×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

26 Nuclear Power Plants In Hurricane Sandy's Path

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the perfect-storm dept.

News 392

pigrabbitbear writes "Hurricane Sandy is about to ruin a bunch of people's Mondays. In New York City alone, the storm has already shut down public transportation, forced tens of thousands to relocate to higher ground and compelled even more office jockeys to work from home. (Okay, that last part might not be so bad, especially for the folks that don't actually have to work at all.) But if it knocks out power to any of the 26 nuclear power plants that lie directly in its path, the frankenstorm of the century will ruin Tuesday, too. Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

392 comments

I hope it gives me super powers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809139)

I could call myself The Hurricane!

Re:I hope it gives me super powers (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809455)

Sorry, "Storm" already owns the IP for that. See if your superpowers can protect you from a billion dollar IP lawsuit!

Hmmm . . . maybe comics need an IP Lawsuit Super Villain . . . ?

Re:I hope it gives me super powers (1)

john.r.strohm (586791) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809711)

Supposedly, it has been DONE.

The story goes that, when DC sued Marvel over Captain Marvel allegedly infringing on Superman, Marvel responded by having a villain take out either copyright or patent on the letters A-Z, and then sue anybody who tried to write or print anything without paying royalties first.

Re:I hope it gives me super powers (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809633)

Just as long as the authorities don't come to blame
your for something that you never done.

Re:I hope it gives me super powers (1)

3seas (184403) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809745)

BTW, HULU's MisFits is on again, new season, you Juvenal Delinquents.

Re:I hope it gives me super powers (1)

Dan East (318230) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809863)

I could call myself The Hurricane!

The rest of us will call you Sandy. Sandy Cheeks that is.

Re:I hope it gives me super powers (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809877)

Will we get the same sensationalist headlines when nothing happens?

"The plants performed as designed! No meltdown!!!"

It's not fair (2, Funny)

na1led (1030470) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809179)

We never get any excitement here in Maine. Storms always seem to dodge us.

Re:It's not fair (3, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809283)

You think that's unfair? How about those of us in Ohio who have never been hit with a hurricane? I mean, Gloria came and wrecked most of New England in 1985, and Ohio got nothin'.

Re:It's not fair (2)

afidel (530433) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809361)

That's because the Gulf Stream takes a right hand turn at North Carolina and heads towards the UK instead of continuing to Maine.

Re:It's not fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809737)

You guys just hang on to that storm for a while. You handed one over to us the last time and it blew my fence down! Bah!

Took you long enough, Slashdot (4, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809181)

To publish an insanely sensationalistic FUD piece from the Anti-Nuclear crowd scaremongering the most densely populated area of the world over something that is a complete and utter non-issue.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (3, Insightful)

WilyCoder (736280) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809205)

Exactly. While people are dealing with the *real* effects of the storm right now, these people want to talk about nuclear meltdowns? Stupid ass hyperbole if you ask me...

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (5, Funny)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809313)

While people are dealing with the *real* effects of the storm right now, these people want to talk about nuclear meltdowns?

Do you mean real effects like damaged windmills and solar panels ripped off roofs?

On the other hand, the extra rainfall should be good for hydroelectric.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (1)

suutar (1860506) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809611)

maybe. If the water starts spinning the impeller beyond what the generator can handle, they'll get decoupled and the generator will sit idle.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (2)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809345)

Slight nitpick: people are going to be dealing with the effects of the storm. After several CCWTWNITN (cable channels with the word news in their name) doing 5 days of round the clock coverage on a storm scheduled to start causing damage...tomorrow...someone was bound to go nuclear. As a bonus I've found I much prefer sensationalist storm coverage to election coverage.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809529)

Is it supposed to be demeaning that you came up with your acronym for something when you had to spell it out anyway?

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809213)

So much this. And they said SlashDot wouldn't change with the multiple buyouts...

sigh

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (2)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809223)

You hit the nail on the head! I live 30 miles from Indian Point, does not bother me one bit.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809467)

I live 12 miles, doesn't bother me one bit, nor did it when I lived 5 miles, nor worked 1 mile. Heck, in my 20's I used to water ski just offshore from the plant. Hmmm, maybe that's why my hair got curly? chuckle

BTW, NONE of the evacuation plans take into account there being a bad storm while attempting an evacuation from a nuke plant...they just don't consider it likely.

And, btw, the original call for an evacuation plan was for 50 miles...I was at that meeting, but we all agreed that it would be impossible to evacuate 50 miles, as it includes all of NYC. Then we cut it down to 25 miles, and it still included too much of NYC to be doable. Finally, we went down to 10 miles, which everyone felt was more realistic to evacuate. But the 10 mile evacuation zone isn't based on science, it's based on what is doable in the NY area. 10 miles wasn't enough at Fukishima.

So, what you're really saying is.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809837)

That if one of the plants melts down, NYC is pretty much fucked, anyway.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809325)

Just like worrying about tsunamis in Japan.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (2)

fa2k (881632) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809411)

It almost worked on me. The first links made me thing power outage, meh, maybe some websites go down at worst. Now the last sensationalistic link I almost clicked, thinking "is that really a realistic problem?".

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809423)

Most densely populated area of the world? Typical Yank! Look at a map and see how the [population density is around places like Beijing and New Delhi. Just because they are not milky white like you does not make them irrelevant you ignorant imbecile!

