This past weekend marked the 30th anniversary of the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island. If you are old enough you may remember where you were at that time and what it was like. I remember VERY well because I was on my way to the crippled plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Our President at the time, Jimmy Carter, was also a micro-manager and a former nuclear engineer: he wanted his own eyes and ears on the scene. Our little group eventually coalesced into the Presidental Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, led by Dartmouth College president John Kemeny, who was also the co-author of BASIC.
The lessons of Three Mile Island have been, for the most part, forgotten. The nuclear industry changed and improved somewhat, but the deep understanding of what went wrong was lost on the public in general and the real lessons that we could have learned as a society were, too. The financial mess we are experiencing right now isn’t all that different from Three Mile Island. If we’d taken better to heart the true lessons of TMI we might not be in our present jam.
I spent a year of my life coming to understand TMI and even wrote a book about it, now long out of print. I was there.
There was a partial nuclear core meltdown at TMI. We all knew what that meant because, ironically, The China Syndrome, had just swept through American movie theaters six weeks before. Years later there was a much more severe accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Soviet Union. Some people argue that TMI was actually worse than Chernobyl in terms of the actual core damage. I don’t know. There’s no doubt that Chernobyl killed a lot of people and TMI didn’t. The difference was that TMI had a concrete containment vessel and Chernobyl had none. Building nuclear power plants without containment vessels was insane and Chernobyl proved that.
Looking back at the accident with the benefit of knowing what it took to clean it up and what the workers found when they were finally able to send robots inside the containment, the TMI accident was very bad indeed. There were pressure spikes during the accident that would have cracked an average containment vessel, releasing radioactive gases into the atmosphere. Fortunately the Unit 2 containment wasn’t average. TMI-2 was built on the final approach path to Harrisburg International Airport, a former U.S. Air Force base, and was therefore beefed-up specifically to withstand the impact of a B-52 hitting the structure at 200 knots. A normal containment would have been breached.
TMI wasn’t caused by a computer failure but the accident was made vastly worse by an error of computer design. Specifically, TMI-2 had a terrible user interface.
We had a confluence of bad design decisions at TMI, some of them made by the U.S. Congress. U.S. law specifically prohibited using computers to directly control nuclear power plants. Men would do that and nearly all of those men would be former nuclear reactor operators from the U.S. Navy. Computers could be used to monitor the reactor and in fact it would probably have been close to impossible to monitor it without the help of computers. There were just too darned many valves and sensors for any team of humans to keep track of reliably, 24/7.
So the computer (there was one) monitored the plant and raised an alarm if specific parameters changed. Then a guy would flip a switch to open or close some valve, solving the problem.
Here’s how it was supposed to work. Something went wrong. The computer noticed what went wrong, set off audible and visual alarms, then sent a description of the problem to a line printer in the control room. The operator would read the print-out, check the trouble code in one of many manuals, then make the adjustment specified in the manual. Simple, eh?
Too simple, it turned out.
What happened at Unit 2 was a little more complex. A cascading series of events caused the computer to notice SEVEN HUNDRED things wrong in the first few minutes of the accident. The ONE audible alarm started ringing and stayed ringing continuously until someone turned it off as useless. The ONE visual alarm was activated and blinked for days, indicating nothing useful at all. The line printer queue quickly contained 700 error reports followed by several thousand error report updates and corrections. The printer queue was almost instantly hours behind, so the operators knew they had a problem (700 problems actually, though they couldn’t know that) but had no idea what the problem was.
So they guessed.
Not good.
U.S. Navy reactor operators, the sort who served under Jimmy Carter in the 1950s, were selected primarily for their temperament. This was a nuclear device, remember, so having trustworthy operators was most important. Besides, their Navy job – as at TMI – was to follow the manual. All knowledge was inside the book. So knowing the book was everything. Unfortunately knowing the book isn’t the same as knowing the reactor. This approach was extended to most civilian U.S. reactors, where knowing the book meant passing the test on the book NOT really understanding the guts of the machine. Civilian reactor operator training in those days was nearly all about how to pass the test, not how to operate the reactor.
So when a real accident happened the operators weren’t prepared to handle it. Their superiors at General Public Utilities weren’t prepared to handle it, either. Nor were the experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And don’t even get me started about FEMA. The outcome of Hurricane Katrina was no surprise to me.
Every level of command waited too long to ask for help at TMI. Sometimes this was because they thought they were on top of the situation, but more often it was to avoid embarrassment or – in the case of General Public Utilities – to avoid hurting the stock price. The FEMA guys were just plain stupid.
Nobody died, eventually the reactor was brought under something like control, and a lot of lessons were learned in the process. Reactor operators learned better how their reactors worked, for one. The NRC generally gave up the job of promoting atomic power that had been its primary calling as the old Atomic Energy Commission, for another. Reactor control rooms everywhere were dramatically improved and line printers banished as interface devices. And for the next 29 years we didn’t build another nuclear power plant, leaving that mainly to the French and the Japanese.
Now nuclear energy can be mighty dangerous and is not something to be messed with lightly, but another irony in this story is that nuclear power is actually pretty simple compared to many other industrial processes. The average chemical plant or oil refinery is vastly more complex than a nuclear power plant. The nuke plant heats water to run a steam turbine while a chemical plant can make thousands of complex products out of dozens of feedstocks. Their process control was totally automated 30 years ago and had an amazing level safety and interlock systems. A lot of effort was put into the management of chemical plant startup, shutdown, and maintenance. The chemical plant control system was designed to force the highest safety. So when manufacturing engineers from chemical plants looked at TMI, they were shocked to see the low-tech manner in which the reactors were controlled and monitored. To the chemical engineers it looked like an accident waiting to happen.
The folks at TMI did not really know how to manage the technology of a nuclear power plant, and that led to a huge mess. The same thing has now happened to our economy. Congress changed the banking and mortgage lending rules without regard to their purpose. Many firms bought derivative securities without the slightest thought to the math behind them or the risk they were incurring. Nuclear power plants run on a chain reaction process of atomic decay. Our government and investment community created a chain reaction of economic decay.
Chemical plants were better designed than nuclear power plants in part because Congress did not legislate how the chemical industry designed their plants. But more importantly most chemical firms of that era had CEO’s with engineering degrees. They had respect for the technology and the risk of misusing it. But that doesn’t make the chemical industry blameless. With the off-shoring of manufacturing a lot of chemical production is now being done in places where there is little respect for the dangers of technology. The chemical industry’s TMI was Bhopal. There will be more Bhopal’s coming because those companies are now being managed by bean counters, not engineers.
There is a place for nuclear power in our energy future. I say this not as a particular nuclear advocate but as a realist. The end of the Cold War has left us with a legacy of weapons grade nuclear materials that must be dealt with. Thanks to the 1950s we’re stuck with all the issues of storing this stuff no matter what Obama or any other U.S. President does. It just makes sense to me to take this stuff that used to be bombs and degrade it into something that can no longer make bombs but, oh by the way, can power millions of homes with no CO2 emissions. It seems like making lemonade to me. Yes, there are other renewable power sources that are even better than nuclear, but I seriously doubt whether they will add up to enough total watts in the time available. We’ll need all of them.
Just as we neglected the economy for the last decade or more, we have also neglected nuclear energy. We don’t have a national storage system for spent fuel. We don’t have a spent fuel recycling process. We don’t have a standard national reactor design. We add incredible costs to power plants for an amazing list of things, many of which contribute nothing.
Life doesn’t get simpler, it gets more complex. TMI led us to repudiate nuclear power as a nation – something in the long run we probably can’t afford to do. We just have to find ways to manage technology – all technologies – more responsibly. Sadly, we tend these days to put the wrong people in charge.
Good effort, Bob. Do have someone proofread for misuse of apostrophes (note: not “apostrophe’s”) but otherwise an interesting and informative whatever-this-is-now. Column, article, posting?
Anyway, I imagine that nuclear power has been neglected in the hopes that it, as an issue at least, will just go away? (Alas, if there were ever an issue that isn’t going to “just go away” for a long, looong time…)
Good effort, Matt. Do have someone proofread for misuse of ellipses.
Thanks, glad to know my efforts are appreciated.
Wow, that is all you can take from this article – apostrophe issues. Let me guess, you are a middle management cog in some meaningless, valueless organization?
Companies should not be run by bean counters for exactly the same reason countries should not be run by lawyers.
Sort of makes it tough to ignore the unasked question of “who should run companies?”
Got any bright ideas about who the proper person is to run a company if it isn’t lawyers or bean counters?
Just out of curiosity.
the article suggests the answer in the comparison of chemical plants to nuclear plants: people who actually know something about the particular business, not just people who “know business” in a general way. our current culture of professional CEOs and managers, with no connection to a particular industry, and who’s primary contribution to a business is friendship with other CEOs, is a drain on our resources.
Sir Allen must be a lawyer. The american empire is decaying and will most likely fall. However if we were to bar lawyers from running for public office we would add at least another century to the expected remaining lifetime of the USA.
I grew up about 2.5 hours drive from TMI, and remember seeing it on the way to Hershey Park… We even took the public tour one time, which was a little bit disappointing (I wanted to see the inside of the buildings, not just a drawing in the visitors center).
The thing I couldn’t figure out as I got older and educated myself about nuclear power is why would anyone think it was a good idea to put a reactor in a metropolitan area (state capital, no less), in the middle of a river that feeds into the Chesapeake bay? Surely it would have made a lot more sense to put a reactor up north of I-80, just to keep it away from population centers.
Also, why aren’t we recycling our spent fuel rods? I saw a documentary years ago about the French nuclear program and they showed their long term containment/storage facility, and how much less waste they have compared to the US’s spent fuel rods sitting in pools all over the country. I realize they aren’t in Yacca mountain because of (mostly justified) political pressure, but when I see the difference between the amount of waste we have -vs- the French, it doesn’t make sense.
If I remember right, former “nuclear engineer” President Jimmy Carter stopped all U.S. nuclear
work on breeder reactors and recycling efforts for spent fuel.
“In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. This was confirmed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing.”
Wikipedia
Correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that even today we do not have a fuel recycling method that does not also generate weapons grade material. Fuel recycling was banned because the US did not want to risk proliferation. (it was probably more about pressuring other countries not to recycle)
Nuclear fuel recycling is not a technical problem, it is a political problem.
I can also see why there is no real pressure to get rid of spent fuel since it is actually a valuable fuel source waiting for regulations to be changed so that it can be recycled.
Sure, look up something called the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). It was designed with the specific design goal of reprocessing spent fuel without producing weaponizable material at any step of the process. They succeeded at this goal – the process they created:
-Can use unenriched uranium fuel – no more dual-use enrichment facilities!
-can use existing spent fuel as new fuel, turning a liability into a valuable resource
-can use weapons-grade material as fuel, to reduce nuclear stockpiles
-recycles spent material on-site, so no transporting nuclear waste across the country
-extracts 99% of the available nuclear power from the fuel (our current once-through process gets 1% of the energy)
-produces waste that only needs to be stored for 100-200 years (instead of 200,000 years like current spent fuel)
This isn’t just theoretical, it was built and tested in the 80’s and 90’s. The reactor design is additionally “passively safe”, meaning that if something goes wrong with the cooling system, the reactor will stay stable without any extra intervention. One of the final tests involved turning off the coolant loop to see what would happen in a worst-case scenario. As the designers predicted, the reactor settled into a stable, safe configuration.
@Drew
The picture for nuclear reprocessing is too complicated to be fixed by any magic bullet, and the IFR is not that bullet, anyway. To wit:
– The IFR was never built, just a prototype. The full project was canceled by Congress and the Clinton Administration.
– The IFR was too capital intensive, and still would be today. This is already a major bottleneck for building traditional reactors, so it would be impossible for utilities to finance an IFR-type reactor.
– Moreover, there is a lot of additional infrastructure associated with reprocessing fuel to go into an IFR, making it even less cost effective relative to just running a light water reactor on enriched uranium.
– Also, there are safety issues with using sodium as coolant, like in the IFR. The Japanese can speak to this – the Monju fast reactor sprung a leak and still has not been restarted, more than 13 years later.
I’m just making the point that it’s proven science, and “reprocessing” isn’t synonymous with weapon proliferation. The fact that it hasn’t been built on a commercial scale isn’t because it couldn’t be done, it’s due to a lack of funding and political will (not that we’re operating with a surplus of either, I acknowledge).
