Posted: 2/21/2011 7:40:15 AM EDT
|
The coal thread got me to thinking... Nuclear power is cheap and produces quite a bit.
I am all for building more nuke plants as I'm sick of paying 300+ a month for electricity. Sadly the enviro-whackos who are in charge will never let this happen. But just to say that there was a big push for more nuke plants, how would you secure them?? How would you stop Mohammed from driving a van packed full of explosives straight into one of the towers/reactors? What kind of damage would it cause? Chernobyl? 3 mile island? |
| Since the beginning of commercial nuclear power, containment vessels have been designed, built and maintained to withstand all sorts of attacks. The transmission and distribution network (the "grid") is FAR more susceptible to terrorism than the power production facilities. |
|
Hmmm, 104 plants in the USA that produce almost 20% of the nations power... interesting.
Hell, are they even viable on a larger scale? from Wiki: Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable. |
|
Quoted:
Since the beginning of commercial nuclear power, containment vessels have been designed, built and maintained to withstand all sorts of attacks. The transmission and distribution network (the "grid") is FAR more susceptible to terrorism than the power production facilities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0 |
|
Quoted: The coal thread got me to thinking... Nuclear power is cheap and produces quite a bit. I am all for building more nuke plants as I'm sick of paying 300+ a month for electricity. Sadly the enviro-whackos who are in charge will never let this happen. But just to say that there was a big push for more nuke plants, how would you secure them?? How would you stop Mohammed from driving a van packed full of explosives straight into one of the towers/reactors? What kind of damage would it cause? Chernobyl? 3 mile island? The 'towers' are cooling towers. Not reactors. If one of them gets hit, there would be time to shut down the reactor before any radiation was released. The actual reactors are covered in a concrete containment shell that is designed to contain a reactor failure. This also makes it pretty hard to sabotage. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The coal thread got me to thinking... Nuclear power is cheap and produces quite a bit. I am all for building more nuke plants as I'm sick of paying 300+ a month for electricity. Sadly the enviro-whackos who are in charge will never let this happen. But just to say that there was a big push for more nuke plants, how would you secure them?? How would you stop Mohammed from driving a van packed full of explosives straight into one of the towers/reactors? What kind of damage would it cause? Chernobyl? 3 mile island? The 'towers' are cooling towers. Not reactors. If one of them gets hit, there would be time to shut down the reactor before any radiation was released. The actual reactors are covered in a concrete containment shell that is designed to contain a reactor failure. This also makes it pretty hard to sabotage. I know the towers are for cooling, but let's say one of them is damaged significantly & cannot cool the material, or the power running the system is destroyed, then what? Backup systems? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The coal thread got me to thinking... Nuclear power is cheap and produces quite a bit. I am all for building more nuke plants as I'm sick of paying 300+ a month for electricity. Sadly the enviro-whackos who are in charge will never let this happen. But just to say that there was a big push for more nuke plants, how would you secure them?? How would you stop Mohammed from driving a van packed full of explosives straight into one of the towers/reactors? What kind of damage would it cause? Chernobyl? 3 mile island? The 'towers' are cooling towers. Not reactors. If one of them gets hit, there would be time to shut down the reactor before any radiation was released. The actual reactors are covered in a concrete containment shell that is designed to contain a reactor failure. This also makes it pretty hard to sabotage. I know the towers are for cooling, but let's say one of them is damaged significantly & cannot cool the material, or the power running the system is destroyed, then what? Backup systems? If they lose off-site power they have back-up diesel generators. If a cooling-tower gets taken out they would just shut down the reactor. Hell, some plants don't even have cooling towers. |
|
Hmmm, 104 plants in the USA that produce almost 20% of the nations power... interesting.
