It appears that the inland waterways, particularly in Vermont, bore the worst hardship from Hurricane Irene, with flooding of areas that were probably less equipped to deal with such things than coastal regions. The amount of rain tacked on to an already wet August was too much for many tributaries to bear. The damage is still unfolding in Vermont and elsewhere along the eastern seaboard, and I don’t think the question should be about hype, but about preparedness in those inland regions.
That’s also true of the unexpected DC earthquake last week. The picture of the overturned lawn chair is funny and all, but because the region doesn’t get a lot of earthquakes, some of the infrastructure was unprepared. And while disaster has hopefully been avoided, this should raise caution, especially with respect to one nuclear plant in Virginia:
The earthquake that prompted the shutdown of a Virginia nuclear power plant last week may have been more severe than the plant’s reactors were designed to withstand, federal regulators said.
The revelation is likely to put increased pressure on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to quickly implement a series of safety recommendations intended in part to protect plants from major natural disasters like earthquakes.
NRC said Monday that its preliminary analysis indicates that the ground motion caused by the magnitude-5.8 earthquake near the North Anna Power Station in Louisa County, Va., exceeded the maximum level the two reactors at the plant were built to handle.
Nuclear plants cannot lose power. This has been the source of much of the trouble in Fukushima. In the case of North Anna, offsite power was lost, but backup diesel generators kicked in. However, if the plant started to crumble because it wasn’t built to withstand an earthquake of that magnitude, power could have become an issue. And then a hugely populated area could have been materially affected.
A few things here. First of all, these are the kinds of problems you simply don’t have with other forms of renewable energy. Second, as natural disasters grow more frequent, improving critical infrastructure design is just another cost of climate change, one that doesn’t get scored by the CBO, but one which exists and drains budgets. Third, it’s worth looking into whether one form of energy production – fracking – is leading to natural occurrences like earthquakes that threaten other forms of energy production.
But really, this is a story about how our infrastructure needs are even bigger than we thought.




34 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
David, would you take a minute or so to explain just precisely how you consider that nuclear energy is “renewable?
You have made this assertion before and it was pointed out to you that nuclear ebergy is NOT a renewable form of energy, causing one to wonder, if in your vast output, you have no time for hearing or receiving “input” from others?
DW
Well, you can take burnt nuclear fuel and reporcess it for the Pu. Then you make MOX fuel and when you burn it you get more MOX fuel.
Technically, I suppose that’s renewable. Practically, I’d rather rub sticks together than have a reactor nearby running on MOX.
Boxturtle (Never mind the waste, there’s no carbon emissions. *sigh*)
Right and you can take “spent” uranium and leave it all over the “everywhere” battlefield, BoxTurle, which, I suppose, might be considered a supplementary “use” … however with a “half-life” essentially incomprehensible to human grasp, I’d be very cautious about lumping nuclear energy into the honestly renewable energy category.
Unless bon mots have some redemptive value on the renewable bs scale allowing an essentially absurd notion, more fitting to Mr. Osterity’s “change” you can deceive with, to stand unchallenged, than more honest and useful journalism ought to require.
DW
Which is why you’ll never get a job in government or at Westinghouse.
Boxturtle (There wouldn’t be a jobs crisis if people would just say what prospective employers want to hear)
Wait! Wait! Wait!
Are you implying that DDay is seeking some form of revolving door windfall or golden future with gummint or some corporate octopus, BoxTurtle?
Such intentional aspiration, I simply cannot accept nor counntenance, a wee bit of sloppiness or hurried acquiessence to standard journalistic jargon perhaps, or simple, harried carelessness possibly, owing to prodigious output, or even an unconsidered unknowing might be possumble, but a calculated anticipation of remunerative “appreciation”, even I, cantankerous curmudgeon and cynical suspicionist cannot, nay, will not embrace such a thought.
May the etherial and lofty abode of the Gawds forfend!!!
;~DW
Clearly the answer is that we need less of that intrusive, job-killing federal regulation.
North Anna is in Eric Cantor’s district, ain’t it?
I already accused him of being the mole in Jane’s morning post. He just knows too much.
Boxturtle (And I wonder if he gets a cut of those “Designer Handbags” popularized here recently)
basilbeast@7: Yup. But Eric lives in D.C., so why worry about a possible problem? Especially one that could hurt his fundraising.
A sane country would shut down this reactor. Being the good ol’ USA, we’ll likely build another reactor right next door since we already have EPA approval for the site.
Boxturtle (maybe two, if there’s room)
Dayam!
More stuff goin’ on here than ya can shake four-foot al dente noodle at.
I swears … sometimes.
Now ya say he’s cutting designs on handbags?
That lad is just too talented fer our own goodness by gracious gummin up da worksolate an all weakended long and short of fit.
Jeebers … ’nuff ta give ya the vaporwillys.
;~DW
Why, yes, yes, it is:
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/08/26/eric-cantors-nuclear-failure/
Now BoxTurtle, you’re gonna be gettin’ a call from the Nuculur Register Commisary with a job offer, you keep that stuff up, and likely ole Osterity offer you head of the Energee Partment — then whatyagonnado?
Glo all night long on with ya?
;~DW
Naw, I fail the political test. I still think Obama is a waste of Oxygen.
Boxturtle (But for $250K/yr + benefits, I’ll not only retract the above but deny I ever said it)
Has anyone ever found out if any fracking was going on nearby?
And I believe one of those back-up generators did not initially work or, rather, immediately failed -
http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/24/north-anna-nuclear-plant-forced-to-vent-steam-following-power-failure-from-virginia-earthquake/
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/08/23/backup-generator-cooling-nuclear-power-plant-shutdown-virginia-quake-fails-63871/
Make certain ya gets the revolving-door clause for long-term good cheer and healthful living as well, but I’d say nuthin’ less than $275K+benies, otherwise you’ll get pigeon-holed mid-agency.