The economic argument against IFR is skewed in favor of the current technology simply because the full cost of current technology is never considered. Existing thermal reactors charge some very trivial amount to ostensibly pay for (eventual) waste disposal, but factoring the actual cost of long-term secure disposal would probably change those numbers.
Liquid sodium is nasty stuff, no doubt, but so is superheated radioactive steam. It’s not like it’s a problem that hasn’t been solved: Various industries use liquid sodium every day without incident. It’s not as if they’ve been trying unsuccessfully to clean up Monju for the past 13 years – after the accident and cover-up, there was a public backlash against starting the reactor and so it sat idle for a decade.
I was waiting to see if the IFR would gain mention.
Bob,
I’m not sure I agree with you in regard to IFR expense. I have read extensively on the subject and it seems to me that the IFR could have a fighting chance of being somewhat less expensive. I can still remember the costs of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, AZ overrunning budget two and a half times because of the regulatory changes that resulted from TMI. If that sounds like a lot, PVNGS got off easy. I had all kinds of nuke power information flying across my desk in those days. I remember Seabrook, NH overran its budget six times and Shoreham, NY overran ten times.
Coming up with a design and building it repeatedly should go a long way to help control costs.
Also, the Pyroelectric process that the IFR folks intended to use for reprocessing has got to be faster, better, cheaper than the alternatives.
I am a veteran of the Yucca Mountain Project too.
I can still remember those containment vessels we installed at Palo Verde, AZ. They were manufactured in Tennessee as I recall, and could not be trucked via interstate because they wouldn’t fit under the bridges. We shipped them through the Panama Canal and up to a small port in Mexico. Would the IFR containment cost more than those things?
I’m an avid reader Bob. Keep up the good work.
@Eric:
Reprocessing has some advantages (less nuclear waste), but it also carried a greater risk for ‘losing’ nuclear material. The French may do this right, the Russians may not … its hard to say. I think reprocessing may not be the answer. A better answer may be to focus more on limiting reprocessing and instead focusing on fast neutron reactors that can burn nuclear waste.
The both pose some nuclear risk. Fast neutorn reactors are good for making bombs. So they need to be tightly controlled. This is one of the reason they are not built, but I think they make much more sense than our current long term storage plans.
I believe in our post cold war world … reprocessing represents a greater risk than fast neutron reactors do and I would like to see the US work with the UN to create a safe process that mitigates the proliferation risks from FNRs (and reprocessing).
It is a complex issue with difficult choices, but I think our current carbon crisis requires we address these issues soon.
Garick
Please read my above comment about the IFR reprocessing technology. Reprocessing used to be synonymous with the PUREX process, which was invented to produce nuclear material, and does indeed result in massive amounts of low-grade plutonium. However, the IFR electrolytic reprocessing process never separates the plutonium from the transuranic elements, meaning that any reprocessed material is an order of magnitude more difficult to turn into a weapon than plain uranium ore.
>Chemical plants were better designed than nuclear power plants in part because Congress did not legislate how the chemical industry designed their plants.
I hope that you are not suggesting that incompetence is more dangerous than corruption? Things have gotten very bad in the last decade – George Bush decriminalized payments ( utility payoffs ? ) to politicians. “Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1933, our legacy from Franklin Roosevelt, no big power combine could give a dime to a politician — no “hard” money, no “soft” money, no money period” :
https://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/08/23/whos_to_blame_for_blackout_dim_bulbs_in_dc/
I think one point is that the two together are the worst: corruption leads to putting incompetent people in charge of things they never should be anywhere near.
There was a law enacted several years ago that would hold the plant manager criminally responsible for serious incidents. It was something done after Bhopal. I don’t know if there was a serious incident in the USA that prompted the law. However by the late 1980’s production plants in the USA were being operated more laxly — opening the door to accidents. The concept of the law was good, but it was probably too draconian. Of course instead of fixing the law, the Bush administration got rid of it.
In most accidents, the cause can be traced to management decisions. The Texas City Amoco refinery fire is a classic recent example. A bad, outdated design was compromised by at least a decade of insufficient plant maintenance. Several people died and a number of BP executives should have been charged with manslaughter.
If your operation can harm people, property, or society; you MUST take all reasonable measures to insure safety. This should be a no brainer.
Once lawyers get involved there is no longer any difference between taking reasonable measures and taking all possible measures.
The manager of Chernobyl was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Dave is a hopeless leftist…..He goes on about George Bush when we have a President Sir SpendsAlot Obama who makes George Bush look like an elder statesman like Benjamin Franklin.
And Dave…. you are completely correct in regards militant stalinish greens who would just love to be able to enslave us all in a ecological ideologic dark ages. They are the bean counters, liberal arts degree majors who have no clue how technology works or flows into the everyday activity of mankind.
The 2003 Blackout did not kill anyone either – but it cost more money than TMI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_North_America_blackout
>Reactor control rooms everywhere were dramatically improved and line printers banished as interface devices.
What is worse than a line printer? Try a PC running a Microsoft Windows OS:
https://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/soa/Blasting-the-MSBlast-worm/0,139023731,120277172,00.htm
“The report gives a specific timeline for the failures. At 2:14 p.m. EDT, the “alarm and logging software” at FirstEnergy’s control room failed. This alarm software “provided audible and visual indications when a significant piece of equipment changed from an acceptable to problematic condition.” Of course, no one knew that it failed.
Six minutes later, “several” remote control consoles failed. At 2:41 p.m., the primary server computer that hosted the alarm function failed. Its functions were passed to a backup computer, which failed at 2:54 p.m. “
BTW Good luck tomorrow:
https://www.newser.com/story/54880/how-to-find-kill-the-conficker-worm.html
I think U.S. computers were spared this grief.
Dave is another gay Mac fanboi user. I get tired of hearing people bi tch about Microsoft. These pinheads can not tie their own shoes and they have the gall to critique other peoples work. Work that has played an integral role in transforming world society.
I repeat. Dave is a liberal arts major bean counter. Clearly not a good engineer or his tone would be different.
Well you’ve got to have a plant situated near water, as I understand it. A lot of water. Where I live, there was a plant right on Lake Michigan which is shuttered now, mostly for safety violations. None led to any accidents, but the quality of life was just awful on account of that thing. They’d dump the super-heated water back into the lake (it wasn’t radioactive, just very very hot), and it’d kill anything that happened to be swimming by. A day or so later, there’d be a ring of dead fish about five feet wide washed up on the beach. Smelled great.
The problem is, if not there then where else can you put it? Putting it in the desert won’t work without massive infrastructure to pump gawdawful amounts of water there. And there isn’t a desert in Massachusetts or Georgia. If you put it too close to people, well… no one wants to live near it, even if modern design has made those iconic nuclear stacks a thing of the past. If you put it in the middle of nowhere, then you’re “ruining nature”.
I’m about as left as you can get but nuclear power IS our energy future. There’s just no way around that. But I fear we won’t get many of the old plants back online (and refurbished, and even completely rebuilt as I suspect 50 year old things do tend to wear out) until we start experiencing rolling blackouts — the political pressure not to use it is just too great, and there will have to be even greater political pressure to reverse that.
Putting nuclear plants far away from people, while it does to a certain extent increase the safety of the public, also removes opportunities to make use of their waste products. I believe there’s a city in northern Europe – don’t recall which one, unfortunately – that uses their local plant’s heated cooling water for building heating. It seems like a great use of otherwise wasted energy to me.
Actually there is one in the middle of the desert, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, about 50 miles west of Phoenix.
…which uses treated sewage water for cooling. Interesting idea.
Are you referring to Cook? That isn’t shuttered as far as I know. One of the generators is shut down for turbine replacement.
Bob,
I had an idea several years ago and sent it off to the Bush administration, and of course nothing ever came of it.
But your article tickled my memory and so here it is for all to see and nitpick:
To encourage energy independence, the US Government (USG) should hold a design competition for a nuclear power plant with high reliability, high power output, ease of use and maintenance, low waste products, etc. with the winner picked by some sort of blue-ribbon technical committee.
Anyone willing to use the design would then get an accelerated permit to build and the USG would indemnify the owner if the plant failed as a result of a design flaw.
The owner would have to submit to regular plant inspections and show they are maintaining the plant properly to keep their indemnity.
Any flaws revealed over time would then be corrected in all plants using the approved design, allowing the design to improve over time.
A common plant design would allow a safe and rapid expansion of nuclear power in the US, helping our energy independence.
Well, that’s it.
I got a nice email from the White House thanking me for my input, etc., and not much else.
I’m sure that now that the idea is on your site all kinds of good things will happen 🙂
tony o.
As far as I know there are only 2 companies in the U. S. that design nuclear power plants. They are big corporation and you know how innovative big corporations are. Add to that it is easier to bribe politicans (called “donations” or “lobbying” or whatever you want and politicans made it completely legal but that is matter for another subject) and you know why there is not much progress in nuclear power plants. Add problems with storing of nuclear waste and all those green activists (not in my back yard slogans same as with airports) and result is there is not much hope for nuclear power plants.
At the end no matter who top politicans are they know when the odds are against them and that is reason why they don’t push much nuclear energy policy. Realistically the odds are against it and they won’t spend time on something that can’t be achieved even if they can profit financialy from that.
I believe there are NO companies in the U.S. that design power plants at all. And there is only one company in the world that has a casting facility large enough to make a reactor core. it’s in japan.
We couldn’t make a nuclear power plant on our own if we wanted one.
According to Westinghouse Electric company they are still doing it.
Here is web page:
https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/index.shtm
Latest News
* Westinghouse, Progress Energy Sign EPC Contract for Two AP1000 Nuclear Plants
January 5, 2009
2006 Westinghouse Electric Company was sold by BNFL to Toshiba.
2007 Westinghouse Electric Company acquires Astare, a French nuclear engineering company headquartered near Paris
Here is a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Company
Westinghouse World Headquarters is located in Monroeville, Pennsylvania. Toshiba Group is its majority owner.
Headquartered in PA and owned by Japanese.
GE and Westinghouse both design plants in conjunction with Japanese companies and (for Westinghouse) BNFL. There are also a couple who only design naval reactors. The steel thing isn’t really a big deal; if there was a real need for more such facilities they could be built.
Indeed, China recently ordered four of them:
https://www.niauk.org/news/latest-nuclear-news/china-orders-4-westinghouse-ap1000s.html
There are also two new US companies building mini-nuclear reactor prototypes,
which are more like nuclear batteries:
https://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
https://www.nuscalepower.com/
Hyperion already has some orders.
Westinghouse is owned by Toshiba, so it’s not an American company anymore.
from their website…
“2006
…
Toshiba Corp. and its partners, The Shaw Group and IHI, acquire Westinghouse from BNFL.”
So you build another facility. Japan Steel Works presumably doesn’t have a monopoly on all the brains in the steel casting business.
There’s General Atomics in San Diego, CA.
Tony, that is actually a good idea. One of the historical ironies is on the same day of TMI, there was a very important and successful test of an experimental breeder reactor. One of the breakthrough’s of the test was a new material for the fuel rods. They found a material that when it gets too hot, it starts moderating the reaction. It would make a reactor self regulating and could prevent a runaway reaction.
Every reactor in the USA and every reactor made by the same design/build firm is different. The facility is different, the control rooms are different. A national “standard” design could be extremely beneficial. It could be made to be very safe and reliable, it could be mass produced — lowering costs, it would make operator training easier and better. When you think about a complete countrywide shift to electric and/or hydrogen cars, you’ll realize we will need a LOT more electric power generation. My guess is we’d need at least 20x more generation. That is a LOT of new power plants. A standard design would be a very wise and visionary thing.
There is another experimental reactor design on the drawing boards. Current reactors are based on a two-phase fluid rankine cycle. There are reactor designs based on a one-phase fluid brayton cycle that use gas instead of water to draw heat from the reactor. There may be some advantages to this approach and it could also be more efficient thermodynamically.
From the laws of thermodynamics one can get efficiencies of 35 to 40% with the rankine cycle. This means 60 to 65% of the heat generated is wasted and dumped into the environment. Sorry guys, that is one of natures laws. With a brayton cycle I’ve seen articles that suggest a power plant could achieve a 40 to 45% efficiency.