Hell, are they even viable on a larger scale? from Wiki: Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable. My uncle worked at a Nuke plant in the med west. Most of what you are talking about are the 1st gen plants were they were mostly one offs. The new generation nuke plants are very efficient and most smart countries are pushing for mostly nuke power. Japan long ago made a massive move to nuke and in the long term they are set, I am sure they will have some issues but it will all be worked out. The majority of cost on a new nuke plant are caused by liberals and lawyers, it is projected to take over 10 years and something 6 billion to hurdle the EPA and other regulatory agencies and most of that is just standard BS that should only cost a couple million to take care of. What is interesting is they have found a way to significantly upgrade the old plants to make them even more effective and it bypasses a lot of the regulation BS. Sadly, because of the regulatory costs of a new Nuke plant, that raises the cost of the plant to a point were it can not compete with coal. Thus the new nuke plants are actually on board with algores group trying to regulate coal to a higher unit cost. Either way, due to regulations, our cost of electricy is going to go up. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The coal thread got me to thinking... Nuclear power is cheap and produces quite a bit. I am all for building more nuke plants as I'm sick of paying 300+ a month for electricity. Sadly the enviro-whackos who are in charge will never let this happen. But just to say that there was a big push for more nuke plants, how would you secure them?? How would you stop Mohammed from driving a van packed full of explosives straight into one of the towers/reactors? What kind of damage would it cause? Chernobyl? 3 mile island? The 'towers' are cooling towers. Not reactors. If one of them gets hit, there would be time to shut down the reactor before any radiation was released. The actual reactors are covered in a concrete containment shell that is designed to contain a reactor failure. This also makes it pretty hard to sabotage. I know the towers are for cooling, but let's say one of them is damaged significantly & cannot cool the material, or the power running the system is destroyed, then what? Backup systems? I'm no nuke power guy, but I figure in the event of a significant problem they'll just drop all the control rods and shut the thing down. |
|
Quoted:
They would be secured like current nuke plants. I think the DOE regulates security at them and has probably thought of more scenarios and contingencies than you have. Wrong. Either Wackenhut (Regulated Security Solutions) or "In-house" guards. Nuke plants are protected by armed guards and are considered hard targets. Nothing to worry about here. I'm more worried about chemical factories like chlorine... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The coal thread got me to thinking... Nuclear power is cheap and produces quite a bit. I am all for building more nuke plants as I'm sick of paying 300+ a month for electricity. Sadly the enviro-whackos who are in charge will never let this happen. But just to say that there was a big push for more nuke plants, how would you secure them?? How would you stop Mohammed from driving a van packed full of explosives straight into one of the towers/reactors? What kind of damage would it cause? Chernobyl? 3 mile island? The 'towers' are cooling towers. Not reactors. If one of them gets hit, there would be time to shut down the reactor before any radiation was released. The actual reactors are covered in a concrete containment shell that is designed to contain a reactor failure. This also makes it pretty hard to sabotage. I know the towers are for cooling, but let's say one of them is damaged significantly & cannot cool the material, or the power running the system is destroyed, then what? Backup systems? I'm no nuke power guy, but I figure in the event of a significant problem they'll just drop all the control rods and shut the thing down. Only PWRs drop in from the top, BWRs come up from the bottom  |
|
Nuke plants have an extensive security detail. Men, women, arms, barriers, security plans.................all of it. I deal with it daily in more aspects than just entering and leaving the plant.
Nuke plants have emergency cooling systems that are completely independent of anything related to cooling tower operation. There are two physically and electrically independent loops. Each loop contains two subloops that can fulfill the function of the system. The concept is to keep the core covered with water. The plant I work at is on the shore of Lake Erie. We run out of water when Lake Erie runs dry. A meltdown type accident at the plant I work at is not very likely. I'd bet my chances are better in winning the Powerball lottery two weeks in a row. |
|
Quoted: If that's a video of an F-4 vaporizing against a concrete wall, I'm gonna come kick you in the wedding jewelry.Quoted: Since the beginning of commercial nuclear power, containment vessels have been designed, built and maintained to withstand all sorts of attacks. The transmission and distribution network (the "grid") is FAR more susceptible to terrorism than the power production facilities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0 Spade ––>  <–– DzlBenzETA: |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
