5 ms·

There have been a lot of environmental critiques of this particular nuclear power plant. They largely center on wastewater from the plant (which is warm, and ri

There have been a lot of environmental critiques of this particular nuclear power plant. They largely center on wastewater from the plant (which is warm, and rich in Tritium), as well as the risks posed by the potential of a strong, shallow earthquake in the vicinity of the plant.

credit_guy 3y ago
But this is armchair quarterbacking, isn't it? We have a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that has the technical competency (and the legal mandate) to determine if a nuclear power plant is safe to operate. We also have an EPA that determines if something constitutes pollution or not. All nuclear power plants release Tritium in the environment. No exception. All nuclear power plants use water for cooling, and the water coming out is warmer than the one coming in. Those "concerns" are simply disingenuous.
- CameronNemo 3y ago
  No, they're not. Just because the NRC says it is cool doesn't mean that a power plant is above criticism. People are allowed to object to things happening around them.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    > People are allowed to object to things happening around them Sure, but when the topic is very involved from the technical and engineering point of view, it's still armchair quarterbacking. Here's the link to the statement that Diablo Canion is safe from the earthquake point of view [1], and here are the relevant quotes: As part of its response to the Fukushima event in Japan in 2011, the NRC directed all U.S. commercial nuclear power plants to perform a reassessment of the potential seismic and flooding hazards to their facilities. The seismic hazard analysis was performed using an NRC-mandated process known as the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis CommitteeOpens in new Window., or SSHAC. Under the SSHAC process, existing and new seismic information was peer-reviewed and publicly evaluated by leading third-party, independent seismic experts. The flooding hazard re-evaluation involved the use of the latest NRC guidance and methodologies and independent expertise to determine the maximum potential waves and rainfall that could impact Diablo Canyon. It also examined the plant's ability to withstand storm flooding. [1] https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/diablo-canyon-power-plant/seismic-safety-at-diablo-canyon/seismic-safety-at-diablo-canyon.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/diablo...
PaulHoule 3y ago
Because Diablo Canyon has received so much scrutiny it has had a lot of investment to fix problems. For instance they discovered the seismic risk was worse than they thought it was when they built it so they reinforced it to handle a bigger earthquake. (Note Fukushima NPP was hit by an earthquake much bigger than it was designed for, this damaged the plant but wouldn't have caused a serious accident if it wasn't for the tsunami, resulting loss of primary and backup power, the isolation condenser not working at Unit 1, an untested plan to inject water into some of the other units not working, etc. Diablo Canyon is on a very high bluff and not vulnerable to ocean events.) The substantive complaint about the seawater cooling system is that the heat is bad for sea life in the vicinity which is true but there are several other fossil fuel plants that are even more damaging. On top of all that, all nuclear power plants in the U.S. have received major rounds of safety upgrades after incidents such as Three Mile Island, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Fukushima.

credit_guy 3y ago

But this is armchair quarterbacking, isn't it? We have a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that has the technical competency (and the legal mandate) to determine if a nuclear power plant is safe to operate. We also have an EPA that determines if something constitutes pollution or not. All nuclear power plants release Tritium in the environment. No exception. All nuclear power plants use water for cooling, and the water coming out is warmer than the one coming in. Those "concerns" are simply disingenuous.

CameronNemo 3y ago
No, they're not. Just because the NRC says it is cool doesn't mean that a power plant is above criticism. People are allowed to object to things happening around them.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > People are allowed to object to things happening around them Sure, but when the topic is very involved from the technical and engineering point of view, it's still armchair quarterbacking. Here's the link to the statement that Diablo Canion is safe from the earthquake point of view [1], and here are the relevant quotes: As part of its response to the Fukushima event in Japan in 2011, the NRC directed all U.S. commercial nuclear power plants to perform a reassessment of the potential seismic and flooding hazards to their facilities. The seismic hazard analysis was performed using an NRC-mandated process known as the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis CommitteeOpens in new Window., or SSHAC. Under the SSHAC process, existing and new seismic information was peer-reviewed and publicly evaluated by leading third-party, independent seismic experts. The flooding hazard re-evaluation involved the use of the latest NRC guidance and methodologies and independent expertise to determine the maximum potential waves and rainfall that could impact Diablo Canyon. It also examined the plant's ability to withstand storm flooding. [1] https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/diablo-canyon-power-plant/seismic-safety-at-diablo-canyon/seismic-safety-at-diablo-canyon.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/diablo...

PaulHoule 3y ago

Because Diablo Canyon has received so much scrutiny it has had a lot of investment to fix problems. For instance they discovered the seismic risk was worse than they thought it was when they built it so they reinforced it to handle a bigger earthquake. (Note Fukushima NPP was hit by an earthquake much bigger than it was designed for, this damaged the plant but wouldn't have caused a serious accident if it wasn't for the tsunami, resulting loss of primary and backup power, the isolation condenser not working at Unit 1, an untested plan to inject water into some of the other units not working, etc. Diablo Canyon is on a very high bluff and not vulnerable to ocean events.) The substantive complaint about the seawater cooling system is that the heat is bad for sea life in the vicinity which is true but there are several other fossil fuel plants that are even more damaging. On top of all that, all nuclear power plants in the U.S. have received major rounds of safety upgrades after incidents such as Three Mile Island, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Fukushima.