nuclear powerplant risk in the US?

Two generating stations in California (two reactors each, four total). All are very different from the Fukushima Daiichi units that have failed in Japan, though (pressurized water reactors...the Japanese plants are boilers), and all are newer (built roughly 10 years later). Just the same, I would be willing to bet that both utilities are reviewing the Fukushima scenario as we speak. Their continued operation and future licensing will likely depend on how those reactors would stand up to a situation like this, which included loss of grid power followed by loss of emergency diesel generators. California has not been nuclear-friendly of late.

Like the Japanese plants, I think that physically surviving a major earthquake is a non-issue. It's all about removing heat in the following hours and days.

I wouldn't put too much salt in that article, btw. "Near miss" does not equal "near meltdown." Our regulators take issues well below that level extremely seriously on the principle that addressing all problems, even those that are very minor, is necessary to guarantee that a major accident never occurs. I think the only industry in this country that might approach that level of safety culture is commercial aviation (for obvious reasons).

 

no problems in the u.s., look elsewhere.

 

What scares me are the stashes of depleted fuel rods at decomissioned plants.

 

Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants: The No BS Info on Japan's Disastrous Nuclear Operators
"The failure of emergency systems at Japan's nuclear plants comes as no surprise to those of us who have worked in the field.
Nuclear plants the world over must be certified for what is called "SQ" or "Seismic Qualification." That is, the owners swear that all components are designed for the maximum conceivable shaking event, be it from an earthquake or an exploding Christmas card from al-Qaeda.
The most inexpensive way to meet your SQ is to lie. The industry does it all the time. The government team I worked with caught them once, in 1988, at the Shoreham plant in New York. Correcting the SQ problem at Shoreham would have cost a cool billion, so engineers were told to change the tests from "failed" to "passed."
The company that put in the false safety report? Stone & Webster, now the nuclear unit of Shaw Construction, which will work with TEPCO to build the Texas plant. Lord help us."
..."Back in the day, when we checked the emergency backup diesels in America, a mind-blowing number flunked. At the New York nuclear plant, for example, the builders swore under oath that their three diesel engines were ready for an emergency. They'd been tested. The tests were faked; the diesels run for just a short time at low speed. When the diesels were put through a real test under emergency-like conditions, the crankshaft on the first one snapped in about an hour, then the second and third. We nicknamed the diesels, "Snap, Crackle and Pop."

 

A couple of years ago, the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ordered a 50 year old reactor shut down, insisting that cooling pumps be connected to the emergency backup power system. So, of course she was fired for 'lack of leadership' and the plant was re-opened.

 

These are worrisome articles

At California Nuclear Plant, Earthquake Response Plan Not Required

Cuomo Wants Indian Point Power Plant Closed After Earthquake Report

 

San Onofre will be closing down forever. This is a Win for the 8 million peole who live within 50 miles of the plant.


San Onofre nuclear power plant to shut down - The Washington Post

 

No container can last a few thousand years. The cost to provide security and to build and monitor and rebuild the containers just to much of a Headache. Solar or natural gas or hydro is the better solution

 

Spent fuel rods wouldn't be as large as problem as it is if we recycled them for more fuel, or better yet, used nuclear plants that did the recyling/reusing within the reactor itself.

 

Would be much easier to use a energy source that is not as dangerous.

 

A great film to watch is the "Atomic States of America". It really puts into perspective the outcry of communities in nuclear towns and how the government really does not do too much regulation on these nuclear power plants.