If I was Obama’s energy czar — I’d create the best national standard design using current technology. Then I’d start building new plants using it. I’d then develop a fuel recycling system. I’d then develop a next-generation reactor design, pilot it, then create a new national standard design of it.
If you were Obamas energy czar you would first have to hit yourself over the head with a ballpene hammer to bring your intelligence level down to that of our African style dictator Barack Mugabe Obama’s administration.
… short note on this. I am currently on an extended stay in Brazil. Even Brazilians can see that Obama is a “child”….( in terms of judgement )
The French have the most advanced nuclear technology – in part because of their government’s decision to make all of their reactors the same. Building 70 reactors is a lot less expensive than building one at a time as if each one were a research project.
My suggestion is to license the reactor design from the French and build a bunch of them here.
US investment could be in superconducting transmission lines – which would allow these new reactors to be sited away from population centers – with no transmission losses to the load centers.
I believe that’s been tried. The French won’t license it, however, they will build one for us provided they continue to own it and run it.
Great, the French controlling our power production. Sounds like something right out of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy, book I. Control the infrastructure and you control the country (or planet in Asimov’s case.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
France will happily licensed their last generation reactor to the US, sell the fuel and recycle it for you. They already did this all over the world and that part of the problem.
One factor contributing to the inevitable ruin of TMI was the systematic neglect of the law of concurrent probability in the failure analysis. In effect, the probabilities of failure were merely added, rather than multiplied. A true analysis would have indicated that the economic viability of the reactor was in question.
Some years ago an article in Scientific American described fully the physical circumstances which led to the reactor overheating and scramming. During the start up, a pump in the secondary coolant loop failed; the backup pump went on, but one of the isolation valves had been left shut. No water circulated through the loop, and the pile fried. The shut valve would have been caught by a routine checkout, but the plant manager had been under extreme pressure to have the reactor at full power by the weekend when the company bigwigs were to show up, and he had to rush the checkout. There were no sensors to indicate that the critical valve was shut, and none to indicate that the water was not circulating through the secondary loop. When the heat buildup caused the water in the reactor to disassociate into hydrogen and oxygen, the buildup of gases in the top of the vessel pushed the water level down below the top of the pile, and it partly melted. There was no sensor to indicate the water level was dropping.
The discussion of the monitoring software failure is interesting, but is only a part of the chain of events. By the time the seven hundred error reports were in the queue, the damage was inevitable or already done.
A nuclear reactor is theoretically a very simple machine, but catastrophic failure is potentially so devastating environmentally and economically that elaborate monitoring and safety systems must be overlayered, with backups and backups on the backups. Even with these precautions, TMI became an expensive pile of junk without ever generating a single watt.
The inherent risks in nuclear power can be illustrated by a simple analogy: Say you want a powerful bull to pull a sledge containing a heavy load, but he is unwilling. Putting on a red shirt and offering your body for the bull to charge can get the load to move, but . . . if you misestimate the bulls strength or the weight or the distance between you and the bull, ooops!
If the powers that be had the slightest interest in reactor designs which are inherently safer and simpler, such as pebble bed reactors using helium as a working fluid, I would be more confident about the future of nuclear power in this country. However, all the talk so far is about “enhanced” light water reactors with more safety features — more hardware to fail.
Remember, this new age of nuclear power would come about with cooperation between government and industry, both not exactly known for containing the sharpest pencils on the desk.
T. C. Gibian
In a fully automated process control system, like the one you will find in a good chemical plant there is for the lack of a better term — a program that controls the startup of the unit. If valves were in the wrong position, or the fluid levels were not right, the program would stop. Of course in a fully automated system, the control system can open and close 1000’s of valves, and control countless pumps and systems. Failures can be detected and backup systems are automatically brought on line. While no system made by humans can be 100% perfect, a good control system is designed to anticipate failures and human errors. In the startup of a good chemical plant an over anxious plant manager can not override the system.
A good control system contains the best experience and knowledge of the experts who designed the facility. It comes down to a simple question — who do you want to control complex, hazardous technology. The collective skills of the experts or a bean-counter manager?
I remember an article published in the late ’60’s in a professional magazine dealing with the
petrochemical/refinery industry. An African country approached a major design firm wanting
a refinery built with a maximum of manual controls to provide work for the maximum number
of people. After considerable time spent evaluating the concept the final answer was that the
request was impossible to fulfill. No number of humans could react fast enough to allow the
refinery to produce acceptable products.
I spent 32 years working as a design engineer for a major chemical company, 26 of those years
at an R & D center. Coming up with acceptable control systems with a lot of fail safe modes
took a lot of work by a lot of people. Thank God we weren’t reporting to bean counters but to
responsible technically trained managers.
Many of the inherent safety features being added are actually rearranging parts so fewer pieces can fail and therefore both the probability of failure and the potential impact of the failure are limited. Things like elevating steam generators can provide convective cooling in a complete loss of power accident and reduce the need for coolant pumps to maintain cooling flow. Had that design decision been made, TMI-2 probably would not have melted.
Can you or someone else point me to a link about pebble bed reactors?
I’ve never heard of them.
Google shows 61,200 references to the words – pebble bed reactor
Thanks Bob G.
I’ll check in out later today.
> And for the next 29 years we didn’t build another nuclear power plant
Just nitpicking here, but there were a number of plants completed after the TMI accident. Waterford 3, outside of New Orleans, wasn’t completed until 1985 and the South Texas Project several years after that. Perhaps they were all started before TMI but they did continue to build them and bring them online.
Some plants that had started construction before TMI were finished and brought on line a few years later. Sadly a few projects were canceled in mid-construction. One was near Jefferson Indiana. No NEW projects were started for 30 years after TMI.
Has everyone forgotten what interest rates went to as a result of the Carter administration trying to undo the stagflation from the Nixon economic policies? Now imagine trying to finance a few billion dollars at an 18% interest rate in an environment where you are restricted from passing the cost of financing on the the consumer until your plant is in operation 3 to 5 years later.
There were more large coal plants canceled than nuclear plants in that same late seventies, early eighties time frame. Those were certainly not canceled because of TMI-2. Additionally, both coal and nuclear plants had been canceled before TMI-2. Are you trying to argue the utilities had the forsight to predict the TMI-2 accident and cancel their plants preemptively?
Interest rates killed nuclear and coal plants in the US, not TMI-2 or the China syndrome. The anti-nuclear people want you to believe they were successful, but interest rates were the concern.
GREAT COLUMN
Regarding water and nuclear power plants: AmerenUE’s nuclear power plant is located a modest distance away from its water source — the Missouri river. The plant is air cooled by a large cooling tower. The process uses lots of water which is drawn from the Missouri river. No hot water is returned to the river. On most days you can see the cooling tower and vapor plume from Interstate 70. The plant is MILES away from people.
I am familiar with the nuclear power plant on Lake Michigan. It was built in an era when plants and factories simply dumped their waste into the nearest river or lake, with no regard to the environment. If the Lake Michigan plant had done something as simple as diluted the exhausted hot water before returning it to the lake, the problems would have been a lot less. At the time no one thought about it.
You have greatly misled people about the nature of the accident at TMI-2. It was completely and utterly a failure by the operator. The operator spent the first three hours of the accident chasing one alarm after the other, not ever taking the time to stop reacting to alarms and figure out the state of the plant. It is obvious that it was an operator failure by the simple fact that the oncoming operator who arrived at 6:45 for his 7:00 shift change was able to diagnose the stuck open relief valve within the 15 minute window of shift change where the off going operator had not only misunderstood the state of his plant, he had even told the on coming operator that he was getting a false high temp alarm from downstream of the relief valve. He failed to recognize the reduced pressurizer level indications until his pressurizer level lowered to the point of draining the reference leg of the differential pressure detector in one of his two level indications and then chose to believe the faulty level indication over the accurate indication despite plant pressure changes corresponding to the good indication and contradictory to the faulty indication. And worse, when he saw pressurizer level increasing on the failed indicator, he proceeded to drain water from the primary which contributed to draining the pressurizer vessel at which point the pressurizer bubble was transferred to the inlet side of the primary coolant pumps. The cavitating coolant pumps led to the operators decision to shut them off and remove cooling flow from the core. That lack of coolant flow caused the meltdown. The extreme heat from the meltdown caused the separation of hydrogen from the water coolant which led to the days of difficulty in stabilizing the plant.
Essentially, TMI-2 plant would probably be operating today if it had not been for the failed operator.
I will agree that the failure by the operator was made more excusable by the plethora of useless information he was required to process. That does not mean that the operator should have allowed himself to be overwhelmed. The failure of being overwhelmed is directly a result of a failure of training. As somebody who has done years of training on failure situations for reactor operators on U.S. Navy reactors, I can assure you that the Navy Nuclear program was never like this civilian plant had been operated. Admiral Rickover ensured that the Navy’s program was staffed by outstanding operators and officers. They understood not only what the books said, but exactly why they said what they did and how to tell if and when they had counter indications.
The Navy had strict compliance to the procedures, but that was certainly not monkey work of, “when you get this alarm, flip this switch”. Many of those control system design decisions were made in an age where analog controls were the standard. Trying to build an analog device that could track the pressure-vs-temperature curves or the subcritical rod height for controlled startup using an analog device would have been insane. Likewise, in the time of TMI-2, it would have been an engineering audit nightmare to ensure the digital control system was correct in all situations. A qualified and trained operator would have still been required, but the operator would have been more likely to make mistakes because of his blind faith the computer would do the right thing. That remains the reason to this day that the first line safety device in a reactor is a competent and trained operator.
Misled? I don’t think so. GPU was entirely at fault and I didn’t write otherwise. The plant was a mess and the operator training was a joke. But you are correct that nearly everything they did to make the situation better actually made it worse. And contrary to another comment, the worst damage didn’t happen until hours in, as you say, when they turned off the cooling pumps entirely. Thanks for making me think about all those details. Thirty years is a long time.
So by leaving out “all those details” you can understand why Robin Holt used the term “misled”. TMI and Chernobyl both happened on the midwatch so you could have easily written an article that the US hasn’t learned the lessons of the dangers of shift work. Like your article there would be some truth to it but it would also be “misleading” to write such an article putting forth the idea that tired midwatch operators were the only cause of these accidents. Out of this very interesting and enjoyable article you get a lot of reader discussions on the design aspect of the nuclear industry and looking for that one better more perfect design. What I find to be in common with the financial crisis, TMI, Chernobyl, 9/11 is that we don’t know as much as we think we do and that we need to be prepared as much as possible for the unknown. We rely too much on the perfect design which is what the financial planners thought they had.
Much has been written by numerous people about TMI. Some of it was very intelligent and carefully thought out. There is also a great deal of dreck and stupidity about what the event was all about. I know this because I met several engineers professionally who were responsible for post-mortem analysis of the event. It is also notable that in the ensuing court cases that followed, a great deal of this information got sealed and still hasn’t seen the light of day. The lessons learned, are still sequestered.
Many things went wrong at TMI. Valves leaked. Instruments failed. The User interface was terrible. Training was poor, and Operators got confused.
Modern plants are very complex places. We see many more control systems in place today than ever before. Reliability has improved, but the number of failure modes has gone way up. Today, when a failure happens, people get VERY confused. We design user interfaces much more carefully these days.
Nevertheless, we now have a problem with information overload. Even with fancy animated graphics there is simply too much to display, too much to absorb, and too few operators to keep track of it all.
I’ve been in the control centers of distribution SCADA systems many times while a major storm blows through. The operators are usually on their toes, and they know exactly what is going on. Nevertheless, a few key details usually fall on the floor.
The problem is that to my knowledge, few spend much effort to analyze the human factors of plant DCS and distribution SCADA systems. We don’t have an equivalent to NASA ASRS. There is no requirement for reporting anomalies with a control system. Were one to get hacked, I’m not even sure how we would checkpoint the system so that we could do an analysis on an offline system.
The only time we get to see what this stuff is like is in cases such as when the CSB investigated the 2005 Texas City BP refinery explosion and fire. It ain’t pretty.
We have so much left to do…
Bob (under his real name) wrote the first and authoritative book on the accident. It took some effort to find it, but I did and I read it.
Lets not forget they were trying to start up the plant before the maintenance was finished. If they had a real control system, that would have simply been impossible.
