[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?

ROY HERREN royherren2005 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 31 19:18:45 CDT 2014


In addition to designing reactor facilities for the effects of a Tsunami it is also necessary to design them for the effects of Seiche, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seiche.
"

Earthquake-generated seiches can be observed thousands of miles away from the epicentre of a quake. Swimming pools are especially prone to seiches caused by earthquakes, as the ground 
tremors often match the resonant frequencies of small bodies of water. 
The 1994 Northridge earthquake in California caused swimming pools to overflow across southern California. The massive Good Friday Earthquake that hit Alaska in 1964 caused seiches in swimming pools as far away as Puerto Rico[citation needed]. The earthquake that hit Lisbon, Portugal in 1755 caused seiches 2,000 miles (3,000 km) away in Loch Lomond, Loch Long, Loch Katrine and Loch Ness in Scotland [1] and in canals in Sweden. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake caused seiches in standing water bodies in many Indian states as well as in Bangladesh, Nepal and northern Thailand.[11] Seiches were again observed in Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal in India as well as in many locations in Bangladesh during the 2005 Kashmir earthquake.[12] The 1950 Chayu-Upper Assam earthquake is known to have generated seiches as far as Norway and southern England. Other earthquakes in the Indian sub-continent known to have generated seiches include the 1803
 Kumaon-Barahat, 1819 Allah Bund, 1842 Central Bengal, 1905 Kangra, 1930 Dhubri, 1934 Nepal-Bihar, 2001 Bhuj, 2005 Nias, 2005 Teresa Island earthquakes. The February 27, 2010 Chile earthquake produced a seiche on Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana with a height of around 0.5 feet. The 2010 Sierra El Mayor earthquake produced large seiches that quickly became an internet phenomenon.[13] Seiches up to at least 1.8 m (6 feet) were observed in Sognefjorden, Norway during the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake.Seiche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

 

 Roy Herren


On Sunday, August 31, 2014 10:42 AM, Dan McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com> wrote:
 


Joe - The maximum likely ground acceleration (Vertical, Horizontal, Shear,
Raleigh & Love) as the Peak Ground Acceleration define the safety
characteristics of a site. If you are hundreds of kilometers away from a
quake, the ground acceleration is significantly reduced since the energy
disperses radially. The ground acceleration from the earthquake (9.0) at
Fukushima did not exceed design specification. The tsunamis caused by that
earthquake did exceed the design. I don't think we are going to have
tsunamis on the Colorado Plateau.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_ground_acceleration

QUOTE The peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) is the most commonly used type
of ground acceleration in engineering applications, and is used to set
building codes and design hazard risks. In an earthquake, damage to
buildings and infrastructure is related more closely to ground motion,
rather than the magnitude of the earthquake. UNQUOTE

So your analogy is moot. No one will build next to or on top of the Wasatch
Range on the edge of the Colorado Plateau.

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 10:52 PM, <JPreisig at aol.com> wrote:

> Hey Dan/Radsafe:
>
>      Geologically stable, yes.  Seismically  stable, not so much.  There's
> a reason UUtah has a good seismology  group.
>
>      google earthquake and  wasatch     ...
>
>      Read what you find.  People building a 1000  MWe reactor, or whatever,
> in Utah need to determine the actual level of  seismic risk, and if one can
> engineer a reactor to be built in Utah.
>
>      Go look at the Wasatch fault.  Bring your  Estwing and your Brunton
> compass.
>
>      Joe Preisig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/30/2014 7:39:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> hotgreenchile at gmail.com writes:
>
> The  Wasatch Range forms the western boundary of the Colorado Plateau.
> Staying  well within the bounds of the Colorado Plateau gives high
> assurance
> of a  stable area. 500 million years of stability is a very, very, very
> long
> time.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Plateau
>
> QUOTE  The province is bounded by the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, and by
> the  Uinta Mountains and Wasatch Mountains branches of the Rockies in
> northern  and central Utah. It is also bounded by the Rio Grande Rift,
> Mogollon Rim  and the Basin and Range Province. Isolated ranges of the
> Southern Rocky  Mountains such as the San Juan Mountains in Colorado and
> the
> La Sal  Mountains in Utah intermix into the central and southern parts of
> the  Colorado Plateau.The province is bounded by the Rocky Mountains  in
> Colorado, and by the Uinta Mountains and Wasatch Mountains branches of  the
> Rockies in northern and central Utah. It is also bounded by the Rio  Grande
> Rift, Mogollon Rim and the Basin and Range Province. Isolated ranges  of
> the
> Southern Rocky Mountains such as the San Juan Mountains in Colorado  and
> the
> La Sal Mountains in Utah intermix into the central and southern  parts of
> the Colorado Plateau. UNQUOTE
>
> Dan ii
>
> Dan W McCarn,  Geologist
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
> +1-505-672-2014  (Home – New Mexico)
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New  Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot  com
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:06 AM, <JPreisig at aol.com>  wrote:
>
> > Hmmmmm,
> >
> >      Utah is still  earthquake country.  See the  Wasatch fault, I
> think.
> >
> >      Joe Preisig
> >
> >  PS    This fault has been active in the last 20  years.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 8/29/2014  4:30:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > hotgreenchile at gmail.com  writes:
> >
> > Just a  brief comment... The Colorado Plateau is  very stable
> geologically.
> >
> >  http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Places/places.htm
> >
> > QUOTE
> >  "The  Colorado Plateau is extremely ancient," says author F.A. Barnes,
> an
> > expert  on the region's geology. "As a distinct mass of  continental
> crust,
> > it is at  least 500 million years old --  probably a lot older." Such
> > longevity is  especially impressive  when one considers the globetrotting
> > adventures of  the North  American continent from the perspective of
> > continental drift   theory. Over a period of 300 to 400 million years,
> while
> > the land mass  that  would become the North American continent inched
> > northward  from the South  Pole, gradually disengaging itself from
> Africa,
> >  Asia, and South America,  the Colorado Plateau region drifted  along
> > comfortably on its western edge.  Now shoreline, now  inundated by rising
> > seas, the entire region accumulated  huge  quantities of sediment,
> gradually
> > sinking under its own weight  until  heat and pressure hardened the
> deposits
> > into a mantle of  sedimentary rock  several miles thick. Even when the
> >  entire
> > western United States began to  rise some 10 million years  ago,
> eventually
> > climbing to elevations as much  as three miles  above sea level, the
> > Colorado
> > Plateau region remained  stable  – perhaps "floating" on a cushion of
> molten
> > rock.
> >  UNQUOTE
> >
> > Dan  ii
> >
> > Dan W McCarn,  Geologist
> > 108 Sherwood Blvd
> > Los Alamos, NM   87544-3425
> > +1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
> > +1-505-670-8123  (Mobile -  New Mexico)
> > HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email)  HotGreenChile at gmail  dot com
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 28,  2014 at 8:16 PM, Jeff Terry  <terryj at iit.edu>  wrote:
> >
> > > It is too bad that Westinghouse  dropped out  of the SMR market. They
> had
> > a
> > > great team.
> >  >
> > >  I was fortunate to talk with the Westinghouse group  while we were
> > >  conducting research to model SMR construction  costs.
> > >
> > > The W  design was similar to the AP1000  but was scaled down to 225
> MWe.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> >  >
> > >
> > > On Aug 28, 2014, at 8:32 PM,  "Thompson,  Dewey L"
> <DThompson3 at ameren.com
> > >
> > >   wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hummmmmmm
> > > >
> > >  > No.
> > >  >
> > > > There is no 100,000  mega-watt electrical fission reactor on  earth.
> > > >
> >  > > This is the hope and dream of starry-eyed  idealists salivating
> over
> > > fusion.
> > > >
> > > > As the   previous post mentioned, the Circle W AP 1000 is a pretty
> > >  standard  large block PWR reactor.
> > > >
> > > >  Some older reactors are in  the 500-800 MWe range.
> > >  >
> > > > Most "modern" fission  reactors are in the 1000  MWe range. The new
> > Areva
> > > PWR targets I think   1400-1600 MWe.
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea where your  information  originates from, you may be
> > > thinking about the  Small Modular Reactors  which the Department of
> Energy
> > > has  been trying to seed. These are  exciting, as they would be in the
> >  range
> > > of 200-300 MWe (actually  anywhere from 25 MWe to  about 500 MWe). A
> small
> > > city could locate one  nearby, and  have reliable power costs. There
> are a
