Last week, the Oyster Creek and Nine Mile Point 1 plants in New Jersey and Syracuse, respectively, separately announced that General Electric had given them faulty math calculations regarding the uranium fuel rods it shipped to them. The error, if GE hadn't realized and notified the plants in time, would have caused the fuel to overheat past the intended levels.
The NRC says that the public was never in danger, but the valve issue at Brown's Ferry apparently might have been MONTHS OLD before operators discovered it. This is serious, because the failure of the residual heat systems was the cause of the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in Japan.
Despite the assurances of the NRC and the lack of any damage or injuries resulting from either of these three events, it seems likely that this will lower the public's confidence in the American nuclear power industry even further. However, as proponents note, it is a major source of "clean" energy.
You can read more by clicking on the link to the original article either above or here.
Reflection
I think these incidents reflect on the flaws of our nuclear policy. These mistakes were thankfully realized before they could have a negative effect, but we can't expect to get that lucky every time. I think safety should come first, especially when we're dealing with radioactive materials near populated areas. The federal government needs to close these holes so more mishaps don't slip through.
Questions
- Do you think people are right in being concerned over these incidents, or are we just having a bit of hysteria because of Japan?
- Which should come first: Energy independence, which could save our nation millions, or safety?
- How do you think we should prevent these types of problems from happening again and causing serious damage?
- Is nuclear energy worth the risks it can present?
Opinion/Reflection
ReplyDeleteSince the start, I have felt that nuclear power isn’t worth it, considering all of its risks and the fact that it’s a nonrenewable source of clean energy because it uses uranium. Incident like those stated in the article just further prove my point of why we shouldn’t use nuclear power.
I was in disbelief when I read that the valve (at Brown’s Ferry) may have been months old before operators discovered it. With nuclear power plants, I think you need to do tons of safety checks on all parts of the plant weekly, or bi-weekly. This would ensure the safety of the power plant’s workers and people in nearby areas. And if parts aren’t inspected, then incidents like that which happened at Brown’s Ferry may occur more often, and it may become common to hear about them in the news. That would be extremely terrible, because like Eric said, we’re not going to get as lucky as we did at Brown’s Ferry every time, and people are going to wind up getting injured or killed.
It is horrendous to hear that General Electric was careless and not only gave faulty calculations to one power plant, but two. Just think, there could be tons more who just simply haven’t realized the error yet or are two afraid to speak up. Once again, we were lucky, because General Electric realized their mistakes and notified the plants. Otherwise, the fuel at the plants might have heated past the intended levels. This could have caused a severe disaster, or even worse, a meltdown. Again I must state that nuclear power is far too dangerous to keep using, especially if people are going to be so careless when they’re operating plants.
I’m sure that I’m not the only one who has doubted the nuclear power plant industry. And I’m positive that more people will agree with me now, mainly because of the accidents that occurred or almost occurred, as well as the ones that are likely to happen if the future if people keep acting this careless.
Finally, I was disgusted when I learned that the incident at Brown’s Ferry could have been a meltdown like the one at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. If major accidents like this happen, shouldn’t we learn from our mistakes? I guess not, because people still seem to act carelessly around nuclear power. If people don’t care enough to tediously monitor the plants, in case the residual heat system fails, for instance, then meltdowns that could’ve been preventable will occur.
This relates to class because we just finished learning about alternative energy sources, and one of the ones we spent the most time on was nuclear power. We also learned about the meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, and how serious it was.
Answer the Questions
ReplyDelete1. Yes, I think people are 100% right in being concerned over these incidents. Nuclear power is very dangerous, and people have to learn to be more careful if they don’t want terrible accidents to occur, like meltdowns. Nowadays, though, it seems as if people are unphased by the danger, and will go about their jobs at nuclear power plants uncaringly, without carefully inspecting all the plant’s parts.
2. I definitely think that safety needs to come first. While energy independence is important and all, we can get that from other forms of alternative energy that are much less dangerous, and have less severe effects on the public and environment if a disaster was to occur. You can always build another power plant if there is a meltdown or an accident, but you can never replace a person. They only get to live once, and their safety takes top priority over an object.
