Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Power Restored to Nuke Plant Near VA Quake Epicenter; No "Major" Damage Reported

Posted by on Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Located just a few miles from the epicenter of yesterday's nearly unprecedented 5.8 magnitude earthquake in Virginia is the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station and its two aging reactors.

The plant lost power and automatically halted operations after the quake. While a Dominion spokesman reported no "major" damage to the facility, three diesel generators were required to kick in and keep the reactors' radioactive cores cool. A fourth diesel unit failed.

Fortunately, central Virginia is even less prone to tsunamis than it is to earthquakes, and so the backup generators survived long enough for power to be restored this morning. Disaster averted (that is, assuming we can trust a spokesman from a nuclear power company). On the one hand, the backup system apparently worked the way it was supposed to. Yay. On the other hand...

"Nuclear power plants lose a significant margin of safety when they're forced to rely on these emergency back-up systems," said Paul Gunter, director of reactor oversight at Beyond Nuclear, an anti-nuclear lobby group.

Just something to keep in mind as we debate a major expansion of nuclear power in the United States.

 

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
MacCrocodile 1
Goldy, I swear to god. The best possible end to your life is to die in a nuclear accident. That way, you shut the hell up about nuclear reactors, but you also get to be super smug about it for whatever brief moments you have left.
Posted by MacCrocodile on August 24, 2011 at 8:18 AM
2
How can a nuclear power plant "lose power", don't they produce power? Why can't a plant use the electricity it produces to cool its reactors?
Posted by Brandon J. on August 24, 2011 at 8:41 AM
3
Unbelievable. Everything worked as it should, but still Goldy has to dig up a quote from an anti-nuke spokesman telling us we should not feel safe for a second.
Posted by bigyaz on August 24, 2011 at 9:36 AM
prompt 4
@2 They likely turn it off for an added measure of safety. They probably go through and inspect it all before putting it back online too.

And seriously dude? I just scrolled down from the other article. "Assuming we can trust a spokesman from a nuclear power company". Get a grip. Should I take this time to point out while one failed, THREE WORKED? PS - Who do you suppose funds Beyond Nuclear? Probably rhymes with schillionaire schmoal schindustry.
Posted by prompt on August 24, 2011 at 9:57 AM
5
As long as America can run its air conditioners on demand, I see no problem with a diminished margin of safety at a nuclear power facility.
Posted by tiktok on August 24, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Rotten666 6
Wow, thanks for the informative post! Perhaps you can also talk a bit more about McKenna's car? Cause that is really interesting too!
Posted by Rotten666 on August 24, 2011 at 11:58 AM
Catalina Vel-DuRay 7
Actually, I don't know why they turbines can't be used to provide their own back up power (assuming they are up and running) but that would probably cost too much to implement. Like ten thousand dollars or something.

After all, when it comes to nuclear power, it's better just to do things on the cheap and hope for the best.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on August 24, 2011 at 1:01 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 8
Prompt @4 for the win; Catalina @7 (who works for the frickin' electric company, fer Chrissakes) for the fail. In the event of an emergency, the turbines can't provide power because they're shut down.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on August 24, 2011 at 1:30 PM
9
@4, You're right... we shouldn't keep this in mind when debating nuclear expansion. Better to just not think about it.
Posted by Goldy on August 24, 2011 at 1:39 PM
Catalina Vel-DuRay 10
Oh now 5280, don't be bitter. I'm an electrical hostess, not a nuclear engineer. We don't even HAVE nuclear power where I work.

But it seems a reasonable question - if grid power is lost, but the plant seems undamaged, why can't it power itself and take care of its cooling needs?

Or are we not allowed to question anything about nuclear power? That seems rather naive, if you ask me.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on August 24, 2011 at 4:00 PM
prompt 11
@10 I'll try to answer as best as I understand your question. The reactor heats up water that turns to steam which runs through the turbines. When a disaster occurs, as a precaution, the reactor is turned off. If you continue to draw off steam, you'll cool the water and cause various problems involving material limits, and just make it take that much longer to bring the reactor back up when you're ready to. Because of this, you shut down the turbines, which shuts off the primary power. That's why they have backup generators.

