it has a decent shot at the southern California coastline. The fault reaches out a bit into the ocean at that point, and has a partially obscured shot past Baja California to that coast.

[FBaggins]

85. And that's why Mexico is at a higher risk of tsunami

and so is Alaska.

But the lower 48 have no comparable risks. They get far fewer... and far less severe.

The estimates for largest tsunami along the cost took into account several possible sources. Is there any reason to believe they missed something with Cocos?

and the northern end of it has a clear direct or possibly glancing shot due to Baja cali,

Not really. Remember that the primary path of propagation is likely to run perpendicular to the fault line... and the ripples from the ends are nothing compared to that primary energy release. Have you seen the computer simulations of the 2004 tsunami's impact on the Indian Ocean? I think it's on the wiki page for the quake.

Though it might have an interesting impact on the Gulf of California.

[PamW]

98. CreekDog can NOT READ!!!

CreakDog,

Evidently CreekDog has a reading comprehension problem.

One can look at my post above, and the only mention of subduction faults was that for the Japanese side of the Pacific.

I said that California faults are horizontal slips in the main; the single largest fault is the strike-slip San Andreas.

However, there was no claim that "there we no subduction zones" of California.

CreekDog is engaging in the all too common practice on DU of reading what he wants to be there, instead of what is actually there.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

110. So the biggest and closest faults being strike-slip

obviates the need to consider various offshore subduction faults, or what? What the fuck was your point then? Just a 'LOOK OVER HERE' distraction or what?

I brought up the strike-slip within a few miles of the plant for the ground acceleration potential exceeding the design specs of the plant, not really for the tsunami risk.

[PamW]

99. Simplistic Analysis

Some here are doing a real simplistic analysis of how the seismic safety of a nuclear power plant is analyzed.

It's akin to saying that every car has a crash rating in miles per hour; say 35 mph. All crashes below 35 mph are survivable, and all crashes above 35 mph will be fatal. It's just not that simple. You could hit a large flat concrete wall at 37 mph, and the mass of the engine will help protect the passengers, and they can survive. On the other, hand, one could have a 33 mph crash with a narrow metal pole rooted in concrete, which crashes through the frontal structure, misses the engine, travels the length of the engine compartment, rips through the firewall, and kills the driver. Car crashes are much too varied to be characterized by a single number.

So too with nuclear power plants. That's not how their safety is analyzed. For all the faults in the area, one takes all the types of earthquake / tsunami effects that could be generated by any of the faults and analyze their effect on the plant. This requires massive structural mechanical modeling by big computer programs. One then determines what parts of the plant are damaged. Then one analyzes whether the damaged parts will create a safety problem. Not all components of the plants are equal critical to safety. ( In the car accident, an oblique collision may take out the front bumper and demolish the left front quarter panel; but that structure isn't critical to protecting the driver. )

So one can't say that a plant can only withstand a 7.8 quake, and some nearby fault can generate an larger quake, and conclude the plant is unsafe. It's more complex than that.

Additionally, many anti-nukes don't realize that the Richter scale is common logarithmic. I've heard some say, "The plant was rated at 10 on the Richter, and the quake was 9; so they only had an 11% margin. They don't realize that a magnitude 10 is 10 TIMES as intense as a magnitude 9.

A magnitude 10 is 10X a magnitude 9, which is 10X a magnitude 8. So a magnitude 10 is 100X a magnitude 8. You take the difference between the two magnitudes you want to compare, eg. 10 - 8 = 2; and then you take the number 10 to that power. Eg. 10 to the power of 2 equals 100.

One can only speak in generalities when comparing different geographic regions. That's why I DID NOT say that there were "no subduction faults of California". There are small subduction faults. But just because a fault is a subduction fault doesn't mean it's automatically fatal to the power plant. Again, the subduction fault can be small and far away, and the tsunami it generates would have a small impact at the plant.

The major fault of concern off California is the San Andreas, a strike-slip fault; the motion of which will generally be more horizontal than vertical. In general, the California faults are not as tsunami-prone as those off Japan.

Even so, a tsunami is not automatically deadly to a nuclear power plant. A tsunami was deadly to Fukushima because of their poor design practices. In particular, the Fukushima plants put their diesel fuel tanks above ground at dockside for ease of filling; but the tsunami wiped those fuel tanks away. Additionally, the diesel-generators themselves were in a non-watertight basement, along with their switchgear, and the momentary flooding of the tsunami rendered the backup generators and switchgear inoperable.

