NRC page update - 8 facilities down or going down?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

Sorry to cross post this, but I came over here looking for what might perhaps be an expert's discussion of these events and found nothing directly related (it's late, maybe I need to look harder.)

Any comments?

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002E9S

____________

Has anyone noticed the change in the PLANT STATUS REPORT page? The oconnee plant in SC had a reactor trip on 1/3/00. looks like it was shut down? (not sure what this entails) here's the link

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/DAILY/psr.htm

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), January 05, 2000

Answers Hhm. So Alex Jones was correct in the 8pm broadcast when he said he thought the count was up to 12 plants either below or at zero. add to that the missile plant now in Ten. Catawba is listed as running hot as of 12/30! So anyone got a geiger counter? Should I be takin' that Potassium? I doubt I need it yet, but...Scary stuff indeed.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi cin, I saw that! I'm waiting to see what the am report looks like :-)

Have you been following that page for awhile? I'm curious as to how often events such as these occur. There have been a number of them since the rollover already.

Mike

===================================================================

-- Mike Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does this mean?

4 SOUTH TEXAS 2 7 Power Operation * REDUCED POWER FOR MAINTENANCE, REPAIRING HYDROGEN LEAK ON MAIN GENERATOR

Isn't a hydrogen leak a no-no?

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), January 05, 2000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yesterday 5 facilities were down or going down. Today 8. I don't know how many plants need to come off-line before the grid notices but according to the Senate 100 Days Report "it could be a small fraction". The bottom line is - nobody knows when this goes from worrysome to "check the plug on the gen-set". Y2K is a non-event indeed! Polly want a green, glowing cracker?

-- Itchy (scratch@scratch.yahthere), January 05, 2000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike... Though it obviously looks bad, I know probably as much about it as you do. I have been checking that page mostly because I am within 15 mile radius of San Onofre, which has been running at 100% so stated on that page.

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2000

Answers

carl, yes, a hydrogen leak is bad. This however, is not due to y2k or strictly a nuclear phenomenon. Hydrogen is used to cool generators in nuclear and fossil plants due to being inexpensive and having a high thermal conductivity. it is not explosive unless it is within a certain concentration mixed with air (ie 4.5-70% h2 in air is explosive. I AM NOT SURE THAT THESE PERCENTAGES ARE CORRECT. JUST AN EXAMPLE). The reason that it is listed on the nrc site is that it affects a nuke, but it is common to all power plants(except solar and possibly hydro)

-- Anonymous, January 05, 2000

I'm confused. I don't see any notations on the Oconnee Plant other than...working at 100%. And what are you guys talking about 8 or 12 plants off line? I only see 4 off line and 4 a reduced power.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2000

Moderation questions? read the FAQ