Another fact not widely known — if operators had sat on their hands when the alarms started going off, the safety systems would have kicked in and shut down the reactor. We would have had a minor “incident” that would not have made the news. It has been years since I researched TMI, but I believe there were 3 or 4 specific times during the early part of the accident where the control room circumvented the safety systems. This was done on direction of the plant management.
What is the name of the book? It might be available at Amazon. What is Bob’s real name?
I bought the one for $0.74 a few minutes ago.
Three Mile Island (Hardcover)
by Mark Stephens (Author) # Hardcover: 245 pages
# Publisher: Random House Inc (T); 1st edition (November 1980)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 0394510925
# ISBN-13: 978-0394510927
My library had it and it is available via an inter-library loan.
Bob,
I grew up in Marietta Pa, 13 miles downriver from scenic Three Mile Island. We luckily moved away the year before the “accident”. (realy fortunate for us, as real estate downriver was pretty hard to sell for a while there…) The thing I find most amusing about that is that there used to be a small group called the Susquehanna Valley Alliance, which when I lived there published a small, one or two page mimeographed newsletter. Quite a few years later, I was visiting my Aunt in Lancaster Pa, and she had on her coffee table the Susquehanna Valley Alliance newsletter. It was something like 20 pages, typeset in 3 columns, on newsprint, and talked about how the lawyers on staff had sued sucessfully, once again, to stop reopening reactor 2…
So what TMI did politically was to take the anti-nuclear movement from the fringes squarely into the mainstream. And our government policy of proclaiming “nuclear power is perfectly safe” rather than trying to engineer better designs backfired monumentally. And of course, now that we could really make good use of some of those better designs, public sentiment is against nuclear power in whatever form, because the public was lied to about the safety of nuclear power before.
Thanks for the tidbit, though, about how the containment at TMI was heavier than at most other plants. I always wondered how it actually avoided a much bigger problem, given the way the place was run.
And when TMI was shut down its three reactors were replaced by 6 coal fired power plants.
What I love about this story is that is skewers several favored myths of both the left and the right. Federal over-regulation and Carter’s micro-management (didn’t he once speak directly to an armed hostage taker who had demanded an audience with him?) is the worst way to run an energy business, but so is letting the free market replace engineers with accountants.
Nuclear power is cheap, renewable, and safe if done right. If you compare the safety of a car nowadays with a 1979 Pinto, the difference is staggering: anti-lock brakes, airbags everywhere you look, passive restraint belts, self-sealing fuel lines, multi-sensory crumple zones, flat run tires, breakaway glass sealed in plexi layers, self-adjusting suspension systems…some cars even place a call to EMS when it senses a collision. This is what a creative industry in a free market can achieve in 30 years if the motive is sufficient. President Obama should make good on his promise to “restore science to its rightful place” and make it our immediate goal to design, develop, manufacture, and sell the world’s best nuclear power plant. If it alienates certain calcified leftists, all the better.
Ah… but go see the movie “Tucker: The man and his dream”, and see how our same “free market “system destroyed (via noncompetitive business practices)a company who added nearly half those safety features to a cars just after WWII. So it’s a pretty mixed bag overall.
Capital costs are still higher for nuclear plants than coal-fired power plants.
Of course, with the former you don’t have to ship fuel in on 100-unit trains every couple of weeks.
Over the life of a plant, nuclear probably wins considering the hefty taxes coming soon on any form of carbon-based fuel.
Great Post. I just want to share a good source for tax forms and tutorials – PDFfiller. It has a ton tax forms and business templates. It helps me fill out a needed form neatly and gives me the option to esign. https://www.pdffiller.com/en/categories_search
Before you get all Libertarian about how the “free market” drove all of those safety devices and innovations into modern cars, look at what actually happened. A lot of those safety innovations, especially the early ones, like seat belts and padded dashboards, had to be crammed down the throats of manufacturers by regulators. Catalytic converters and pollution control systems were particularly unpopular with automobile manufacturers and they fought tooth and nail to try to keep them from being required. An equal number of safety oriented innovations were driven not by engineers or consumers, but rather by lawyers seeking to avoid liability in our lawsuit obsessed culture.
Its a big shame that Nuclear power has been neglected for so long due to the fear created by accidents like TMI and Chernobyl. I co-wrote a column a while ago about future electricity generation
https://www.talkingfuture.com/2009/01/how-will-grid-electricity-be-generated.html
In the end we concluded that Nuclear is the way of the future, there is a new type of reactor that uses Thorium which produces much less waste, can’t be used for bomb making and may allay some of the mass media generated fears over nuclear power.
I can’t believe companies used to be run by people with degrees that applied to the fields in which their companies worked and not people with MBSs from night school!
Ah, the days when logic and not accountants ruled the world!
accountants and lawyers
The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) wrote a long report about the incident.
The control room was cited as a major factor in the failure.
The computer printer was cited as a major culprit because of the time lag in print-outs.
Hang tags (“toe tags”) hung down over indicators hiding important readings. Important buttons were poorly ergonomically designed resulting in erroneous operator actions. Meters were located many feet away from the adjustment controls.
The controls rooms were non-standardized from reactor to reactor (raising costs and making training more complex). Controls rooms were “designed” by the PR department of the utility. It was advised that airplane cockpit designers be used to design the control rooms resulting in improved ergonomics.
Gentlemen, OK to your findings and excerpts. Still I could not find a note on why all of us must reduce the use of electricity. The reason yields in the transformation of energy of some kind to electricity: the power we do not use, simply vanishes since we don’t accumulate the electricity that was produced but not applied on a load. On one hand, we must make as much electricity as we know that will be in use, so nobody is left without the benefits of it, on the other hand, if we transform more fuel in electricity than the amount that will be in use, we necessarily will consume more fuel (of any kind) and since we do not accumulate it, that fuel transformed, that is, the power “generated” but not used will be fuel wasted in vain. Hence I believe there is a priority in spreading the concept of the real reason why it is so important that every human being reduce the use of electricity, at least, until a renewable method of producing electricity will be found.
Bob: nice article. Best regards to you all.
That is not quite correct. A running electric power plant operates at about 38% efficiency. This means that 62% of the energy produced from burning a fuel or in a reactor is lost as heat. This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics.
When the demand for electricity is less than the generation capacity, the plants are throttled back a bit or a unit or two is taken off the grid. The power does not vanish, it is not made. It is like driving your car down the highway. When you go up a hill, you press down on the gas pedal and your engine produces more horsepower. When you go down a hill, you ease back on the pedal… The same thing happens at your power company.
During peak generation periods, in the middle of a hot summer, things get more interesting. It is common for power demand to exceed generation capacity. When that happens any number of things can happen.
1) Your power company may have “peak generation” plants that start up big internal combustion engines to drive additional generation capacity.
2) Businesses who have UPS generators (hospitals, data centers, etc) may be asked to fire up the generators and disconnect from the grid.
3) Your power company may buy power from a neighboring utility who has some to spare. (Remember the California Enron debacle?)
Our local power company used to have a water powered peaking facility. At night they would fill a large reservoir on top of a hill. During the day they would drain it thorough a generator produce additional electricity. This is a “true” form of energy storage. Sadly our power company did some stupid things and over filled the reservoir. The wall eroded away causing a flash flood and made a big mess. Their control system was based on a single level sensor (that was broke) and an operator sitting 100 miles away who controlled the pump. Can you spell DUMB? Even the most primitive control system would have prevented the accident. Funny, there was no spillway on the reservoir either. This isn’t rocket science. There is perfectly good, 75 year old engineering techniques that were not used.
They won’t let an engineer practice law. However an MBA or bean counter can design something that could endanger people and property. If an engineer is involved and protests, he/she can almost always be overruled by the MBA or bean counter.
I don’t know about your pumped storage plant, but I had a chance to visit one in our area that has been running successfully for more than 40 years. They buy power at night for $14/megawatt hour and sell it during the day for $40. It is 1/3 square mile and about 900 ft deep. Fills and empties every day.
There was also a project proposed for Chicago as part of the Deep Tunnel Project, which would have used underground flood control reservoirs as a pumped storage ‘battery’. The underground flood control reservoirs were built and they work pretty well (about twice a year), but a pumped storage addition would have given better bang for the buck (every day usage).
The Deep Tunnel Project currently has over 100 miles of underground tunnels and Phase I is scheduled for completion in 2019. Perhaps Phase II will include pumped storage.
Some corrections – plant was put in service in 1973, so has been working for more than 35 years, not 40. Also only 110 ft deep, but about 3 sq miles in area. Was the largest pumped storage plant in the world when it was built.
Make that 1.3 square miles.
One of the biggest pumped storage systems in the world, and still the fastest I believe, is the Dinorwig plant in Wales.
It can black start the whole national grid – ie if the grid is DEAD, it can pull the whole lot around, while the other plants re-sync.
It can run from standstill (0 MW out)to 1700 MW in 12 SECONDS.
Amazing project – with a visiting facility. On our visit, we were standing on one of the turbines when it was started – just a phenomenal feeling of raw power.
Steve
In Madison, WI our university power plant burns natural gas and the waste heat is used to heat buildings bringing the efficiency to around 70%.
Nice one. Appropriate for the day.
Dear X;
Ahh, your article brings back fond memories….I went to work for Babcock & Wilcox shortly after TMI under a mgmt. training program….needless to say, the lessons learned from this incident became B&W corp culture….we were unfairly blamed for this problem also….B&W never really regained it’s prominence as the No. 1 or 2 builder of electrical generation facilities after TMI…
I mostly remember the chaos that resulted from increased federal oversight, with FERC, NRC, etc constantly issuing new engineering guidelines after the fact, heck even while we’re finishing other plants…one change order after another !!! (if you had enough time I could tell you about the Kafkaesque trouble the Feds made me go thru for sourcing a nuclear pressure vessel argon flooding system…fun, fun, fun!) ……plus, utilities didn’t help themselves by designing “one off” custom reactors / facilities, unlike France….no wonder nuclear became prohibitively expensive in the US….
Another interesting part of my job was using old school econometric forecasting services (anyone remember Chase or DRI?) to determine what the matl. & labor costs for nuclear and fossil fuel facility construction would be up to 7years out…..thanks to the FUD / overreacting / unpredictable / politically driven fed. govt, we’d have been better off with a dartboard! That’s the No.1 reason why we’re behind in generation capacity in some parts of the country
With Wall St. and Detroit self imploding and free market capitalism losing its credibility (hopefully temporarily) , I see the Feds becoming dangerously more involved with economic and industrial policy in the next year or so….TMI was a harbinger….unlike then, today’s Fed govt. is on steroids…
Batten down the hatches, boys, it’s going to get rough (for liberatarians / capitalists) out there…
Just my $0.02…keep up the contrarion / alternative veiwpoints
Who do you put in charge?…
Wonderful article to read on April Fool’s Day by Bob Cringely about the 3 Mile Island nuclear accident. He’s got some great points: Errors in design lead to disasters. Errors in understanding desired outcomes lead to disasters. The wrong technology…..
Brilliant column.
As a technology columnist, can you comment on two issues that jump out at me: the subject of “long out of print” on an important technical topic, and “lessons not learned” when we have more information available to us than any previous generation. Given today’s technology, we should have all known information from the past available to us, and avoidable mistakes should never occur.
-“But more importantly most chemical firms of that era had CEO’s with engineering degrees.”
So sad, but sooooo true. Today’s world puts more stock into pretty faces rather than hard earned, hand’s on knowledge and experience.
Carter a nuclear engineer?
Carter completed a non-credit introductory course in nuclear reactor power at Union College starting in March 1953. This followed Carter’s first-hand experience as part of a group of American and Canadian servicemen who took part in cleaning up after a nuclear meltdown at Canada’s Chalk River Laboratories reactor.[8][9]
Someone once joked with me that the big problem with TMI was that we didn’t have more nuclear accidents.
His point was rather simple: The nuclear safety record was pretty good for the two decades before TMI. Because of that, we got fat and lazy. Certification became a joke. No one took alarms seriously. No one ever thought the worse was happening. After all, everything was peachy for almost 20 years. It just shows exactly how safe nuclear power plants are.
Chemical plants, on the other hand, are accident prone. Fortunately, most accidents are minor, but they happen enough that people take them seriously. You need people who know what is going on and can think fast on their feet. You need backup systems, and backups for those systems. It isn’t that the people who run chemical plants were engineers while people who ran nuclear power plants were bean counters. It’s that people who ran chemical plants knew that the plants were accidents waiting to happen. They spent their nights awake in their beds worried about a plant blowing up and poisoning millions of people. People who ran nuclear plants thought they were perfectly safe, and slept soundly thinking about their pensions.