They would be secured like current nuke plants. I think the DOE regulates security at them and has probably thought of more scenarios and contingencies than you have. Wrong. Either Wackenhut (Regulated Security Solutions) or "In-house" guards. Nuke plants are protected by armed guards and are considered hard targets. Nothing to worry about here. I'm more worried about chemical factories like chlorine... So I am wrong because the NRC is the actual agency that sets forth regulations on security for nuke plants (my mistake, I thought it was part of the DOE), or because you thought I meant DOE actually provides the security to nuke plants? The feds do regulate security at nuke plants, I just named the wrong agency. |
|
Quoted:
The coal thread got me to thinking... Nuclear power is cheap and produces quite a bit. I am all for building more nuke plants as I'm sick of paying 300+ a month for electricity. Sadly the enviro-whackos who are in charge will never let this happen. But just to say that there was a big push for more nuke plants, how would you secure them?? How would you stop Mohammed from driving a van packed full of explosives straight into one of the towers/reactors? What kind of damage would it cause? Chernobyl? 3 mile island? Thick reactor cover(trenoble was basically 1 layer of concrete IIRC). A fighter jet can hit them and not damage it. I think it can handle a car. Secured like a military base. |
|
Quoted:
Hmmm, 104 plants in the USA that produce almost 20% of the nations power... interesting. Hell, are they even viable on a larger scale? from Wiki: Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable. We should be starting construction on 3 or 4 new 1 to 2 GigaWatt plants every month for the next ten years. I don't know the optimum size, but I expect it's close to that size in order to distribute the power sources where they service the distribution network best. I'll bet there is a practical limit on cooling water supply that limits plant size, too. Roughly 540 plants would replace 100% of other sources. That means the greens would give up major solar and wind dreams, but it opens the way to reducing hydro power generation in trade. However, I am not in favor of reducing hydro generated electricity, it's also cheap and so abundant that some regions can't use their capacity. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not sure anyone with specifics would be real thrilled about posting safeguards information on the internet, but it's safe to say that security at a commercial nuclear power plant is quite sufficient. The DOE guys get even cooler toys. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v70/ZakkWylde470/M134-Gatling-Livermore3feb06c.jpg I like your ALARA sig line. I'll use that at work in the future. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The coal thread got me to thinking... Nuclear power is cheap and produces quite a bit. I am all for building more nuke plants as I'm sick of paying 300+ a month for electricity. Sadly the enviro-whackos who are in charge will never let this happen. But just to say that there was a big push for more nuke plants, how would you secure them?? How would you stop Mohammed from driving a van packed full of explosives straight into one of the towers/reactors? What kind of damage would it cause? Chernobyl? 3 mile island? The 'towers' are cooling towers. Not reactors. If one of them gets hit, there would be time to shut down the reactor before any radiation was released. The actual reactors are covered in a concrete containment shell that is designed to contain a reactor failure. This also makes it pretty hard to sabotage. I know the towers are for cooling, but let's say one of them is damaged significantly & cannot cool the material, or the power running the system is destroyed, then what? Backup systems? Backup systems out the ass. Remember that August blackout, 2005 I think? That shut down the grid - including the power that ran the plant. They have backup systems that generate more power than some power plants. Trashing the cooling tower probably the worst terrorist attack that someone could realistically hope to accomplish. And it is certainly one of the worst single-point failures that can occur at a nuclear plant. But it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world. There are several contingencies to keep that baby cool. The cooling tower is just the most convenient/efficient. Messing things up to the point there would be a catastrophic failure is no small task. Lots of concrete, steel and security to get through and even if they managed to cause a meltdown, the end result would not be the nuclear holocaust that they make it seem like on TV. There are much easier targets that would provide more bang for the buck. I worked at one for my engineering internship and never lost any sleep. ETA We need MOAR nuclear power. They want green - that is as green as sustainable energy can get. They got a bad rap because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, but things have come a long way since then. |
|
Quoted: How would you stop Mohammed from driving a van packed full of explosives straight into one of the towers/reactors?
As has already been pointed out TOWERS are nothing more than for cooling. When people see images of nuclear plants the characteristic shape of an induced-draft cooling tower is NOT the part of the facility to pay attention to. Coal-fired plants sometimes use induced-draft cooling towers. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted: How would you stop Mohammed from driving a van packed full of explosives straight into one of the towers/reactors?