In the USA, the NRC requires that the fuel tanks be buried or otherwise protected. Likewise for the diesel generators; which will be in watertight vaults or otherwise protected. When I was a graduate student at MIT, I toured Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear power plant, a plant not too different in vintage from Fukushima. We were in the upper part of the reactor building when we came across these two large diesel engines that our guide pointed out to us as part of the backup electrical system. After looking over the engines, we got in a nearby elevator and rode about 2 stories up, and we were at the top floor of the reactor building.

So although many make a big deal out of the fact that Pilgrim and Fukushima are close in vintage, and general design; the details matter. Fukushima had diesel generators in a non-watertight basement which was vulnerable to tsunami, and Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear plant has those generators high up in the reactor building so as to meet the NRC's mandate that those generators are protected.

In the recent past, we had rivers overflow their banks and inundate nuclear power plants like the Fort Calhoun plant with water. The area around the plant was flooded when their sandbag walls gave way. Having the area around the plant flooded with water is actually worse than getting momentarily flooded by a transient tsunami. However, Fort Calhoun survived with no difficulty since the diesel generators are protected, as mandated by NRC regulations.

One has to look at the DETAILS to determine whether a plant is safe, ( and that is done ); instead of comparing single numbers or making a big issue as to whether a given fault is a subduction fault or not.

The seismic safety analysis is much more involved and extensive than any of the "strawman" arguments the anti-nukes have presented here.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

111. WTF?

Since when does the engine in a car soak up impact energy? It doesn't crumple, therefore it doesn't absorb shit. Subaru has dealt with the problem of engines coming in through the firewall, by designing the engine and transmission mounts to break away in such a manner as to subduct the engine below the passenger compartment.

In your pole example, if it didn't miss the engine, it would just push the engine into the passenger compartment directly.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

[PamW]

115. The engine has INERTIA!!!

The engine has INERTIA.

Some of the force will attempt to accelerate the engine. It doesn't have to crumple. Crumple is one way to absorb energy. The other is that the force can go into attempting to accelerate the engine. However, since the engine mass is so great; the acceleration is small.

It's called "INERTIA"! You might want to read up on it if you want to talk Physics with a Physicist!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html

PamW

[indie9197]

86. I don't think Yosemite has any volcanic risk

As for San O, the way the site is cut into the bluff there is nowhere for that wall of water to go except to pile up against the bluff. Those diesel generators would no doubt be swamped if hit by a tsunami like what hit Fukushima. If a nuke plant loses offsite power and its onsite backup power a meltdown is a likely outcome. I really dont know how the site passed the tsunami scenario.

[FBaggins]

87. Yeah... it's Yellowstone.

The whole thing is one massive volcano. When it blows (as it eventually must), half of us in the US are likely dead... and the rest will be pretty miserable for a long time.

The rest of your post, thought, is mistaken

the way the site is cut into the bluff there is nowhere for that wall of water to go except to pile up against the bluff.

That's not how hydrodynamics works. The wave would reflect off of the solid bluff/seawall

Those diesel generators would no doubt be swamped if hit by a tsunami like what hit Fukushima.

Nope. Unlike Fukushima, they're in waterproof vaults and can run while submerged (and the switching equipment is much higher up)

If a nuke plant loses offsite power and its onsite backup power a meltdown is a likely outcome.

If it loses offsite power and four backups and batteries and mobile backups very quickly after shutdown?... probably.

I really dont know how the site passed the tsunami scenario.

Because the site isn't prone to significant tsunami... and the largest plausible tsunami from a distant source was determined to be 20'... when the seawall is 30' above low tide.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Our understanding of how faults and quakes work in the Pacific is evolving to this day.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjes-2012-0150#.Ubnj22bn-bg

Granted, again, we are talking about a potential disaster that could reduce the catastrophic failure of SONGS to a 'welp, that sucks' bullet point on a long sad list of shit we have to deal with.

[FBaggins]

92. Certainly... but that returns us to the Yellowstone example and the first point

Now we're talking about the kind of events that are comparable in rarity to things that can occur to any reactor anywhere in the world. They are not, for example, meteor-proof... not will they survive a thermonuclear attach nearby - no matter where you put them. You're exactly right with the "welp, that sucks" comment.