The same thing happened with the most recent financial meltdown. Hey, mortgage back securities have a great safety record. The default rate on credit defaults swaps is minuscule. There’s no risk anymore! Just leverage yourself as much as you can, and buy, buy, buy!
We ignored the actual risk because we simply forgot. Housing prices drop for a year or two every 15 or so years. The last time was the beginning of the Reagan administration and hit the Southwest and west very hard. But, that was over 20 years ago, so we forgot. We allowed 0% down mortgages because we could always seize the house and sell it for more money than the mortgage value. We forgot that if a trader executes an extremely complex trade and not a simple buy and sell of stock, that the liabilities could occur any time in the next five years. You can’t pay him 30% “bonus” on profits when you won’t know for years exactly what those profits are.
There’s an old Jewish riddle: You are a Rabbi on case on a Jewish criminal court. If you vote that the person is guilty, he is freed. If you vote he’s innocent, he’s convicted.
The answer is simple: Criminal cases before a Rabbinical court were decided by majority vote. The exception was when it was an unanimous verdict for guilt. In that case, the person was freed. Therefore, you were the final vote on the case and everyone else voted for guilt. If you voted for guilt, it would be an unanimous verdict, and the person would be freed. If you voted innocent, the majority would have voted for guilt, and the person would be found guilty.
This might seem strange in our system of “beyond a reasonable doubt” which always requires an unanimous verdict, but there was a valid reason: In life, nothing is entirely clear cut. There is always at least two sides to each issue. If everyone agrees, it means that you are not getting the full picture of what was going on. You’re being mislead. You are in groupthink mode. You are heading right into a disaster.
That’s what happened in TMI. All the experts told us that nuclear power plants were perfectly safe. The only dissenters were those vegetable eating, free love supporting, hippie commies who never loved America anyway. That’s what happened to Bush in Iraq, dissenters were declared “not team players” and were forced out. And, that’s what happened in the dot.com era and the recent mortgage securities boom. Everybody is going to get rich. CNBC got big ratings because they told everyone that everything was rosy. Nay-sayers need not apply.
I have learned over the years that when everyone agrees, something is about to go terribly wrong. There has recently been lots of books about the need for dissent and the need for a wide range of opinions when making decisions, but I am not sure how we can keep this lesson in our heads for the long term. There will come a time in the future when everyone thinks everything is fine and the few people who disagree are just idiots. When you find yourself in that type of situation, take cover because you know something is about to go terribly wrong.
Good comments.
‘Group think’ – something to avoid. Worse is decree from above.
A wide range of opinions and dialog channeled into timely decisions – that is the goal.
Yes, I agree too. Group think is bad.
…wait a minute, did we all just agree that Group Think is bad?
[well, *I* thought it was funny…]
A great article, we posted a snippet to the readers of our company blog at AREVA:
http://us.arevablog.com/2009/04/01/robert-x-cringley-on-tmi-and-nuclear-power/
Geez, I was going to try and make some witty & sharp comments but reading all these posts I realize I’d better leave well enough alone. Kudos to Cringe for pulling in the MENSA crowd.
(not sarc.)
However! (uh, oh…) I will never forgive the MSM for always portraying Carter as some dum’ ol’ peanut farmer leaving me to discover 20+ years later that he was a nuclear submarine commander. Never knew. Thanks MSM.
President Carter never commanded a nuclear submarine. He left the navy before completing his nuclear training. That’s probably why the MSM never mentioned it.
If memory serves, Carter’s decision to stop sending commercial fuel rods to DOE reprocessing facilities was related to anti-proliferation strategy. The intent was to have reprocessing capacity separate from weapons manufacturing, and He couldn’t sell it to congress, or the breeder reactors he wanted.
A good friend of mine was a nuclear plant operator on the Puffin (fast attack submarine) and the Ohio (big missile sub). In order to qualify for each reactor, he had to train on a mockup of the real plant that exactly duplicated every feature of the real plant, down to the position and color of each valve and pipe. By the time he actually got on board the sub, he already knew the plant inside and out. When he left the navy, he had a number of opportunities to work at civilian nuclear plants. He took one look at their training and safety drill program (no safety drills at all, too expensive to shut down the plant) and refused to have anything to do with them, even though the pay was excelent.
Using a consistent plant design would allow the comercial plant operators to train in a similar manner at a single training site, and allow them to move from one site to another without retraining. They could also refresh their training on a regular basis, runing disaster drills without impacting the operation of a real plant. The demand for power in this country is large enough (think electric cars) that we could even have two standard designs if we needed to.
Bob:
Another great thought provoker! And yes I remember this mess.
It’s worth noting that no two USN nuclear submarines are built to a standard plan either when it comes to their plumbing.
your statement is incorrect. I have personally been on scores of them. very few differences within a class.
[…] Three Mile Island Memories The lessons of Three Mile Island have been, for the most part, forgotten. The nuclear industry changed and improved somewhat, but the deep understanding of what went wrong was lost on the public in general and the real lessons that we could have learned as a society were, too. The financial mess we are experiencing right now isn’t all that different from Three Mile Island. If we’d taken better to heart the true lessons of TMI we might not be in our present jam. […]
Great article. If you look at the current sources of nuclear material you’ll see that a great majority of the fuel used in the USA is already coming from decommissioned weapons and has been since the end of the cold war, unfortunately you’re running out of the stockpile.
I wonder if this is an underlying reason for the recent announcements on disarmament between the USA and Russia.
I know that here in Australia our government has overturned its restrictions on the number of uranium mines that can operate and we expect to be riding a boom on this resource in the coming decades. I would not be surprised if this too was a result of the shortfall in expected fuel requirements from the US with the US putting a bit of pressure on the Australian Govt.
Thing to remember with these types of power plants is that they take about 10 years to get into operation with all the hoops that need to be jumped through. So all the talk of next generation reactors is decades down the track as pilot plants will need to be built and tested, the older designs will be with us for a while yet.
Thank you Bob. Do you think Barney Frank could manage a grocery store, let alone the US banking industry? Congress has gotten its hands in so many things, all of which they claim have the best intentions but turn out to be bloated costly disasters. They don’t know anything about energy, engineering, transportation, trade, or economics.. all they know is how to tell people what they want to hear to win elections! When will us Americans learn not to trust these fools?
Hi Bob – great to have found your new place! Hope all is going well here! I think the banner-graphic up-top is excellent work! 🙂
I must admit to ignorance of the facts behind the Three Mile Island incident – being in the UK I guess I just went with the standard news stories of the time… This is a real eye-opener.
talking of bhopal, where is warren anderson these days?
I understand that there was likely a lack of operator training, faulty sensors, non-existent sensors (water level/ secondary coolant system flow), long delay on daisy chain printers etc etc. But what I dont understand is why, when the operator was confronted with a situation where he could not reliably assess the state of the reactor, why didn’t he just pull the rods to force immediate shutdown.
Pull the rods? I assume that’s a typo, as they pull the rods to increase the reaction, and drop them to control it.
Several respondents have wondered why the plant operators didn’t just shut down the reactor when it was obvious that something was wrong, obviating the subsequent damage. Actually, the automatic shutdown of the plant occurred and was one of the first symptoms that something was amiss. Even with the control rods in fully, the reactor still would produce heat in abundance, and since the coolant loop was obstructed by a closed valve, the heat built up, leading to the subsequent damaging events.
Nuclear reactors are complex machines with so many failure modes that it is difficult to evaluate them all. Using faulty methods to calculate the risk of failure doesn’t help. The only plans I see to increase the use of nuclear power in this country would lead to making them even more complex, and failure prone.
We can afford to be a little more clever.
Very nice and interesting article, bravo! I recently visited Goesgen nuclear power plant in Switzerland and I was amazed too by the simplicity of the plant: three circuits of hot water, the nuclear core, the turbine, the generator. That’s it. Fortunately in the control room I saw many computer screens!
I was a co-designer (ca. 1965) of the computer (855) to which Cringley refers. I was appalled to later learn that it was in use at TMI. Although we were proud of our work, it was clunky in ’65 and obsolete a decade later. But it was extremely difficult to get new computers approved by the NRC, and so naive designs continued to be used by the engineers who designed reactor controls. All of this continues today. Take a look at our air traffic control systems, which is more scary than TMI.
But Cringely is amiss when he indicates that the only indication was printer output. There were lots of indicator lights and meters on the panels.
Also, no one seems to have mentioned a key event that, early on in the accident, when the pump monitors indicated wildly fluctuating amps, the operators overrode the automatic shutdown (scram). Had that intervention not occurred, the plant would have come down safely.
But I do agree there was a lack of training. As I understood it, the operators were trying to avoid criticism by management (for wrecking the feed pumps), and were not thinking about the public safety risks.
And lastly, it was reported the 855 kept on chugging for days, even though it was hours behind, and it no longer mattered!
Recuerdos de Three Mile Island…
Han pasado treinta años del accidente de la central nuclear de Three Mile Island. Sin embargo, las lecciones han sido olvidadas en parte. La industria nuclear ha cambiado y mejorado bastante. No obstante, para el público general, la comprensión prof…
Remember the “Rickovers” from Red Mars? Naval reactors are potential electrical generation plants. The US could kill two birds with one stone, keeping at least part of our submarine construction infrastructure busy and productive, while placing standardized and already proven reactor core (and control) systems in service generating electricity around the country.
Um… a city is somewhat larger than a nuclear submarine. Scale matters.
Hearing about “the book” brought back memories. When I got out of college in Chemical Engineering in 1980 I had interviews and tours of both Hanford and Savannah River facilities and both interviews mentioned the ‘fact’ that everything that could happen was in “the book” and that was the measure the operators were trained to. Struck me even then that while parrotting books is nice, understanding the content was perhaps needed too.
Later in 1984-1985 after a stint in the oil industry I worked for a company doing a control system for the glass vit project in Savannah River. It was very scary hearing these bright young 4.0 GPA kids from Bechtel and Dupont who had never gotten their shoes dirty explaining why we should trust a check valve to work perfectly (hint – don’t) when I’d just spent four years in the real world learning that reality differs from book learning.
Talk about a horrible concurrent engineering debacle. The vit plant was supposed to go hot in 1986 or so. It actually did so ‘ten’ years later. https://www.srs.gov/general/news/factsheets/dwpf.pdf – personally I’m glad I’m on the opposite coast.
Of course now I’m only a few hundred miles from the vit plant at Hanford (https://www.bechtelvitplant.com/index.html) which sounds like even more of a foul up from a project management standpoint. Hope the prevailing winds are to the east. Contract 2000. Into production 2019 sayeth their web site. Heckuva job guys.
[…] to something so much worse than Chernobyl (which I do know the frightening truth about). Here is an interesting take on the event with TMI’s thirty-year anniversary of the meltdown reminding us the seriousness […]
Great article Bob, thanks.
I once visited the PGE Trojan plant near Portland, Oregon which was closed years ago. It had a hydrogen cooled generator which was located almost on top of the control room. Nice design! Remember the Hindenburg?
From a Physics lecture many years ago: Navy reactors use highly enriched fuel. It is much easier to control a reactor using this than the lower enriched commercial fuel. As the fuel ages and generates more transuranic elements, it becomes harder to shut down with the control rods, thus you must run cooling water through the core for a long time until the reaction level decays and stops generating heat. This is why the cooling system is so critical when the reactor must be shut down and auxiliary power generation systems must exist and work to run the cooling system in the event that the power grid is lost. I believe the higher enriched fuel isn’t used commercially because it costs more and can be used to make weapons.
IEEE Spectrum had an excellent article on the accident about a year after TMI. If I remember correctly:
A pressure spike in the main coolant loop caused a pressure relief valve to open and stick open. This valve had been a problem before and was scheduled for repair. The open valve allowed the main coolant pressure to reduce and the reactor overheated. The reactor was scrammed and the control rods were inserted.
The auxiliary cooling system automatically started and was cooling the reactor. Because the relief valve stuck open, first loop low level radioactive water started to flow into the reactor containment building.
The control system provided both a pressure and temperature gauge for the core, but something as simple as a water/steam transition table wasn’t provided. A computer could easily have provided a lookup function to let the operator know that the reactor was losing pressure and instead of water there was steam in the core. Steam doesn’t have a high heat capacity and won’t cool the core properly.
Due to lack of correct information, and due to concerns for the water filling up the containment building, a decision was made to turn off the auxiliary cooling pumps. If they had been left on, it is possible that there would have been other failures due to the excess water.
The reactor overheated at this point and went into meltdown. This later produced the pressure spikes that almost blew the containment building open.
I don’t remember all the other details of how they got it under control. I also didn’t know that the containment was extra strong, thanks for that bit Bob.
The real problem here are the scientific studies produced by the NRC that were used to prove these accidents could never happen in 1000+ years of operation. The same thing was done by NASA to sell the Space Shuttle. When Richard Feynman talked to shuttle engineers, they told him that the failure rate should be more like 3% of the launches. Similar studies were written by quants working for banks to prove that the mortgage securities could never blow up too.
The thing these studies don’t take into consideration is human behavior. Reactor operators flip the wrong switch. Russian reactor operators like to stress their reactors to see what happens. NASA management likes to launch shuttles during extreme weather conditions (and fly a mission to the Hubble with new space junk flying around). And those damn bears just come around and ruin everything.
There was a section to that IEEE Spectrum report that talked about the design of the control room. It was very bad. As I recall, control rooms were custom for each plant and often heavily influenced by the PR department of the purchasing utility. One of the main recommendations was that aircraft cockpit people should design the control rooms.
Root cause of the accident:
According to reports the accident was caused because; while the PORV was still open the signal light available to the operator showed it to be closed, as it only showed the presence or absence of current, not that the valve was actually closed. Therefore it was a non-computer display failure, the ‘SEVEN HUNDRED things wrong’ occurred as a consequences of operator action not the cause of it.
“The operators might have determined that the valve was open by looking at a pressure indicator for the reactor-coolant drain tank .. But that signal was situated behind the seven-foot-high instrument panels .. and did not do so as they attempted to cope with the flurry of confusing signals they were already”
See chapter 4 page 74 …
https://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10177.php
Thanks for the pointer. Good of them to provide a free download of the chapter. I see I didn’t quite remember it all correctly. Their source diagram was from the IEEE Spectrum article I read.
There are still problems with human behaviour that must be addressed when large systems can cause serious problems. Perhaps if the systems were smaller, and would cause less damage when they fail, the human factor would be less of a concern. Nuke reactors, space shuttles or derivatives: the bigger they are the more trouble they cause when they go boom.
Bob,
Way to jump on the re-nuclear bandwagon… Guess there’s no issue you aren’t a few years behind on.
You can go even further with your comparison of nuclear and economic management. The common denominator is humans are limited in their intellectual capacity. No man or woman can be more than a fair President, because the job is too complicated.
50+ years of nuclear power and waste is still stored in rusting steel barrels or open ponds. We are certainly NOT the product of a very intelligent design, are we? This demonstrates that nuclear power is still far from being an acceptable energy alternative. The analogy would be — matches are an indispensable technology but nobody in their right mind gives them to a child.
Let’s spend more time on solar power. It’s already cheaper anyway.
Cringely wrote: “Many firms bought derivative securities without the slightest thought to the math behind them or the risk they were incurring. ”
They knew the risks, and hid them. They did this because their reward for making the risky investments was huge (They make huge commissions and profits), while their punishment for the investment failing was minimal (bankruptcy or bailout).
It’s as if i gave you a billion dollars to spend in vegas, and told you that you can keep 20% of the profit if you come out ahead, but if you lose the billion, no worries. What a sweet deal.
Re: Nuclear power. Technocrats (including me…I took a couple classes at the Penn State research nuclear reactor) love talking up nuclear power, but the real reason no one is making plants is that nuclear power is very expensive to build and operate. No venture capital is being put into nuclear power. All nuclear plants built in the past 20 years or so (in other countries…zero in the US) have only been possible with huge government subsidies.
The technology is fun to talk about, but 99% of electricity generation comes down to simple economics.
hey Bob,
https://www.alternet.org/environment/134977/startling_revelations_about_three_mile_island_disaster_raise_doubts_over_nuke_safety/?page=entire
dunno if you’ve seen this alternet article – apparently there was a recent symposium in harrisburg:
https://www.tmia.com/march26
I was talking with a technical expert sent by a controls firm to help us get a new control system working in our system (sewage). We got into a discussion of timestamping of data and the effect on rate calculations. He noted that milliseconds really do matter in chemical plants, whereas in nuclear plants you have a bit more time.
On a more general note, I have learned a couple of things over the years:
1) When bad things happen, people do not always learn the correct lesson to prevent if from happening again. “We lost the Vietnam war due to the whimpy politicians, not due to any failure in strategy.” That lead the army to avoid looking at counter insurgency as a major required skill set.
2) People are often crappy at generalizing those lessons and at assessing low probability, high impact risk or failure sequences. They flew the space shuttle fine until there was freezing weather, then rain before launch, and who knows what else next.
Most people say “we aren’t doing anything near as risky as launching a rocket and heck, nothing bad has happened yet, so we are good to go.” I tell them in our case, with continuous operation, they are at the casino 24/7 and someday they will lose. The question is how much they want to bet. In the case of financial firms and real estate speculators, they borrowed as much money as they could to bet.
—
All this being said, if you think government regulation isn’t the solution, and “greed is good” is the mantra of the financial people (and it will be the day they stop living in fear), then we are in deep sh*t. We need some form of systemic risk analysis including a rigorous analysis of new instrument types, and asking individual firms (and perhaps individual governments) to do it is pointless. If you don’t think a new form of regulation is possible then you have no solution.
Answer the question, assuming you had a financial control system, who would be the designer and who would be the operator?
Maybe it is impossible to build and run such a system, but frankly the economists that say derivatives are too complex for us ordinary people to understand probably couldn’t even conceive of how complex a typical control system is. There is a reason these people didn’t go into the hard sciences. The real problem is that the politicians, who are not by and large into hard sciences or engineering, believe that lie. (I’d suggest The Origin of Financial Crisis by George Cooper.)
Pouring money into a broken system is like pouring water into a broken pipe. It may well go somewhere, but you can be assured it will not all go where you want. I can sympathize with the Europeans wanting to fix the system. I personally would have preferred fixes before stimulus, but creating a new system on a scale not yet seen with politicians and economists in the loop will take time and be problematical.
The other thing I explain to people is that the economy is like chain gang skydiving. You may not have wanted to jump out of the plane, and you may hate the guts of a lot of the people that make up our chain gang economy. But, you darn well better hope enough of them have parachutes. As Dilbert says, otherwise the answer is just “splat”, not “splat, ouch”.
Interesting comments, but still think idiot-resistant nuclear makes sense. Wind and terrestrial solar can’t begin to supply the energy needed, and coal is nasty before any climate stasis concerns, all the official fusion money’s going into tokamaks, and in a generation, we may find out if it’s commercially viable. Fusors are getting so little money that it may be that long before there’s an answer on them. NASA seems unable or unwilling to develop a launch capacity that would handle geosynchronus solar or a construction that might relay induced power from the Earth’s magnetic field. Which leaves us with these choices : dirty coal or nuclear fission. I suspect the “Dark Greens” would like a third, deindustrialization and a subsequent die off of excess population.
I’ve always said, based on what I know about TMI, the system worked perfectly. Yes, it did have a problem, but it told the operators that it had a problem. It was the idiot (or not-properly-trained) operators that screwed up. As I understand it, a relatively simple problem escalated because the operators didn’t believe what their instruments were telling them. With a nuclear power plant my number one rule wold be if there is a problem and you don’t know what it is the SHUT THE THING DOWN! Then you can safely figure out what went wrong. Yea, I know that would drive the bean counters/owners nuts, but they wouldn’t have a problem like TMI which I am sure cost them a lot more than shutting down the plant. We should have never stopped building nuclear plants. We wouldn’t be in the energy mess we’re in now. Look at the French (as much as I dislike them), they have a nearly perfect record and generate something like 80% of their energy from nuclear. If I remember correctly (it’s been a long time since my last nuclear physics class) there are nuclear designs with a fail-safe mode that will shut down the reactor automatically. It can be done. It would just take some political guts.
I’ve been thinking that nuclear power plants should be built inside of granite mountains near constantly flowing rivers that can be diverted to use in cooling them.
This is the best (perhaps the only?) way- that I can think of that would solve the HUGE security issues.
One only has to look at the 9-11 tragedy to realize that we are sitting on a major safety issue by allowing these old nuclear power plants to continue operating with their many risks.
No insurance policy insures against that, either. Read the fine print.
(blanket exemptions due to radiation, pollution, acts of war, etc.)
That’s a VERY substantial hidden cost of using nuclear power the way we do.
Look at the Chernobyl situation, now, even decades later. A huge area is a wasteland, abandoned. There have been thousands of preventable deaths from cancer and other illnesses. Thousands of deformed babies have been born, many to die agonizing deaths.
That is NOT something we want to have happen here. Thats why we should concentrate on decentralized, renewable energy for our future, and not build any new nuclear power plants above ground. We should retire the old plants that have often reached the end of their useful life.
Radiation ages things- thats a problem.
Iodine tablets are a good thing to have in case of emergency.
They are available on the net, and they last forever.
Chernobyl had proven to be far more resilient an ecosystem that we’d assumed and feared in the two decades and some years since the explosion.
It’s true there was much initial casualty. Most prominent were the force of liquidators who fought the reactor fire and desperately labored to contain the deadly debris. The first responders died. The following waves suffered latent health issues to appear weeks to years later. Residents living around Pripyat and surrounding areas largely, but not totally, escaped unhurt. Some returned to the exclusion zone and some refused to leave. There is documentation to support claims of children born in the years surrounding the disaster, especially those still living in the zone, being in poorer health than the average.
But, there are also quite a lot of healthy folks living in the zone. Many who always had and witnessed and lived in the zone straight through the disaster and its aftermath, in contravention of the government.
Perhaps most telling are the wildlife, plant and animal. These recovered extremely quickly and have enjoyed more bountiful populations now than ever. I recently watched a documentary seeking to investigate some of the new surge of biomass, which uncovered data counter to the conventional wisdom on radiation exposure. Most of the healthy populations lived with Chernobyl-spawned radionuclide levels many times that of comparable populations outside the zone. The early research is suggesting it could be the case that certain low-level radiation exposures might actually cause a protective reaction in plant and animal species, and that such exposed species start adapting and thriving quickly in this environment. Longer-than-average lifespans are being documented, and this effect is thought to be in part based upon damaged cell apoptosis mechanisms honed and made more efficient by the radiation exposure.
The reality is that we can manage the risks, and therefore make the risk/reward such that, like air travel, we couldn’t imagine not doing it. Renewed development of orphaned advanced breeder reactor concepts could pave the way to pull much more energy out of presently “spent” fuel, as well as react down stockpiles of salvaged Pu from weapons, and…leave behind a waste product much less radioactive and dangerous for much shorter timespans (like decades and fractions of centuries vs. multiple centuries, eons, and geologic time).
Renewables cannot hope to provide enough energy to afford us our present lifestyle. I doubt the earth’s photosynthetic capacity accessible to human tech is high enough to meet our present and future energy demands, while still providing us food. And growing energy as biofuels only displaces food use of scarce arable land, food we need already, globally.
In a greenie world, re-wrangling atomic power would allow us to reserve fossil fuels for air transport, were pure renewable substitutes may be a practical impossibility. It would provide a route to non-CO2 emitting electricity generation in sufficient quantities to actually serve electric car markets which would be starved for power and unable to be competitive without. And it would allow us access to energy reserves large enough to enable us to power ourselves on the same sort of time scale as the sun.
So a new nuke disaster, while very bad, would perhaps be more akin to a major volcanic event than an extremely long-dated apocalyptic dead zone. Advances in high-voltage DC grid tech could make distribution efficient enough to enable confining reactors to remote areas away from population centers for as long as needed to keep refining the tech to ever safer degrees.
There is such a thing as inherently safe (from meltdown) nuclear power: It’s called a pebble-bed reactor.
I may be just a layperson, but it is inconceivable to me that nuclear power plants are still being constructed with ridiculously unsafe fuel-rod reactors, when the pebble-bed design has existed for about as long.