3. I think we could prevent these types of problems from happening again by having the government require nuclear power plant employees to give weekly or bi-weekly inspections on all of the plant’s parts. This way employees will know in advance if something is wrong with a specific reactor or cooling chamber, and won’t produce energy using that reactor/chamber until the faulty part is fixed. Also, employees should only apply to work at nuclear power plants if they are willing to take their job extremely seriously, so accidents like meltdowns will be prevented.
4. No, nuclear energy is not worth the risks. I believe I have stated many reasons just why we should not use nuclear power, but the most important is because it is extremely unsafe, and accidents that occur can have widespread effects.
Ask More Questions
1. Should nuclear power plants have to undergo thorough inspections every week or two?
2. If inspections like those stated in the previous question were required, do you think the incident at Brown’s Ferry could’ve been prevented?
3. What is your opinion on nuclear energy?
4. Is there a way we can make nuclear energy 100% safe? If so, how?
5. Do you think that General Electric might have made faulty math calculations regarding uranium rods to nuclear power plants other than the two mentioned in the article?
6. If the Brown’s Ferry incident resulted in a meltdown, how widespread do you think the effects would’ve been?
Add a graphic
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2009/11/tvas_browns_ferry_nuclear_plan.html
This webpage has an image which clearly shows the Brown’s Ferry nuclear power plant.
Okay so I posted my comments on Wednesday and I know they were there because I had to post 3 to fit all my information. However, when I went on today to see if the poster (who was supposed to post Thursday but the site was down) posted yet so I could respond, this article came up and I thought it looked familar. Anyhow it said no comments and I thought that was weird. But oh well, here's my comment again anyway.
ReplyDeleteOpinion/Reflection
Since the start, I have felt that nuclear power isn’t worth it, considering all of its risks and the fact that it’s a nonrenewable source of clean energy because it uses uranium. Incident like those stated in the article just further prove my point of why we shouldn’t use nuclear power.
I was in disbelief when I read that the valve (at Brown’s Ferry) may have been months old before operators discovered it. With nuclear power plants, I think you need to do tons of safety checks on all parts of the plant weekly, or bi-weekly. This would ensure the safety of the power plant’s workers and people in nearby areas. And if parts aren’t inspected, then incidents like that which happened at Brown’s Ferry may occur more often, and it may become common to hear about them in the news. That would be extremely terrible, because like Eric said, we’re not going to get as lucky as we did at Brown’s Ferry every time, and people are going to wind up getting injured or killed.
It is horrendous to hear that General Electric was careless and not only gave faulty calculations to one power plant, but two. Just think, there could be tons more who just simply haven’t realized the error yet or are two afraid to speak up. Once again, we were lucky, because General Electric realized their mistakes and notified the plants. Otherwise, the fuel at the plants might have heated past the intended levels. This could have caused a severe disaster, or even worse, a meltdown. Again I must state that nuclear power is far too dangerous to keep using, especially if people are going to be so careless when they’re operating plants.
I’m sure that I’m not the only one who has doubted the nuclear power plant industry. And I’m positive that more people will agree with me now, mainly because of the accidents that occurred or almost occurred, as well as the ones that are likely to happen if the future if people keep acting this careless.
Finally, I was disgusted when I learned that the incident at Brown’s Ferry could have been a meltdown like the one at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. If major accidents like this happen, shouldn’t we learn from our mistakes? I guess not, because people still seem to act carelessly around nuclear power. If people don’t care enough to tediously monitor the plants, in case the residual heat system fails, for instance, then meltdowns that could’ve been preventable will occur.
This relates to class because we just finished learning about alternative energy sources, and one of the ones we spent the most time on was nuclear power. We also learned about the meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, and how serious it was.
Answer the Questions
ReplyDelete1. Yes, I think people are 100% right in being concerned over these incidents. Nuclear power is very dangerous, and people have to learn to be more careful if they don’t want terrible accidents to occur, like meltdowns. Nowadays, though, it seems as if people are unphased by the danger, and will go about their jobs at nuclear power plants uncaringly, without carefully inspecting all the plant’s parts.