But remember that the discussion began with a question re: whether SONGS was poorly located relative to other reactors. The claim (IIRC) was that the greater likelihood of quakes and/or tsunami made it a poor choice of locations. Such a claim could reasonably be made for many reactors in Japan (even without hindsight)... since they had a long history of major earthquakes and devestating tsunami. The SONGS site, OTOH, has a long history of quakes well below that which would endanger the plant and no history of tsunami that would come anywhere close.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. There is a range of devastating tsunami below the threshold of

comparison to a super caldera like Thera or Yellowstone going off. SONGS is exposed to those as well, whereas the Columbia Generating Plant, by comparison, is well sheltered from such an event.

[FBaggins]

94. Again... sure

You just haven't shown anything that potentially endangers SONGS (that isn't of that rarity).

Did you look at the animation for the 2004 quake?



Notice the propagation of the waves in the different directions. Look at the areas of comparable direction/distance as SONGS would be from the hypothetical quake we're talking about (and the amount of land mass in direct line between them). While it could generate a tsunami that would devestate parts of WA/OR, it wouldn't be likely to produce something that endangered SONGS (hundreds of miles away in just the wrong direction and an indirect hit).

[AtheistCrusader]

95. On the 31st of last month there was a 5.3 at 6.474°S 122.120°W

That's not even on a plate boundary. We don't know what faults are down there. Nobody has a clue what whatever fault produced that is capable of. It doesn't even have a name. It's just a part of the Clarion fracture zone. There's another to the north of that, much closer to SONGS, the Molokai fracture zone. And then the Murray fracture zone.

Not even faults. We have no idea what to expect from these areas. That's why I called it Russian Roulette earlier. We only have about 300 years of recorded history for this area to draw upon. The rest is geological evidence, and that DOES show a few large hits of indeterminate origin.

[FBaggins]

96. You understand logarithms, right?

Why are we talking about a 5.3?

Or looking at a mid-plate quake (not exactly tsunami fodder)? Doesn't this come awfully close to Creekdog's nonsensical presumption that "earthquake risk = tsunami risk"?

We have no idea what to expect from these areas.

You mean apart from a few centuries of experience? "There are things we don't understand" is not the same thing as an identified risk. It's really just paranoia.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. A 5.3 at 10km under your ass would get your attention.

My point is, the plate isn't a monolithic, solid, unchanging thing. The plate itself deforms, splits, and even has strike/slip and subduction faults of its own. We don't just get tsunami generating quakes on the outlying plate boundaries, which WOULD, if that were the only source, suggest SONGS is placed well.

Certain types of earthquakes certainly can produce tsunami. My point is, we only know so much about that region. In geological terms, we know practically nothing about 'it' in the context of the plate regions out there. We've mapped the surface. Some regions stand out, inferring some faults, and that's about it.

We're gaming probabilities having that site in that location. Probabilities we can only make semi-educated guesses at.

[PamW]

100. Not necessarily

AtheistCrusader states:
A 5.3 at 10 km under your ass would get your attention

Not necessarily. I live in earthquake country in northern California.

A little while back, there was a 5.3 magnitude fault on the Calaveras fault at about 10 km.

I didn't feel it at all because I happened to be up walking at the time. People who were quietly sitting did perceive the quake, but it's really too mild to be felt if you are up and moving.

Evidently FBaggins is correct; that you don't understand the implications of the Richter scale being logarithmic.

For example, a 5.8 quake would certainly get one's attention, even if moving about. That's because that additional 0.5 added to the magnitude value results in a quake that is over 3 TIMES larger.

A little remedial high school mathematics study might be in order.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

106. That you missed it doesn't mean it's imperceptible to humans.

I felt a 2.8 once, and so did about 400 other people in my town that hit the 'did you feel it' page on the USGS earthquake site.

I don't believe you for one second about the 'feel it' threshold. (though for this sort of 'did you feel it' purpose, the MMIS is more accurate than the Richter scale, and you can shove that 'remedial' bullshit right up your ass)

"At magnitudes of 5 - 6 low to moderate damage may be done to structures and are usually felt by everyone in the affected areas. This is equivalent to a Mercalli intensity of VI (for magnitude 5) - VII (magnitude 6)."

[kestrel91316]

9. Oh, my - somebody just outed himself:

"I am looking forward to the idea of rolling blackouts as an educational tool to help privileged Greenpeace trust fund brats understand the concept of "reliable baseload power". "

Hi, NNadir!! Didn't know you had this sockpuppet account!

[CreekDog]

116. What are you saying about wtmusic and NNadir?

NNadir (18,835 posts)
13. There is actually no place in the serious business of the environment for clowns who dress up...

...in costumes to trivialize the issues of the environment.