As has already been pointed out TOWERS are nothing more than for cooling. When people see images of nuclear plants the characteristic shape of an induced-draft cooling tower is NOT the part of the facility to pay attention to. Coal-fired plants sometimes use induced-draft cooling towers. And aside from that, the plant I worked at had enough security that Mohammed wouldn't have made it through the front gate, let alone within 50 yards of the cooling tower. Mohammed is going to need a tank that can cross big ditches. |
|
Quoted:
Hmmm, 104 plants in the USA that produce almost 20% of the nations power... interesting. Hell, are they even viable on a larger scale? from Wiki: Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable. How about the person that states they don't know anything about nuclear power, not drop a bunch of undermining 'factoids' into the topic? Nuclear power works just fine, it's safe. There are newer designs that are even more useful and more inherently safe from disruption. Pebble-bed and the like. The japanese (Toshiba?) are even working on compact, neighborhood-sized decay reactors that you would literally bury in the ground and entomb in concrete, with nothign but a couple power wires coming out of the hole. Even the old designs are built to survive airliners being crashed into them, to maintain containment. Several European nations (that the Left keeps saying we should emulate in all things) run a significantly higher percentage of their grid on nuclear power. The USA has spend billions of dollars and decades studying what to do with the 'waste' from nuclear plants, weighed against sedition within the bureaucracy and endless NIMBY protests by eco-marxists at every stage of the plan. Their life-hating strategery has been to oppose the plants, put out shit like The China Syndrome to scare the ignorant general public and legislatures, stuff the EPA with marxists to overregulate the plant construction process such that it takes 25yrs and millions of dollars just to get thru the review process for plant licensure. Then presented wtih technology that readily RECYCLES 'spent' fuel rods to recoup the ~97% useful material that still remains in them, the same marxists ban the process - which is in use in europe. So being blocked from recycling the material, we move on to storage of the waste products. Decades of research and study leading to the creation of the Yucca Mountain storage facility in the desert wastelands of southern Nevada, the territory / govt reserve previously used for surface detonations of nukes (ie it's ALREADY a wasteland). MIllions are spent. The facility is built. It is literally on the cusp of going into operation. The Marxist in Chief takes office and says 'this needs more reivew' and suspends the program. Nearly 30 years, pissed away. DoT and DoE even built transportation casks that can literally be t-boned by a speeding freight train and NOT rupture. But the marxists say, 'nope can't do it'. So for the last couple decades, the 'spent' fuel rods are stored in pools IN the individual faciltiies scattered around the states. While marxist lawyers file injunction after injunction after injunction. While marxists demand we stop using fossil fuels then BLOCK the creation of solar and wind farms. And block hydroelectric installations. And block offshore drilling, drilling in an artic desert wasteland immediately adjacent to Prudhoe Bay, pretending it's a pastoral parkland as ANWR is a thousand miles to the south. The entirety of the anti-nuclear effort is a marxist fraud, perpetrated in the name of curtailing our economic growth and prosperity, nothing more. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmm, 104 plants in the USA that produce almost 20% of the nations power... interesting. Hell, are they even viable on a larger scale? from Wiki: Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable. How about the person that states they don't know anything about nuclear power, not drop a bunch of undermining 'factoids' into the topic? Nuclear power works just fine, it's safe. There are newer designs that are even more useful and more inherently safe from disruption. Pebble-bed and the like. The japanese (Toshiba?) are even working on compact, neighborhood-sized decay reactors that you would literally bury in the ground and entomb in concrete, with nothign but a couple power wires coming out of the hole. Even the old designs are built to survive airliners being crashed into them, to maintain containment. Several European nations (that the Left keeps saying we should emulate in all things) run a significantly higher percentage of their grid on nuclear power. The USA has spend billions of dollars and decades studying what to do with the 'waste' from nuclear plants, weighed against sedition within the bureaucracy and endless NIMBY protests by eco-marxists at every stage of the plan. Their life-hating strategery has been to oppose the plants, put out shit like The China Syndrome to scare the ignorant general public and legislatures, stuff the EPA with marxists to overregulate the plant construction process such that it takes 25yrs and millions of dollars just to get thru the review process for plant licensure. Then presented wtih technology that readily RECYCLES 'spent' fuel rods to recoup the ~97% useful material that still remains in them, the same marxists ban the process - which is in use in europe. So being blocked from