This Wired article is the best introduction to pebble-bed technology that I’ve been able to find: https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
[…] Three Mile Island Memories. […]
Reprocessing spent fuel is painted by some as a rosy answer to our problems and they point to the French. Problem is, what you never hear about, are the beaches in France where the radioactivity from waste water runoff from recycling plants has increased visitor’s cancer incidence. This is not an solution, just another problem. Just think of the tourism opportunity that would spring from these kind of beaches!
Two billion gallons of water are consumed per year to operate a nuclear power plant. Is that very much? The answer depends on how much water you have. In Alabama, a nuclear plant was nearly shut down due to lack of sufficient water supply. A looming water crisis affects more and more areas around our country and the world. In the near future, we will be forced to choose between using water for power or agriculture and drinking. When forced to decide this, electrical power will loose. One aquafer in the midwest is being pumped 7-11 times faster than it naturally gets replenished. Farmers in the midwest depend on this aquafer to irrigate crops that feed millions. We don’t have the water to spare for nuclear power, or coal for that matter.
My question is why? Why nuclear, when so many alternatives exist? So many alternatives with so few potential problems. 1. Wind, Solar (electric and thermal), geothermal, tidal, ocean currents, biogas (from trash and sewage). These things may seem so much less ‘powerful’ but deployed in large enough scale, will provide ample power for all.
In other words Bob, you are saying that you have no idea why Three Mile Island happened, no idea what went wrong, no idea what actions were taken, what corrections to future designs were made, and what then or current best practices are. And that you have no inclination or interest to find out
Well, most of us knew that already Bob, but thanks for clarifying the issue.
“Look at the Chernobyl situation, now, even decades later. A huge area is a wasteland, abandoned. There have been thousands of preventable deaths from cancer and other illnesses.”
There have been 57 deaths from the accident itself.
In addition, there have been 4000 total cases of thyroid cancer in the entire population that has been exposed since the accident. This includes the background cases, but lets assume that all of these cancers were caused by the exposure to strontium and iodine in the days after Chernobyl. Thyroid cancer has a 96% long term survival rate, so that’s 160 deaths.
There has been zero increased incidence of all other types of cancer. No extra leukemia, no extra birth defects or abnormalities, no solid cancers, nothing. The biggest cause of death has actually been suicide. An entire generation, scared shitless about the radiation, has given up hope in the future.
“Two billion gallons of water are consumed per year to operate a nuclear power plant. Is that very much?”
I know that Diablo Canyon uses seawater, and that corrosion is pretty much a non-issue. The only major problem was last year when they had to take it offline for a couple of days because the intakes were being clogged with jellyfish of all things.
Most of the world’s load is on the coast so dumping heat is a non-issue. The biggest problem is convincing wealthy land owners along the coast that your low cost and passively safe lead-cooled fast reactor is reliable enough to go in their backyard. And if you’re worried about brittle power LCFR’s don’t have to be monolithic either. You could build very compact 50-500 MW distributed units wherever the load is. But in world that is still so scared of tiny amounts of radiation, how do you site them?
“I may be just a layperson, but it is inconceivable to me that nuclear power plants are still being constructed with ridiculously unsafe fuel-rod reactors, when the pebble-bed design has existed for about as long.”
Modern third gen plants like the AP1000 and the EPR aren’t terribly unsafe. All the safety systems and core cooling are completely passive and immediate onsite operator attention isn’t needed in the event of an failure. That said, they aren’t terribly efficient with their fuel usage and create far more transuranic wastes than potential fourth gen designs.
I also like the simplicity of the PBMR, but they aren’t efficient with fuel, create a larger volume of waste (although roughly the same amount of radioactive material) than other third gen plants, the graphite coating on the fuel elements is potentially combustable if the silicon carbide coating cracks (yikes!), and the coating makes the fuel elements almost impossible to recycle.
The style of writing is very familiar . Have you written guest posts for other bloggers?
After reading this article, I feel that I need more info. Can you share some resources please?
any time you live “by the cookbook,” you will eventually get cooked.
in the case of computers, it’s the botherds.
in the case of nuke plants, it’s lighting up the dark by walking into the room.
I find it absolutely, positively, incomprehensible that Our Beloved Government, having collected a fuel tax on nukes since the 1960s with promises of having a nuclear fuel disposal system in place “in ten years now, just you watch,” has done precisely freakin’ nothing. the regal We punched through a single disposal site that would hold about 15% of present material at Yucca Mountain. and sure enough, a year before it goes into operation, a new administration shuts it down.
we ought to put a bucket of rod scraps under the desk of every bureaucrat at DOE until they get their thumbs out and stop lying like murderers with blood dripping off their noses.
Robert,
You had me at Accidental Empires.
However, I find your advocacy for the construction of additional nuclear power plants unpersuasive. They are economically uncompetitive, are not less harmful with respect to global warming and carry the all too real potential for catastrophic failure. That the Chernobyl accident has been the worst to date is only a matter of luck.
My first and second assertions are argued eloquently in a January 2009 publication by the Rocky Mountain Institute entitled “The Nuclear Illusion”:https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E09-01_NuclPwrClimFixFolly1i09.pdf It is a summary of a more extensively documented peer reviewed paper written for Ambio, the journal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, published in May of 2008. It “summarizes why nuclear power cannot in principle deliver the economic benefit, climate-protection or energy-security and reliability benefits claimed for it.
My third assertion with respect to the suspect safety record of the nuclear power industry is supported by the book, Normal Accidents, published in 1984. It is a five year effort on the part of Charles Perrow, a Yale professor of sociology, and a team of graduate students, who analyzed the human and organizational dimensions of complex high risk technologies. The book includes extensively documented, detailed case studies of the two accident types cited in your piece: nuclear power plants (specifically Three Mile Island and Chernobyl—incidentally explaining why they are located proximal to population centers and abundant water supplies) and chemical plants (which he found not as safe as you imply). TMI and Chernobyl were system failures, not operator failures. Chernobyl occurred during a safety exercise after all. He concluded that accidents in such complex coupled systems are inevitable no matter how well conceived or operated. The is no such thing as a foolproof nuclear power plant.
In summary, the economic argument for commercial nuclear power is and will forever be nonexistent given the alternative replacements for fossil fuel, i.e., coal. Further, the cost of a massively catastrophic unconfined breach of containment in property, morbidity and mortality would be too much to bear.
Please maintain the flow of thoughtful missives.
[…] A look back at Three-Mile Island: or, UI design failure in the nuclear power industry. […]
[…] is capable of using fuels that are 100-1000 times as abundant as current practice. Instead we get this: We had a confluence of bad design decisions at TMI, some of them made by the U.S. Congress. U.S. […]
Domestic Solar Power…
I am happy that I found a post related to micro wind turbine here….
[…] 3 Mile island reflections. […]
[…] I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Three Mile Island Memories – Cringely on technology. […]
Hello, I just thought I’d drop you a line and let you know your blogs layout is really messed up on the Firefox browser. Seems to work fine in Internet Explorer though. Anyhow keep up the great work.
Good post. You’re in RSS now so I can read more from you later.
FEMA was established as an independent agency only a few days before TMI’s partial meltdown. It’s not surprising that there were problems (do you find any organizations that operate effectively right after a reorg?)
There can be few questions rising in your thoughts regarding machinery. The place I should buy this equipment? The best way to get the very best affordable costs? Find out how to examine the quality of the machinery? Yes, these questions are obvious and you’re going to get the answers as well in this article.
Gonna link to this, I think my readers would enjoy this as well. good job
Latest Cancer Treatments – Comprehensive Immunotherapy Results For More Info: — leukemiacancer.info
successfuly ran.value you geohot to pretty much everything. intention coming from could countryside
I would like to commend you for such a wonderful site this is and will recommend it to all my friends. If you would like to learn more info, why not visit the following website to read articles and answers at: https://www.4u-2.com
Radiant Technologies to design and deliver different types of elements like Silicon Carbide heating element, Silicon Carbide heaters manufacturers and Heating elements manufacturers across in India.for more details visit https://www.radianttechnologies.net/
Been looking for this article for long time ago and finally found here. thanks for sharing this post. appreciate!
Perhaps most telling are the wildlife, plant and animal. These recovered extremely quickly and have enjoyed more bountiful populations now than ever. I recently watched a documentary seeking to investigate some of the new surge of biomass, which uncovered data counter to the conventional wisdom on radiation exposure. Most of the healthy populations lived with Chernobyl-spawned radionuclide levels many times that of comparable populations outside the zone. The early research is suggesting it could be the case that certain low-level radiation exposures might actually cause a protective reaction in plant and animal species, and that such exposed species start adapting and thriving quickly in this environment. Longer-than-average lifespans are being documented, and this effect is thought to be in part based upon damaged cell apoptosis mechanisms honed and made more efficient by the radiation exposure.
cheap VPS
The reality is that we can manage the risks, and therefore make the risk/reward such that, like air travel, we couldn’t imagine not doing it. Renewed development of orphaned advanced breeder reactor concepts could pave the way to pull much more energy out of presently “spent” fuel, as well as react down stockpiles of salvaged Pu from weapons, and…leave behind a waste product much less radioactive and dangerous for much shorter timespans (like decades and fractions of centuries vs. multiple centuries, eons, and geologic time).
i love this site and always i will come back.very useful information inside.
My home we’ve got numerous vacation home owners – So we were hit super hard with the real estate down turn
Hello webmaster could I use some of the facts from this post if credit for the post is given in a link back to your original post?
I figured out it is an bypast news, aside from this I feel that I have to thank-you because of suchlike piece of advice you hand over me.
I am focus on 100% the same view.
I marked this talk above all my collective links whither I have bookmark collection.
With honest loyalty,
Gia
PS: Wake up! It is easy to succeed with money. Right now Google search. Or begin here.
, This information is really good and I will say will always be helpful if we try it risk free!! So if you can back it up , That will really help us all. And this might bring some good repute to you. The diet of human beings prior to the arrival of agriculture, technology and civilization is known as the Paleolithic Diet .. This Stone Age diet, in short, consisted of mainly lean red meat and vegetables. In this type of diet animal meat is consumed in large quantities and 45 to 65% of the energy needed by the body is derived from it. Over and over again, life expectancy studies related to diet, including by the World Health Organization (WHO), have concluded that Americans and Europeans would do better to eat more like third world peoples as the options provided by their additional wealth have most often lead to poor nutritional choices. This is the same basis for the USDA based their popular food pyramid in 1992 … Researchers at Harvard have only suggested perhaps tweaking the food pyramid by replacing some dairy products and read meat with more fruits, vegetables, and fish while also emphasizing the importance of improving the ratio of “good” to “bad” cholesterol.. Plus, exercise not only makes weight loss much easier, but also lowers blood glucose levels, decreases blood pressure, improved circulation, and increases one’s metabolism. Good regular sleep patterns are also just as important. Diets based on USDA recommendations include DASH, American Diabetic Assoc, Weight Watchers, and Jenny Craig? When children understand how important “real food” is and where the natural ingredients of our food come from, they will increase the general population’s appreciation for preserving our natural environment and limiting toxins and polluting processes in our world. We may even trend back to the time when people stepped outside their homes to interact with family and neighbors in home and community gardens and block-party barbeques, Does anybody even remember how nice those days were?
Hmm, that’s some compelling information! I would search on Google to find other similar articles. Actually, I came across your blog on Google Blog Search. I’m going to add your RSS feed to my reader. Continue posting please!
Substantially, the article is in reality the freshest on this laudable topic. I agree with your conclusions and also can eagerly look forward to your forthcoming updates. Saying thanks will not just be acceptable, for the fantastic clarity in your writing. I definitely will at once grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. Genuine work and also much success in your business endeavors!
Good Post. It?s truly a really good article. I noticed all your important points. Many thanks!
This is one of the nicest blogs i have seen in along time i will have to add to my favorites list for sure.
That’s certainly a wonderful site. An publish such as this confirms just how sincerely the idea is actually realized by writer.
I’ve read a guide that teaches how to build a homemade solar panel and wind turbine at a very low cost. It also claims to reduce 80%-100% of your electric bill. However, is it true? Did the guide really people in achieving their goal? Read more…
————-
[edit]Oops, wrong post
Saved your web sites. Are grateful for giving. Absolutely worthy of enough time away from my studies.