2. I definitely think that safety needs to come first. While energy independence is important and all, we can get that from other forms of alternative energy that are much less dangerous, and have less severe effects on the public and environment if a disaster was to occur. You can always build another power plant if there is a meltdown or an accident, but you can never replace a person. They only get to live once, and their safety takes top priority over an object.
3. I think we could prevent these types of problems from happening again by having the government require nuclear power plant employees to give weekly or bi-weekly inspections on all of the plant’s parts. This way employees will know in advance if something is wrong with a specific reactor or cooling chamber, and won’t produce energy using that reactor/chamber until the faulty part is fixed. Also, employees should only apply to work at nuclear power plants if they are willing to take their job extremely seriously, so accidents like meltdowns will be prevented.
4. No, nuclear energy is not worth the risks. I believe I have stated many reasons just why we should not use nuclear power, but the most important is because it is extremely unsafe, and accidents that occur can have widespread effects.
Ask More Questions
ReplyDelete1. Should nuclear power plants have to undergo thorough inspections every week or two?
2. If inspections like those stated in the previous question were required, do you think the incident at Brown’s Ferry could’ve been prevented?
3. What is your opinion on nuclear energy?
4. Is there a way we can make nuclear energy 100% safe? If so, how?
5. Do you think that General Electric might have made faulty math calculations regarding uranium rods to nuclear power plants other than the two mentioned in the article?
6. If the Brown’s Ferry incident resulted in a meltdown, how widespread do you think the effects would’ve been?
Add a graphic
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2009/11/tvas_browns_ferry_nuclear_plan.html
This webpage has an image which clearly shows the Brown’s Ferry nuclear power plant.
As we learned in class, there are a huge range of levels of Nuclear incidents/accidents. None of those incidents were Fukushima, not even close. I hate when people make unqualified assumptions that some minor thing (Brown's Ferry) is as severe as a recent major thing (Fukushima). The only benefit of the Fukushima accident is that people will stop bringing up Chernobyl every time nuclear power is in the news. It's like comparing those minor 2.4 quakes they get all the time in California to the earthquake that caused 2006's Boxing Day tsunami. People need to take the time to objectively evaluate all the facts, and apply them to existing structures before making wild comparisons to the world's worst nuclear accidents. http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2011/04/12/15/20110412_Nuke_accident.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't like the holistic metric the NRC employs on its scale. It takes too many factors that are too different into account, and is far too narrow. The Brown's Ferry accident is not as serious at Fukushima or Chernobyl, but they are all in the same level. The scale doesn't tell us anything.
That said, the incidents at those plants are worrying. Those are stupid mistakes that shouldn't have happened. A valve problem? A mathematical error? It makes me worry about the quality of research and maintenance that goes into the plants. And although it was comforting how quickly GE found their errors, it was worrying how long it took Brown's Ferry to realize there was a problem. From research to maintenance, it doesn't seem like there are nearly enough safeguards in place in our plants.
Questions
1) Concerned, yes. But not as concerned as we are, and not in this way. It should be the 'Okay, how can we fix this?' kind of concern, the kind that remains calm and gets things done.
2) Energy independence is a prerequisite for national safety. I still don't believe nuclear power is any more unsafe than fossil fuels (you may remember a minor incident in the oil industry last summer). Independence from fossil fuels is a prerequisite for environmental safety, as well.
3) We just more safeguards and greater oversite. Perhaps more personnel and increased government regulations.
4) Yes, I believe so. If produced and used responsibly, than Nuclear Energy is a wonderful alternative to fossil fuels. We just have to increase the quality of our plants.
I believe that Nuclear Energy is still a viable option but this makes me a little more weary. I mean this isn't so much the dangers of Nuclear as the ineptitude of those running it.
ReplyDelete1)I think people have a right to be concerned but I think there is a DEFINITE increase in hysteria since the Japan Disaster.
2)One cannot be acheived without the other. Nuclear Power will not help us towards Energy Independence without being Safe and Safety will not be fully acheived unless we become energy independent.
3)More indept exams. A slightly more intense exam than is currently required every 2-3 weeks and a Full scale exam every 1-2 months.
4)I think it will be worth the risks. This is the most heavily monitored and regulated type of energy so such failures in safety are not a daily occurence. I think that this will only help in the long run.