Now, I know, O is always talkin’ bout moving to the middle, but that is all it is, talk. You gotta think coat-tails and reckon that O is looking at Billions, ya know a thousand million, so set yer sights a wee bit higher or you’ll just be a fall guy they can pin stuff on. Mark my words, BoxTurtle. You have been warned. Ain’t gonna do it agin.
Don’t go for a couple of leaves of cabbage, go for the whole head.
Don’t go thinkin’ like a turtle, think like a pollytishun.
Yer in the big time now, and ta think we knew ye when …?
DW
Oh wonderful. This plant is 10 miles from my house.
I would be surprised if any non-West Coast nuclear plants are adequately hardened for earthquakes. That includes plants near the New Madrid Fault in Missouri-Illinois-Iowa and plants near the faults that caused earthquakes in Charleston and Edgefield SC.
And the reason is the one you cite. The container buildings were hardened against cracking, but the provisions for uninterrupted power supply were not adequately considered. And because, designs tended to have a cookie-cutter approach, the analysis for succeeding projects would likely have the same flaws.
Please don’t buy into the frame that nuclear power is a form of renewable energy. It’s not. Uranium reserves are good for 100 years at the present rate of consumption. Fusion power isn’t commercially feasible yet.
Just think what could be achieved if everyone got up from their cubical in Corporate Land and walked away, never to return and the malls became empty and still.
usgs map of earthquake probabilities in continental u.s. :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366603/Earthquake-map-America-make-think-again.html
The Rapture!!!!!
Boxturtle (I always knew Cube City was Purgatory)
u.s. nuclear power plants listed by quake damage estimate:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/what-are-odds-us-nuke-plants-ranked-quake-risk/
Can I steal that? Sorry I am getting here so late in the day; I will try to track you down over on some other thread, DW, so you can license that “cynical suspicionist” job title to me. That’s what I turned out to be when I grew up, too.
and guess who’s #7 on the list of top-ten?
with a low risk of only 1 chance in 22,747 of experiencing an earthquake.
(did we use our bayesian stats here, guys?)
Of course we must properly decommission all nuclear facilities, watch over the sarcophagi of their remains for a human eternity and switch over to clean energy but, with my plan to quit stoking the MIC, I figure that this way we can avoid that visit from Klaatu and Gort.
No worries hoss, we all “know” nuclear reactors don’t do damage past 10 miles. So you should just be “safe”. Just stay on the outer side of the 10 mile radius literally drawn with a red line around each and every nuclear power station.
http://www.psr.org/resources/evacuation-zone-nuclear-reactors.html
Select the North Anna Power Station
“10 miles from the nuclear power plant
21 136 persons would have to be evacuated.”
“50 miles from the nuclear power plant
1 594 124 persons would have to be evacuated.”
Now we all “know” that only those 21,136 are really in any danger. And frankly they’re within the red line drawn on the ground for all to see, so they are 1. stupid, AND 2. collateral damage, AND 3. the cost of doing business.
BTW, Japanese Nuclear Emergency Director: You Have No Right to a Radiation-Free Life (http://gizmodo.com/5824536/japanese-nuclear-emergency-director-you-have-no-right-to-a-radiation+free-life).
And technically neither do we. Certainly not in the Constitution. Thus the founding fathers never intended for us to have that right. And thus one can argue they support nuclear energy AND consider being irradiated OK with the Constitution.
/s
Why, yassir boss, I’m be fine, just fiiine workin’ fo $1.00 per day, an’ I kin sleep in the back alley! Wit de garbage.
Is that what you want heard?
Pomposity and bombast, I say!
As a owners and operators of the nuclear plant, We demand you PAY me for the right to receive my radiation. We change for energy delivered.
Our demands are as unconditional as our energy delivery. We now own a levy on your life (what’s left of it).
The charge will be in your bill.
Don’t give them any more ideas.
They would do it and call it “innovation”.
And you’re about 135 miles away from those self-regulating, floating nuclear reactors.
Nuclear energy of any kind is not renewable. Some forms of nuclear energy can be regarded as sustainable.
“Green” means that the energy source can be used without adversely affecting the environment.
“Renewable” means that the energy source can be renewed in human-viable time scales without adversely affecting the environment.
“Sustainable” means that the energy source can be used for the foreseeable future without adversely affecting the environment.
These terms have generally accepted meanings and if a person doesn’t use the words correctly then they are spreading misinformation.. however well-intentioned they might be.
Nuclear, be it fission or fusion, cannot be considered renewable because in either case the elements that you transmute are created inside stars over billions of years.
(And yes, this means that in a technical sense solar is not renewable :) Somebody heaped together a compost heap billions of years ago and it will smolder for billions of years more… but it’s not renewable.)
But not being “renewable” need not be a problem if the elements you are using for fuel are common and can be used safely for the forseeable future without adversely impacting the environment.
If the elements you are using for fuel are common and can be used safely for the forseeable future without adversely impacting the environment then that technology is sustainable.
As for types of nuclear energy, the current option rack up nicely on a sliding scale but the short version is that uranium fission isn’t green, renewable or sustainable… so that’s what the oligarchs let us have.
And BTW: fusion might be closer than conventional wisdom has it… like, say, maybe later this year :)
That’s the plan. Localize.
I have conferred with people in the oil industry that I know and confirmed from them that this earthquake could have been caused by fracking taking place along the eastern seaboard. Same for recent earthquakes in Arkansas.
Google it, there are some articles out there talking about this. One homeowner in Arkansas sued for damages to his home and won! Spread the word.