The biggest reason that the reactor would be turned off in this situation is to check piping and verify that it is undamaged. Running these "backup systems" is pretty routine. Realistically, you could just keep running as normal.
Posted by prompt on August 24, 2011 at 10:27 PM
Captain Wiggette 12
@11: Nice try, but thoroughly and entirely wrong.

In certain disaster scenarios (like a major earthquake, or loss of power from the grid) the reactor automatically SCRAMs with no input from the operators (control rods are inserted into the core to obstruct the fission chain-reaction going on in the core).

In the US, reactors are designed to function primarily from grid power for safety. If external power from the grid is interrupted, that is an emergency and the plant is immediately SCRAMmed. They are not designed to function on their own power. If there were any problems at the plant and it was self-powered, then it would essentially remove your ability to do anything because everything requires electricity to function.

Massive amounts of power are always needed to cool the reactor system. Depending on the type BWR/PWR, there are two or three loops of water respectively. Either way, there are one or two loops of hot water/steam to get to the turbine. The last loop is a massive amount of water (think a river, or an ocean) that is pumped through the equivalent of massive giant water radiators to cool the steam, which then loops back either directly or through another exchanger back to the core to cool the reactor. This takes ENORMOUS water pumps and massive flows of water, which require large amounts of power.

When the reactor SCRAMs, the reaction stops immediately and it will start to cool, and the turbines are no longer going to be giving you power (which isn't designed to self-power the plant, as above). Shutting down a nuclear reactor requires external power (the grid, or several huge diesel generators, essentially small power plants themselves) to drive the massive water pumps to keep the core covered with water, and the water cooled and not boiling away. It takes years for the fuel to cool to room temperature even when removed from the core. It still takes a long time (hours/days) when actively cooled properly for it reach cold shutdown. It may take more than a year for what is left of the cores at Fukushima to reach 'cold shutdown' (the use of the term there may be meaningless, at this point).

Losing power to a nuclear power plant is a very serious problem, and a station blackout is the biggest threat to a nuclear plant, since you are essentially relying 100% on all your backup systems to cool the core. And if for whatever reasons you lose the backup generators (as in, they don't work, they run out of fuel, etc) then you are toast, and you have a meltdown on your hands.

There are some designs, which can self-cool without external power, such as by using huge reservoirs of water propelled by gravity, but we don't build reactors that way in the US. And we don't have battery systems as robust as they have in, say, Japan. But batteries will never be able to power any plant for more than a few hours, so that's still kind of a moot point.

More...
Posted by Captain Wiggette on August 25, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Captain Wiggette 13
@3: I'm confused as to how equipment FAILURE is magically transformed into 'Everything worked as it should' inside your cranium. Fascinating.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on August 25, 2011 at 1:47 PM
Captain Wiggette 14
Also interesting:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…

Quote:

An inspection at North Anna, after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, showed one of its generators wasn't in working order. It was fixed, but a different generator failed Tuesday.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on August 25, 2011 at 2:09 PM
Catalina Vel-DuRay 15
This is undoubtedly another stupid question from a non-nuclear utilitity's Electrical Hostess, but has there ever been any thought about how some of that hot water could be used for something like a district energy system? I suppose that plants are probably positioned too far away from urban cores to make that feasible, but it seems a shame to have all that hot water around, just going back into the lakes or rivers.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on August 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM
Captain Wiggette 16
@15: Personally, I'd be worried about radioactive leaks contaminating the water. Those heat exchangers have a nice history of cracking problems. As do many other kinds of old rusting/corroding pipes after decades of use with hot water, steam, chemicals, etc:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/0…

Though, stuff like mountaintop mining is probably worse as far as water goes.... :/
Posted by Captain Wiggette on August 26, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy