Nuclear Power (spun off from Japan earthquake discussion)

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes, it is obviously dangerous to build nuclear power plants on a major fault zone, and in a place that's susceptible to tsunamis. How much of the US should heed this warning about where not to build Randolf?

Well, California is riddled with faults and no way to predict when one of them will cut loose. The San Onofre nuclear plant is directly upwind from where I live, not a pleasent thought. It's built right on the beach with faults offshore by islands where underwater landslides could occur and produce a tsunami. Probably the "safest" nuclear plant I know of is in the middle of Arizona. The cooling water is supplied from the Colorado river.
Certainly the combination of earthquake and tsunami that devastated the nuclear plants in Japan was a rare and unusual event. The destruction of power lines to the plant and damage to the plumbing, pumps and backup generators has prevented rapid stabilization of the nuclear facilities. Could this happen here? I think it is very doubtful such a catastrophic event could happen here. That's not to say that our nuclear facilities are one hundred percent reliable, however. We have 23 GE Mark 1 nuclear reactors similar to the ones in Japan. As long as the coolant water system is functioning, they seem to be fine. Newer plants rely on convection cooling rather than pumps. Pehaps, it is time to retire the Mark 1s.
Oh wait! we have an oil problem, don't we!