Thanks for the Information, thanks for this fine Post. I will come back later _ Great information about tanning: self tanner reviews
Great site! I will take your feeds, thanks
ukickwbrjszppho, space heater, VBWIWDMsImUKoWHBdZIt.
I’m going to create my own blog on this topic and outrank you, hahahahahaha
I am moved beyond tears at the sheer brilliancy of this blog. Thank you.
iayyjokpnwfseqgmqb, donald j pliner, STNnJMnPogutxANbTdGm. qcwdrllldlzahzkxvm, crabtree and evelyn, xgxJMegbnEuRObxWwMlm.
… This information is really good and I will say will always be helpful if we try it risk free.. So if you can back it up ? That will really help us all. And this might bring some good repute to you. The diet of human beings prior to the arrival of agriculture, technology and civilization is known as the Paleolithic Diet … This Stone Age diet, in short, consisted of mainly lean red meat and vegetables. In this type of diet animal meat is consumed in large quantities and 45 to 65% of the energy needed by the body is derived from it. Over and over again, life expectancy studies related to diet, including by the World Health Organization (WHO), have concluded that Americans and Europeans would do better to eat more like third world peoples as the options provided by their additional wealth have most often lead to poor nutritional choices. This is the same basis for the USDA based their popular food pyramid in 1994 .. Researchers at Harvard have only suggested perhaps tweaking the food pyramid by replacing some dairy products and read meat with more fruits, vegetables, and fish while also emphasizing the importance of improving the ratio of “good” to “bad” cholesterol.. Plus, exercise not only makes weight loss much easier, but also lowers blood glucose levels, decreases blood pressure, improved circulation, and increases one’s metabolism. Good regular sleep patterns are also just as important. Diets based on USDA recommendations include DASH, American Diabetic Assoc, Weight Watchers, and Jenny Craig, When children understand how important “real food” is and where the natural ingredients of our food come from, they will increase the general population’s appreciation for preserving our natural environment and limiting toxins and polluting processes in our world. We may even trend back to the time when people stepped outside their homes to interact with family and neighbors in home and community gardens and block-party barbeques, Does anybody even remember how nice those days were?
hey really give the historical information abut the Three Mile Island….
i hear first time…..
Great post, nice content provided by u, Thanks for sharing this information……I looking forward to reading your posts in the future……………………
Dear Sir/Madam, would you care to advise me on how I could join your mailing list? I enjoy reading these posts and would like to be notified of future updates.
Great opinion you got here.
It will be intresting to read anything more concerning this topic.
Thank for inform that information.
Angela!
With best regards!
Very good blog post, lots of great details. I’m going to point out to my friend and ask them the things they think.
Another great post. I shared this on my Facebook – you should look at adding a “like” button to your articles.
I’m going to write about this same thing on my blog. Thanks!
Items In Your Area! http://freelocalsales.com/
I apologize I cannot add to it as I’ve got no practical knowledge with real estate, but can you assist me as you seem to be just like a wealth of knowledge. My flat mates and I are searching for a house to lease. We have resided with each other for two years but would like to move now. We searched at a very pleasant place the other day but we have been told that our own credit scores are not great enough to rent it . The realtor offered to personally change out credit ratings so as to rent the property out. I really feel like this is going to get me personally into difficulty in the long term. Will this going to come back
Hi my name is Robert, I like doing bycle tours in big cities. I was in Amsterdam last summer and it’s great to bycle in the city.
Amsterdam is a place where you can rent a bike. On this website you can find anything about bikes and bike rental.
I agree. Great Post
great thanks man…
Thanks for the tips! Great blog btw….
video izlemenin keyfi videocok.com ile çıkar.
good thanks o/
good (article|information) thanks
household insurance quotes
This is truly so cool!!! Thanks for putting this online!!!
This is truly nice content and beneficial weblog, I admire what you’ve done here, along with sharing excellent material with excellent ideas and concepts, I am really pleased to submit my comment on this weblog, many thanks to the author.
Your work definitely doesn’t miss a chance in relaying useful information to readers. Nothing is superior than gaining knowledge on something new through reading. Thank you for communicating your inputs with us.
I switched specialists given that after a few years with laser light, I realized the results were not worth the cost. Then I purchased the personal laser. They warranty that after eighteen months in case that hair grows again, the treatments are actually totally free. They’ve got both laser and Ipl, but I am going to stick with laser now as Ipl didn’t seem to reduce the quantity of hair returning.
Just a fast hello and also to thank you for discussing your suggestions on this page. I wound up on your weblog after researching physical fitness related issues on Yahoo… guess I lost peeing movies track of what I had been doing! Anyway I’ll be back once again inside the long term to examine out your blogposts down the road. Thanks!
Great sharing…….
My mrs just mailed me a link to this blog. I’m not exactly sure why, but I thought I’d give you feedback to note that in my opinion you have an excellent writing technique, however I think you could’ve elaborated more. However I still enjoyed going through your site.
I’m going to write about this same thing on my blog. Thanks!
greaat..
My friend and I have been just debating this topic, he’s usually looking to show me wrong. Your view on this is excellent and exactly how I truly believe. I just now sent him this blog to show him your own opinion. After looking over your website I book marked and will come back to read your new posts!
My friend and I have been just debating this topic, he’s usually looking to show me wrong. Your view on this is excellent and exactly how I truly believe.
I really enjoyed this site. That is nice when you read something that is not only informative but entertaining. Excellent!
I was reading about it somewhere I don’t remember where it was. Thank for reminding me of it.
I prefer bigger women as there is more to get hold of. These girls also seem a lot more horny.
Cheers you legend. Come check my site, you will enjoy it.
Hey awesome, this has been a great help to me, I have had some really serious annoyances in my private life recently and it is funny how certain things can really pick you back up or make you look differently on the rubbish stuff and get busy with the other things in life. Anyway thank you a lot.
This website offers the best full tilt rakeback available and is same of the most trusted poker rakeback providers. Offers day-to-day rake tracking, too large monthly promotions and rakeback paid directly to players.
I wanted to say thank you to you for this great read!! I’ve you book marked to view new stuff you post.
I’ll gear this review to 2 kinds of folks: existing Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and individuals trying to choose between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth contemplating out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed choice of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)
Thanks Love your blog thanks for sharing it with everyone.
Me also, tyvm for posting th is..
This is great news! Looking forward to see more.
Thanks! I’m going to post a link to this blog from my blog tomorrow. really thank s
Well I truly liked reading it. This information offered by you is very effective for good planning.
You need to get into a healthy place-literally- before you can even begin to start eating healthy. Microwave food is not nutritionally good so it is no wonder you only lost 5 pounds. You need to see about getting yourself a hot plate so you can cook yourself some better food until you get a kitchen to store fresh food. The walking is good, but if you get in some strength training, just by having your doctor get you bands that you can wrap around something in your home such as a door knob that will help burn more calories also. Go to turkey, chicken, fresh fruit and veggies and try to get somewhere that you have access to a kitchen. A better living area will be better peace of mind. Eating alone is never fun, so this way you can entertain and have someone there to talk to during some meals and have focus off the food.
yes great web site thank you .. i like
Thanks so much for your downright post.this is the words that retains me on track through out my day. I have been searching nearby for this site after being referred to them from a colleague and was thrilled when i was able to locate it after searching for long time. Being a demanding blogger, i’m hopeful to behold supplementarys taking initivative and contributing to the community. Specific wanted to commentary to show my appreciation for your website as it is extremely spirited to do, and many writers do not procure acknowledgment they deserve. I am positive i’ll be back and will transmit many of my friends.
Great story:D Going to want a bit of time to examine your site.
gebelikl bilgileri hakıkında bilgiler
Early learning suchlike identifying opposite shapes and colors also ar ise into the company that tends to make it quite a few beseeching to younger kids as it helps them to learn with entertaining.
Lovely work. The creativity is marvelous, but additional so because the recycling facet is so essential and timely. Kudos to you Mark for such inspiring artwork.
Hmmm. I’d have thought that pepsi would make it on the worst of 2009 also.
exciting overview of logos, but, a lot more exciting comments. identities will not be manufactured by logos alone, but by their place inside of a bigger set of collateral. no logo is an island and none ought to be entirely judged in isolation from the way they are used.
Very first, you post an absurd contest for a logo.Now, Aol. on very first spot.I stated th is earlier than, and I say it again. Th is blog site is heading down?-Sad guy.
I noticed a thing as very well about th is on distinct weblog.Interesting, your linear perspective on it is diametrically opposite to what I learn prior to. I am still reflecting over the conflicting points of view, but I’m tipped heavily toward yours. And in any situation, which is what is so terrific about modern-day democracy along with the marketplace of ideas on-line.
Ho-Ho-Ho
Happy New Year
Great blog man, had very important content that I can relate to 🙂
Good day, dear sir, fantastic site! :)“Hey, maybe this post is often a bit off topic but in any event, i’ve been browsing around your weblog and it appears actually superb. impassioned about your writing. I’m building a new blog site and struggling to produce it seem great, and supply beneficial top quality subject matter subject. I have learned a a lot here and that i appear forward to much more updates and will probably be back.”
[…] zu TMI liefert. Man kann sich leicht vorstellen, dass es in Japan ähnliche Strukturen geben mag. I, Cringely […]
This is a very nice blog you have here, I’ll be sure to mention it to some friends of mine
I’m building a new blog site and struggling to produce it seem great, and supply beneficial top quality subject matter subject. .
This is a very nice blog you have here, I’ll be sure to mention it to some friends of mine.. d
Some time i really get wonder that how people write something so informative like the above details, i am really thanks full of you guys for sharing.Thanks Alot
At TMI Three Mile Island a $600.00 pump went out. creating a hydrgen bubble.
US DOD ask me for a device to bleed the hydrgen salfly off the reactor. it saved 11,500,000 live’s in small town call new york city just down wind of the reactorr.
the bill $2,600,000,000.00 plus compound intrest o f30 year’s.
I was honored to get a call from a friend immediately he found out the important tips shared on your own site. Examining your blog write-up is a real brilliant experience. Thanks again for considering readers at all like me, and I want for you the best of success as being a professional realm.
Purely to follow up on the up-date of this subject matter on your site and would really want to let you know how much I treasured the time you took to generate this helpful post. Within the post, you actually spoke of how to seriously handle this challenge with all convenience. It would be my own pleasure to gather some more suggestions from your web-site and come up to offer people what I learned from you. Thank you for your usual fantastic effort.
I tried to publish a comment previously, but it has not shown up. I believe your spam filter may possibly be broken?
Time to face the music armed with this great inofmraotin.
Vl4d3b unkvjbldelaw
Your blog is fairly slow to load when using Safari.
I simply wanted to write down a brief note so as to appreciate you for all the lovely strategies you are placing on this site. My long internet look up has finally been recognized with good facts to write about with my contacts. I ‘d state that that we readers actually are undeniably blessed to live in a very good site with many lovely people with insightful opinions. I feel quite happy to have discovered the webpage and look forward to really more amazing moments reading here. Thanks once again for all the details.
Excellent seller, a pleasure to do business, recommened Thanks! 🙂
Richard…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Three Mile Island Memories – Cringely on technology[…]…
18 oyunlar oyna…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Three Mile Island Memories – Cringely on technology[…]…
This internet web page is seriously a walk-through for all the information you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse here, and you’ll undoubtedly discover it.
[url=https://www.softxpro.com/index.php?do=/Heckonuo/blog/operar-uninstaller-ideal/]Operar Uninstaller Ideal.[/url]
[url=http://professordocs.com/blogs/592/7511/que-manteve-em-atraso-durante-a]bem como os visitantes podem[/url]
[url=http://noitpyrcne.com/blogs/1660/12594/examinar]voc锚 pode utilizar o item n茫o-abrasivo[/url]
[url=https://www.friends2talk2.com/blogs/posts/socksjjp]Meer informatie Wat Bowtrol Cleanse[/url]
[url=https://www.friends2talk2.com/blogs/posts/socksjjp]niet-betalingen[/url]
http://demos.garvetechnologies.com/gsocial/index.php/blogs/2437/32969/de-belangrijkste-reden-hen-te-informeren
Has anyone tested the those cheap ink cartridges for Ricoh laser printers? I was looking at trying this place – http://solanoink.com? Has anyone bought from this website before?