recycling the material, we move on to storage of the waste products. Decades of research and study leading to the creation of the Yucca Mountain storage facility in the desert wastelands of southern Nevada, the territory / govt reserve previously used for surface detonations of nukes (ie it's ALREADY a wasteland). MIllions are spent. The facility is built. It is literally on the cusp of going into operation. The Marxist in Chief takes office and says 'this needs more reivew' and suspends the program. Nearly 30 years, pissed away. DoT and DoE even built transportation casks that can literally be t-boned by a speeding freight train and NOT rupture. But the marxists say, 'nope can't do it'. So for the last couple decades, the 'spent' fuel rods are stored in pools IN the individual faciltiies scattered around the states. While marxist lawyers file injunction after injunction after injunction. While marxists demand we stop using fossil fuels then BLOCK the creation of solar and wind farms. And block hydroelectric installations. And block offshore drilling, drilling in an artic desert wasteland immediately adjacent to Prudhoe Bay, pretending it's a pastoral parkland as ANWR is a thousand miles to the south. The entirety of the anti-nuclear effort is a marxist fraud, perpetrated in the name of curtailing our economic growth and prosperity, nothing more. Facts, you have them! The sheeple have been badly misled. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
They would be secured like current nuke plants. I think the DOE regulates security at them and has probably thought of more scenarios and contingencies than you have. Wrong. Either Wackenhut (Regulated Security Solutions) or "In-house" guards. Nuke plants are protected by armed guards and are considered hard targets. Nothing to worry about here. I'm more worried about chemical factories like chlorine... Well, Davis Besse did have a guard with an ND... link More importantly, giving a heads up when there is going to be a test ain't necessarily the best evaluation in the world. That being said, they are a hard enough target that most would look elsewhere. It wouldn't be politically correct, but the say to do it would be to build em in the sticks, and put a CIWS to defend against threats. Not talking about the containment either. All moot, as nuclear power has been effectively killed in this country. The AP1000's that are on order I doubt will ever see completion. The moonbats will drag their start-up out indefinitely. Cripes they are already 3X the cost of the exact same models in China - thanks to EPA & legal overhead. |
| As Nuclear Security then on to Nuclear Security Management for a large part of my adult life this thread makes me l.o.l. Nuclear facilities are better protected than you would believe if someone was silly enough to give you details on here. I worry more about large space rocks than bad people getting past my guys. YMMV |
| I work in a nuke plant.. Unless you have a large army, and some type of air support, your wont do much.. Even if you get inside, you still cant really do much.. Its not like they have a giant button that says "push her for melt down"... Hell one year some guy came a little to close with a fishing boat, and helicopters and coast guard literally jumped out from behind a rock and ruined the dudes afternoon.. |
|
Quoted:
I work in a nuke plant.. Unless you have a large army, and some type of air support, your wont do much.. Even if you get inside, you still cant really do much.. Its not like they have a giant button that says "push her for melt down"... Hell one year some guy came a little to close with a fishing boat, and helicopters and coast guard literally jumped out from behind a rock and ruined the dudes afternoon.. Tons of people still don't know that there's a one mile exclusion zone around nuke plants that border bodies of water. Our alarm system goes off at least once a week in the summer when boats wander in. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I work in a nuke plant.. Unless you have a large army, and some type of air support, your wont do much.. Even if you get inside, you still cant really do much.. Its not like they have a giant button that says "push her for melt down"... Hell one year some guy came a little to close with a fishing boat, and helicopters and coast guard literally jumped out from behind a rock and ruined the dudes afternoon.. Tons of people still don't know that there's a one mile exclusion zone around nuke plants that border bodies of water. Our alarm system goes off at least once a week in the summer when boats wander in. Is that safeguards? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I work in a nuke plant.. Unless you have a large army, and some type of air support, your wont do much.. Even if you get inside, you still cant really do much.. Its not like they have a giant button that says "push her for melt down"... Hell one year some guy came a little to close with a fishing boat, and helicopters and coast guard literally jumped out from behind a rock and ruined the dudes afternoon.. Tons of people still don't know that there's a one mile exclusion zone around nuke plants that border bodies of water. Our alarm system goes off at least once a week in the summer when boats wander in. Is that safeguards? Nope. It's on every nav chart out there. Added this because I just remembered: It's marked by buoys in the summer also. |