These are clueless bourgeois brats who drive around to protest meetings on their Mom and Dad's trust fund money to engage in their life long puerile exercise of "Look at me! Look at me!" stupidity.

It may be cute for 3rd graders, but adults?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=45977

wtmusic (37,962 posts)

...

I am looking forward to the idea of rolling blackouts as an educational tool to help privileged Greenpeace trust fund brats understand the concept of "reliable baseload power".

Bring 'em on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112746447

[kestrel91316]

15. No great loss. We made it through last summer just fine without it.

And it was always being shut down in hot weather for one reason or another.

We are accustomed to rolling blackouts anyway. They aren't the big deal that unplanned outages are.

[wtmusic]

22. You think buying out-of-state coal fired power is "just fine", do you?

[CreekDog]

61. you're blaming Greenpeace supporters for the shutdown of San Onofre? did they f--- up the plant?

or did its operators and designers do it?

it's being shut down because the operators couldn't run it competently. but you blame Greenpeace supporters.

some environmentalist.

wtmusic (37,903 posts)

San Onofre shutdown will mean tight electricity supplies


I am looking forward to the idea of rolling blackouts as an educational tool to help privileged Greenpeace trust fund brats understand the concept of "reliable baseload power".

Bring 'em on.

almost as anti-environment as when you posted that if cars have to slow down to increase the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, it's not worth it.

[PamW]

102. Correct!!

When California doesn't have one of its low-carbon nuclear units available, the demand doesn't go away.

So California uses the big transmission lines that go from California to Wyoming to get replacement power provided by burning Wyoming COAL.

Having a nuclear unit down, or shutdown permanently; is actually HARMFUL to the environment.

Which side of the global warming debate are the anti-nukes on?

PamW

[CreekDog]

90. Hey wtmusic, San Onofre is not "reliable baseload" when it's been off for 1.5 years

your post demonstrates that anyone worried about reliable baseload should steer clear of nuclear.

so thanks for the reminder!

[kristopher]

112. If nuclear is reliable why are we having this conversation?

That deals with your snarky comment at the end of your OP. Now let's dispose of the false claims in the OP itself.

Without SONGS, California still has more than enough capacity to meet their needs:

In order to keep the lights on, the ISO needs to have more generation available than consumers are expected to use. This is known as a “reserve margin,” and the California Public Utilities Commission requires the utilities to plan for a 15% cushion. And the state already has more power plants than we need to pass that test. This summer, the ISO expects to easily exceed that margin under normal conditions, and to still avoid rolling blackouts even under extreme conditions (like if a lot of power plants go down unexpectedly at the same time customers’ demand is unusually high).




Source: ISO (Note: SP 26 and NP 26 are roughly Southern and Northern California, respectively)

As you can see the problem presented by the shutdown isn't having enough capacity to meet demand.

So why, in 2012 when SO shut down, did they need to pull 2 retired natgas generators (450MW) out of retirement in nearby Huntington Beach?

Blame it on a grid designed around centralized generation. The gaping hole in the system left by the shutdown of a large centralized source of generation causes a lot of problems besides the loss of ability to meet demand.

...the grid needs the “voltage support” SONGS used to provide.

Since a major part of the Southern California electric grid was built around SONGS, it is a lot harder for the transmission grid to remain stable without the plant operating and providing that voltage support. This all gets very technical fast, but the important thing to know is that there are different ways to provide voltage support (and they don’t all require burning fossil fuels at a power plant). So even though one might expect the state to fill the hole left by SONGS with more dirty power plants, this year the state is taking a better and cleaner approach.

So what happens now?

...(Huntington Beach - k) is instead being converted into “synchronous condensers,” which provide voltage support without onsite emissions. (The synchronous condensers operate like electric motors and use a small amount of energy from the grid in the process.) Other emissions-free efforts to fill the hole left by SONGS include installation of capacitors and upgrades to a local transmission line so that if the line has a problem, only part of it goes down instead of the whole thing.

<snip>

The Public Utilities Commission should continue to build on the great start made this year by requiring utilities to fill the gap with efficient and clean resources by:

making the electric grid more resilient through transmission system upgrades;
adding renewable resources in different geographic regions to take advantage of the different times when they’re available; and
avoiding new generation through more aggressive efforts to help customers:
improve the efficiency of their homes and businesses;
reduce consumption during costly “peak” periods; and
use clean on-site generation like solar panels.

Information courtesy of the wonderful folks at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dwang/replacing_songs.html