Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Nuclear Power Plants Not Built to Withstand Terrorist Attacks, Nor Climate Change (nor earthquakes, big waves, etc.)

Nuclear power plants are catastrophically risky. Evidence for this claim:  In addition to being susceptible to earthquakes and big waves, nuclear plants (including reactors and spent fuel storage - especially spent fuel pools) are vulnerable to catastrophic terrorist attacks and climate change caused destruction:
NRA Refusal to Extend Deadline Deals Massive Blow to Utilities. (2019, April 25). The Asahi Shimbun,
The nuclear watchdog's refusal to compromise on its deadline for utilities to build anti-terror facilities at their nuclear power plants will deal a heavy blow to operators forced to shut down sites next year.

Three operators face the prospect of taking their plants offline over their failure to meet the Nuclear Regulation Authority's time limit to construct the costly buildings.

...Construction of emergency facilities to enable plant operators to continue to cool reactors through remote-control procedures in the event a terrorist attack destroys the central control room for the reactor buildings is an immensely costly proposition.

Utilities estimate that construction of each anti-terror facility will cost between 50 billion yen ($446 million) and 120 billion yen...

Flavelle, C. & Lin, J. C. F. (2019, April 18).US NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WEREN’T BUILT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE 2019. Bloomberg.
The NRC directed the operators of the 60 or so working U.S. nuclear power plants to evaluate their current flood risk, using the latest weather modeling technology and accounting for the effects of climate change. Companies were told to compare those risks with what their plants, many almost a half-century old, were built to withstand, and, where there was a gap, to explain how they would close it.

That process has revealed a lot of gaps. But Jaczko and others say that the commission’s new leadership, appointed by President Donald Trump, hasn’t done enough to require owners of nuclear power plants to take preventative measures—and that the risks are increasing as climate change worsens.


  1. Everything about Fukushima shows the horrific decisions that go hand in hand with "big projects". Including that they removed a mountain to allow the plant to be placed at sea-level. Rather than GE to design high head pumps, they removed a mountain. The disaster would be no where near as bad, even IF the fuel tank were at sea-level, the day tanks located right at the generator themselves would have allowed a much more structured response. We know that underground piping on the "hot side" of the BWR was broken due to the EQ because the radiation alarms were going off before the tsunami even hit.

    But the generators themselves actually got fuel or not, the location at seal level doomed the plant. Of course after they took down the mountain, they built the plant on top of the old river bed. hmmmm Coriums in the river bed.....doesnt sound good.


  3. World Space Agencies Preparing for Planetary Asteroid Emergency, as Meteor/Fireball Sightings Surge

    One could hit a nuclear power plant and spread nuclear material for great distances . . .

  4. (...) and that the risks are increasing as climate change worsens. (...)

    Whow! It can be very hot or very cold NOTHING WILL CHANGE IN A REACTOR!
    A power station is a stronghold deemed indestructible. Fukushima was swept away by the waters. Not the central! The No. 4 reactor collapsed, inclined. But he stayed up.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.