> > > fair number of   approaches to the SMR, and as I think about it, Circle
> W
> > WAS
> >  > planning  to design a SMR using a baby AP-1000 design.  I think  it
> was in
> > >  the 200 MEe range.  They have abandoned that  after losing out on the
> > DOE
> > > seed money.
> > >  >
> > > > Dewey
> > > >
> > >  > Sent  from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > >> On Aug 28, 2014,  at  12:10 PM, "Bean, Jennifer Marie" <
> >  jmbean at lanl.gov>
> > >  wrote:
> > > >>
> >  > >> From:    <jmbean at lanl.gov>
> > > >>  Reply-To:  "The International  Radiation  Protection (Health
> Physics)
> > > Mailing List"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > > >> Date:   Thursday,  August 28, 2014
> > > >> To:    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > > >> Subject:    Re:  [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?
> > > >>
> >  > >> AP1000's  produce much less power than a normal nuclear  power
> plant.
> > > They are  expected to have about 1000 MWe for a  single reactor vs.
> > 100,000
> > > MWe  for the older  reactors.  This allows the small modular reactors
> to
> > be
> >  > placed in areas with smaller energy demands.  And if the
> >  demand/population
> > > grows another reactor can be built and added to  the  grid.  It would
> be
> > > pretty exciting if these got  off the ground in  the US.
> > > >>
> > > >>  Regards,
> > > >>
> > >  >> Jennifer
> >  > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >   >> In a message dated 8/27/2014 12:36:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight
>  Time,
> > > sandyfl at cox.net writes:
> > > >>
> > >  >> Joe,  not  only your well-taken comment, I wonder how they  would
> build
> > >  the distribution system to get the power to  where it is needed, and
> last
> >   I
> > > looked, there  isn?t much of a demand in Utah! Normally units are
> built
> > >  close to the area that it wishes to serve. Now it could be  possible
> that
> > > the current grid in the area is able to ship he power  to  where it is
> > > needed, but what is around Utah where there  is an  energy  demand?
> > > >>
> > > >>  Regards,
> > >  >>
> > > >> Sandy
> > >  >> Retired, Consultant
> > >  >>
> > > >>  From:   <JPreisig at aol.com>
> > >  >>  Reply-To:  "The International Radiation  Protection (Health
> Physics)
> > > Mailing List"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > > >> Date:   Wednesday,  August 27, 2014  at 9:32 AM
> > > >>  To:   <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > > >>  Subject:   Re:  [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?
> > >  >>
> > > >>  Radsafe,
> > > >>
> >  > >> Utah is earthquake country.   Read about it in   Bolt's book  on
> > > >>  earthquakes.  No tsunami  hazard, thank goodness.  Bad    idea to
> > build a
> >  > >> nuclear plant
> > > >> in  Utah???   Engineer it very  well....
> > > >>
> > >   >> Joe Preisig
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >  >  >>
> > > >>
> > > >> In a message  dated  8/27/2014  10:56:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > >  sandyfl at cox.net   writes:
> > > >>
> > >  >> Thanks  Brent,
> > >  >>
> > > >>  This would be a real achievement if  it ever  gets off the  ground.
> > > However, with the politics out west,    including Utah, there is a
> strong
> > > anti-nuclear stance and   seriously  doubt that this project has any
> legs
> > to
> > >  stand on. I  hope that I am  wrong!
> > > >>
> >  > >> Regards,
> > >  >>
> > > >>  Sandy
> > > >> Retired,    Consultant
> > >  >>
> > > >> From:  Brent  Rogers    <brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au>
> > > >>   Reply-To:  "The  International  Radiation Protection  (Health
> > Physics)
> > > Mailing List"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > > >> Date:     Wednesday, August 27, 2014  at 4:24 AM
> > > >> To:   "The  International  Radiation Protection (Health   Physics)
> > >  Mailing List"
> > > >>  <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > >  >> Subject:   [  RadSafe ]  Nuclear Power in    Utah?
> > >  >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
> http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-AP1000s-mooted-for-Utah-site-2108147.ht
> >  >  >> ml
> > > >>
> > > >>  Brent   Rogers
> > >  >> Sydney Australia
> >  > >>
> > > >> Sent from  my    iPad
> > > >>
> > > >>   _______________________________________________
> > > >>  You  are   currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing  list
> > >  >>
> > > >> Before posting  a   message to RadSafe be  sure to have read and
> > >  understood
> > > >> the
> > > >>  RadSafe   rules.  These can be found   at:
> > > >>  http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> > > >>
> >  > >>  For information  on  how to subscribe or  unsubscribe and other
> > settings
> > > >> visit:
> >  > >>  http://health.phys.iit.edu
> > > >>
> >  > >>
> > >  >>
> > > >>   _______________________________________________
> > > >>   You   are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >  >  >>
> > > >> Before posting  a  message  to RadSafe be  sure to have read and
> > > understood the  RadSafe  rules.  These  can be found  at:
> > >  >>  http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> > >  >>
> > > >>  For   information on how to  subscribe or unsubscribe and other
> > settings
> > > >>  visit:    http://health.phys.iit.edu
> > > >>
> >  > >>  _______________________________________________
> >  > >> You  are  currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing  list
> > > >>
> > >  >> Before posting a   message to RadSafe be sure to have read  and
> > > understood the  RadSafe rules.  These can be found   at:
> > > >>  http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> > >   >>
> > > >> For information on  how to subscribe  or  unsubscribe and other
> > settings
> > > >>  visit:
> > > >>  http://health.phys.iit.edu
> > >  >>
> > > >>
> > >  >>
> > >  >>  _______________________________________________
> > >  >> You  are  currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing  list
> > > >>
