 |
Re: alternative uses for closed nukes
Author: mook
Date: 06-12-2013 - 18:35
So far, not counting SONGS, 2 major utility nuke plants have been permanently shut down in CA: Humboldt Bay (which was found to be sitting on the Salmon Creek (active) Fault when studied during a fueling shutdown) and Rancho Seco (same type of reactor as 3 Mile Island; the utility (SMUD) was forced by local vote to shut it down and eventually decomission).
In both the Humboldt and the Rancho Seco cases, after 20+ years of cooling in ponds, the fuel was moved to "dry casks" that will remain on the property until a national repository is built, or forever, whichever occurs first. Same thing will happen at SONGS. While only really major sea level rise is likely to be a problem at Rancho Seco, I'm a little worried about Humboldt sitting right there at sea level on a fault across from the entrance to Humboldt Bay, in the most active area in CA for large earthquakes and subject to large local tsunami if the wrong fault goes off.
Both closed sites are still in use as power plants. At Humboldt Bay, the reactor was originally added to an existing oil (later gas) fired plant, which I'm pretty sure is still running. At Rancho Seco, the utility eventually (after about 30 years) tore down and trucked/railed (not sure which) away many of the big pieces. Ratepayers are still paying for it and probably will (a few cents in the rate base) forever. The site was re-used for a large solar panel array and a natural gas-fired plant; after all, the old turbines are fine (not radioactive at all) - just add steam. The Camp Pendelton coastline is probably not as good for solar as the Central Valley (Rancho Seco), but why not add a few n.g. boilers with latest emission controls and re-use the generators there?
RR angle: all of the major CA nukes except Diablo Canyon had and (in theory, at least, for Humboldt) still have rail access. Originally, I suspect it was to haul in the big equipment. Might be fun to research some of the "special" moves made to or from those sites, assuming the information isn't classified.
By the way, the Fukushima = San Onofre crazies are just that for the most part - crazy. But there is a germ of truth in their concern. Fukushima shut down fine during the earthquake, as did several other Japanese nukes, but the tsunami was bigger than anybody had expected, and the diesel generators (needed to keep all the cooling equipment working) were poorly located and flooded out by it. After which it didn't take long for the hot fuel to boil off the water and start melting down. So a valid question to ask about San Onofre (even after full shutdown - storage pools have to be cooled for decades) would be: where are your backup generators? But if the plant maintains backup power even after a earthquake-induced 'scram' it wouldn't produce any nuke problems.
In both the Humboldt and the Rancho Seco cases, after 20+ years of cooling in ponds, the fuel was moved to "dry casks" that will remain on the property until a national repository is built, or forever, whichever occurs first. Same thing will happen at SONGS. While only really major sea level rise is likely to be a problem at Rancho Seco, I'm a little worried about Humboldt sitting right there at sea level on a fault across from the entrance to Humboldt Bay, in the most active area in CA for large earthquakes and subject to large local tsunami if the wrong fault goes off.
Both closed sites are still in use as power plants. At Humboldt Bay, the reactor was originally added to an existing oil (later gas) fired plant, which I'm pretty sure is still running. At Rancho Seco, the utility eventually (after about 30 years) tore down and trucked/railed (not sure which) away many of the big pieces. Ratepayers are still paying for it and probably will (a few cents in the rate base) forever. The site was re-used for a large solar panel array and a natural gas-fired plant; after all, the old turbines are fine (not radioactive at all) - just add steam. The Camp Pendelton coastline is probably not as good for solar as the Central Valley (Rancho Seco), but why not add a few n.g. boilers with latest emission controls and re-use the generators there?
RR angle: all of the major CA nukes except Diablo Canyon had and (in theory, at least, for Humboldt) still have rail access. Originally, I suspect it was to haul in the big equipment. Might be fun to research some of the "special" moves made to or from those sites, assuming the information isn't classified.
By the way, the Fukushima = San Onofre crazies are just that for the most part - crazy. But there is a germ of truth in their concern. Fukushima shut down fine during the earthquake, as did several other Japanese nukes, but the tsunami was bigger than anybody had expected, and the diesel generators (needed to keep all the cooling equipment working) were poorly located and flooded out by it. After which it didn't take long for the hot fuel to boil off the water and start melting down. So a valid question to ask about San Onofre (even after full shutdown - storage pools have to be cooled for decades) would be: where are your backup generators? But if the plant maintains backup power even after a earthquake-induced 'scram' it wouldn't produce any nuke problems.
