HS Nuclear Power Plant in California / Reactor and SGS leaks

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

HS Nuclear Power Plant in California / Reactor and SGS leaks




by Christophe » 13/07/12, 12:22

In California, a damaged nuclear power plant had to be closed

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Thursday published 12 July an update of the problems faced by the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California, where it believes that the situation is more serious than it had thought at the beginning . One of the reactors at this power plant near San Diego had to be shut down in January as a result of radioactive leaks. The NRC had assured that there was no direct danger to the population.

But further research initially showed unexpected erosion on many pipes carrying radioactive water. The plant was therefore completely shut down, prompting California state authorities to refer to alternative sources of electricity. The San Onofre plant produces enough electricity to power 1,4 million homes in the United States, according to operator Southern California Edison (SCE).

MORE 3 400 DAMAGED TUBES

Thursday, an update of the review of the tubes has been quietly published on the NRC website: it reveals that the situation has worsened. This report "shows a much more serious problem than what was initially announced, and raises serious questions about whether or not to put the reactors back into service," commented Daniel Hirsch, an expert on nuclear power at the University of California at Santa Cruz.

The new data show that more than 3 400 steam generator tubes at San Onofre power plant are damaged. The SCE operator was pushing to restart electricity production in at least one of the plant's units before the end of the summer, but "now we know that if he wants to do that, he will have to operate with a very large number of damaged tubes, ”Hirsch said. A spokesperson for SCE declined to respond immediately. The NRC also did not comment on the new figures.


The 2 reactors of the plant have been commissioned in 1982 and 1983 ... for ... 40 years (humhum) ...

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_n ... San_Onofre

Proof (?) That the life expectancy (or pushed back) by all the nucleo-electricians of 40 years without worries is illusory ... (especially if one starts from a power station designed for 20 years ...)

In 2010, 58 incidents were reported by employees or contractors working at San Onofre, against 5 for all other US production sites. For the period from January 2010 to August 2011, 81 incidents were reported4.

Since January 2012, while the No. 2 reactor is stopped for refueling, the reactor No. 3 was stopped following an alarm signaling a leak of radioactive vapor in the primary circuit, at the level of 5 steam generators. The leakage of radioactive vapor on one of the steam generators of Unit No. 3 was estimated to be "greater than" 100 liters per hour6. This steam generator, recently replaced, has a serious defect in the heat exchange tubes: several hundred of these tubes would be more or less damaged according to the NRC7.


More information on the page in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre ... ng_Station
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 13/07/12, 13:19

The plant is considered one of the most dangerous in the world because of the seismic risk: several active geological faults are nearby, including the famous San Andreas Fault which causes very important and devastating earthquakes in California. About 7,4 million people live within 80km of the 1 plant, mostly in the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego2

According to the operator, the plant is built to withstand an earthquake of magnitude 7,0 whose epicenter would be located under the central 3.


Well ! Our favorite Ricans have obviously not had enough victims at Three Mile Island to understand some things ... Chernobyl and Fukushima are for others ... are not concerned ... and say we have the same irresponsible with us ....

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_n ... ile_Island

:? : Cry: :frown: :x :| : Evil:
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 13/07/12, 18:20

Here. good bein my opinion is moving directly in a direction outlined following all the assumptions that abound since Fukushima. What is it?

As already mentioned at this time, it is becoming increasingly clear that the materials used in the power stations themselves are not sufficiently capable of resisting the nucleo-chemical wear, which reduces them very quickly to much longer life cycles. short as estimates (yes estimate, because the plants are only laboratories in-vivo, in which no one knows what will happen). As a result, redundant security systems - which would have functioned properly with wear under "normal" constraints - soon find themselves in the limit tolerance over time. Which has some consequences and direct observations:

- the nuclear is absolutely not profitable in the context of an explotation with the rigorous respect of the standards of safety of the initial specifications, because everything is decayed.

- as these constraints are permanently borderline (even if with each accident new measures are born => it is to say how much nuclear is end-of-wood if we have to get there) we can say with a probability sufficient based on the sad experiences that we know: ALL POWER PLANTS IN THE WORLD ARE DANGEROUS, and potentially capable of drifting at any time - in any situation of advanced criticality - towards a runaway out of control. It seems crystal clear to me.

- we now have two case studies that show that nuclear power is not safe: a) the Fukushima case which shows that all systems - which were supposed to have absolute security - did not work in Japan, because previous damage had been underestimated. b) we now have the proof with the center in California, or by chance these deteriorations were updated soon enough! While this is not exactly the same scenario in both cases, but it now shows that the progressive and inevitable decay that takes place over time, has all the ingredients to lead to the drama. So, in my humble opinion, it is almost certain that if the Fukushima plant had been new with a top installation, the accident would not have occurred. Worse, when anomalies appear in the construction itself, and the operators close their eyes, where pass the safety standards? It is therefore clear that advanced material degradation means that all the central units become sooner or later time bombs! And that all the accumulated defects produce all their effects during a major accident where nothing is able to stop the chain reaction (no more insufficient cooling which arrive in principle much too late, and no way massive enough, so that these counter-measures of the last chance with pumps almost out of order (or that I know) stop the process of fusion which is then triggered suddenly, like a bommbe. It is certain that nothing will work the "J" day, which has been seen in Chernobyl in a case as well as in Fukushima or Three Miles Island, in "accidental" cases.

- Security systems are certainly there, but they are pushed beyond their limits, and replacement equipment eventually no longer be able to circumscribe a major accident. One can still prove it when one is not able to realize the REAL state of deterioration, by all the most sophisticated American methods of sensor, benchmarking and monitoring and with a staff drilled to dead and broken the paradigm of early prevention!

- it would probably be necessary to urgently shut down a considerable number of power plants in the world, because for all of them, the situation will deteriorate ...
- and therefore, de facto, nuclear power will be a billion-dollar abyss if the countries do not decide to get out of it AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ...

Because of 6 or 7 level accidents, there will be more and more.

Question: what will happen with emerging countries with outdated power plants of the same type, in the next ten years, when they will no longer have the capital to maintain them properly, and the degradation of materials will have done his work, all added
up to the culmination of a critical situation? We will most likely have a merger again, but with dozens of liquidators sent to save the furniture and sink a slab under the tank on the run (case of Chernobyl). Even the pollution of a river and the fallout directly on a megalopolis, with billions of victims ...
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 198 guests