> > >  >> Before posting a   message to RadSafe be sure to have read  and
> > > understood the  RadSafe rules.  These can be found at:
> > >  >>  http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> > > >>
> >  >  >> For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe  and other
> > settings
> > > >> visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
> > >  >>
> > >  >>
> > > >>  ------------------------------
> >  > >>
> > > >> Message:  2
> > > >>  Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:22:52 -0700
> > > >>  From: Sander  Perle <sandyfl at cox.net>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [   RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?
> > > >> To: "The  International  Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> Mailing
> > >  >>    List"     <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > > >>  Message-ID:  <D023B60B.67410%sandyfl at cox.net>
> > > >>   Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="ISO-8859-1"
> > >   >>
> > > >> Joe, could be in all directions. California?s  demand  has dropped
> over
> > > the
> > > >> years,  even to the point where  the San Onofre Nuclear Plant has
> been
> >  > >> shutdown without any  apparent ramifications.
> > >  >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > >  >>
> >  > >> Sandy Perle
> > > >> Retired,   Consultant
> > > >>
> > > >> From:    <JPreisig at aol.com>
> > > >> Reply-To:  "The  International  Radiation Protection (Health
> Physics)
> > >  Mailing
> > > >> List"   <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > > >> Date:   Wednesday,  August 27, 2014 at 3:47 PM
> > > >>  To:   <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> > > >>  Subject:  Re: [  RadSafe ] Nuclear Power in Utah?
> > >  >>
> > > >>  Sandy/Radsafe,
> > >  >>
> > > >>    Wonder if the  power will be  sent to  California???  An
> > >   updated/revised
> > > >> version of the USGS USA Seismic  risk  map  is probably on the USGS
> > > website
> > >  >>  now.
> > > >>
> > > >>     Joe Preisig
> > >  >>
> > > >>
> > >  >>
> > > >>
> > > >>  In a message dated  8/27/2014 12:36:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > >  >>  sandyfl at cox.net writes:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >  >  >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >  >>
> > > >>  ------------------------------
> >  > >>
> > > >>   _______________________________________________
> > > >>  RadSafe  mailing list
> > > >>  RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> > > >>  http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> > >   >>
> > > >>
> > > >> End of RadSafe Digest,  Vol 1665,  Issue 1
> > > >>  ****************************************
> > >  >>  _______________________________________________
> > > >>  You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> > >  >>
> > >  >> Before posting a message to RadSafe be  sure to have read and
> > understood
> > > the RadSafe rules. These  can be found at:
> > >  http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> > > >>
> >  > >>  For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and  other
> settings
> > >  visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >  > > The information contained in  this message may be privileged  and/or
> > > confidential and protected from  disclosure. If the  reader of this
> > message
> > > is not the intended   recipient, or an employee or agent responsible
> for
> > > delivering  this  message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> >  notified
> > > that any  dissemination, distribution or copying of  this communication
> is
> > >  strictly prohibited. Note that any  views or opinions presented in
> this
> > >  message are solely  those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent
> > > those  of Ameren. All e-mails are subject to monitoring and  archival.
> >  > Finally, the recipient should check this message and any   attachments
> for
> > > the presence of viruses. Ameren accepts no  liability  for any damage
> > caused
> > > by any virus  transmitted by this e-mail. If you  have received this in
> > >  error, please notify the sender immediately by  replying to the
> message
> > and
> > > deleting the material from any  computer.  Ameren Corporation
> > > >   _______________________________________________
> > > > You are  currently  subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> > >  >
> > > > Before  posting a message to RadSafe be sure to  have read and
> > understood
> > > the  RadSafe rules. These  can be found at:
> > >  http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> > > >
> > >  > For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
> settings
> > >  visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >  >
> > >   _______________________________________________
> > > You are  currently  subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> > >
> >  > Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood
> > > the RadSafe  rules. These can be found  at:
> > >  http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >  >
> > > For information  on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and  other settings
> > > visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >  >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You   are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before  posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> >  the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at:
> >  http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For   information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> >  visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> > You are currently  subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe  rules. These can be found at:
> >  http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information  on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
> _______________________________________________
> You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu


More information about the RadSafe mailing list