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809497)

I want to vote this as both "flamebait" and "underrated." There needs to be an "antagonistic, but still correct" moderation.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (1, Informative)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809677)

Most densely populated area of the world? Typical Yank! Look at a map and see how the [population density is around places like Beijing and New Delhi. Just because they are not milky white like you does not make them irrelevant you ignorant imbecile!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing [wikipedia.org] (pop density 1200/sq km or 3000/sq m)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_delhi [wikipedia.org] (pop density 5854/sq km or 15,164/sq m)

vs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_city [wikipedia.org] (pop density 10,518/sq km or 27,243/sq m)

So Beijing and New Delhi don't come close to NYC for density.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809515)

not after fukushima

the problem with a response like yours is that exactly the same words, with the same haughty attitude, came from people just like you, before fukushima

so no one is listening to you anymore

you might be right statistically, you might be right structurally. but you aren't right organizationally and politically. it's a matter of trust. fukushima has gutted the average person's trust in the experts and the government when they talk about the safety of nuclear

go ahead and issue all of the haughty ivory tower pronouncements of nuclear safety you want. no one trust you anymore. they trust the fear mongers

because the fear mongers were RIGHT in the case of fukushima

the irony of course is that if we used more nuclear and less fossil fuels, we wouldn't have the global warming that creates giant weather bombs like sandy

i'm not against nuclear. i am for nuclear power, but i am against haughty attitudes of certainty like yours. they simply mean the average person doesn't trust you anymore. because black swan events are real, as fukushima demonstrates, rendering your words undependable and your attitude atrocious

you need to understand that the average person's fear is real and that you have to cater to it and calmly explain to them why things are safe. because when you haughtily wave their concerns away and laugh at them, you harden their fear into distrust and action against you, and so YOU are putting the nail in the coffin of nuclear power, with your asshole attitude

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (2)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809593)

And how many people have died because of Fukushima?

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809679)

that's right, keep belittling, dismissing, and mocking their concern

see how far you get with the attitude of the common man towards nuclear

see how much support politicians give nuclear with the common man poised against nuclear

do you see? your attitude helps the death of nuclear power

but go ahead, mod me down again

let's see if the slashdot ivory tower attitude preserves nuclear power, or if it just makes a silo where a bunch of assholes can laugh and mock the common man while nuclear fades away

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (1)

kasperd (592156) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809773)

And how many people have died because of Fukushima?

From the info I could find, it was none. However the tsunami did kill a lot of people. And in case somebody on the plant died, would that have been because of the nuclear power plant or because of the tsunami? I guess the question to ask would be, what would have happened to the people working there when the tsunami hit, in case it had been an oil or coal powered plant? Regardless of the answer, it seems pretty clear that the damage caused by the tsunami hitting a nuclear power plant was minor compared to the damage the tsunami did in other places on its path.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809649)

So, in your scenario, nuclear power will be abandoned not because of the herd of lowing retards, but because of the few smart people who find their ignorance so contemptibly alien that we can't figure out how to talk down to them?

I am not my retarded brother's keeper. If we're genuinely too stupid as a species to accept that it's a choice between fission or coal to get us to fusion, then perhaps we should just step aside and give the rats and cockroaches their chance.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809713)

you do realize that it is attitudes just like yours that is part of the problem, right?

no, of course you don't

why don't you try educating yourself on a little world history about the true value of arrogance towards the common man like yours

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809763)

No. The idea that power generation capability should be based on the fears of people with no understanding of technology or risk is the problem.

I say: shut it all down. Let them live in the dark for a few weeks and then see whether they're still saying 'nukelear is scary, ok'.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (4, Funny)

pitchpipe (708843) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809525)

Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem.

By golly, it'll be even worser if it opens the hell-mouth.

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (5, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809661)

Oh please. I've read both stories, and neither of them is the least bit sensationalistic. They present issues and facts, and neither of them is clearly anti-nuke. But of course anybody who suggests that there are safety issues with nuclear power must be "scaremongering".

What's weird to me is that people get all religious about nuclear power. At best, fission plants will never provide more than a fraction of the power we need. You may think that the benefit-versus-risk equation argues that we shoud build them (not that I agree) but is that really sufficient reason to treat nuclear power like the Second Coming?

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809685)

Notice that the article states: "knock out power to any of the 26 nuclear power plants..." So, how much power does New York supply to its nuclear plants? /sarcastic humor: off

Re:Took you long enough, Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809781)

I'm starting to wonder if the people editing Slashdot are a bunch of Liberal Arts majors. They don't seem to know anything.

Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. (4, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809191)

If you want to be as safe from the hurricane as possible, you should then find shelter in one of those nuclear plants. They\re the best built structures by a very large margin.

Only thing is, I don\t believe you'll be lucky enough to be let in.

Re:Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. (1)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809701)

Yeah, and if the external backup power goes out (like it did in Japan) you're looking at a potential meltdown situation. And guess what: that would generate enough heat to melt all that steel and concrete.

Re:Massively overbuilt, most reliable buildings. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809813)

How old are these 26 facilities? And how well have all the little details of their infrastructure been maintained in the decades of cost-trimming and Homers? Hurricanes tend to find all your little details. All at once.

I tend to agree with you, I'm not real worried about the plants. But now you got me thinking about it. And I'm thinking of the IIHS crashing the 1959 Chevrolet into the 2009 Chevrolet. This might actually be a pretty interesting day at those old, once 'massively overbuilt', plants.

If they do all come out okay, this scare-mongering article will be worth it, because we'll now have a measure to point to, instead of just what we've been told. I'm glad for this heads-up to draw attention to it.

My god, this has never happened! (5, Insightful)

greg_barton (5551) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809203)

These plants have NEVER been hit by a storm before! Whatever will we do??

Re:My god, this has never happened! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809627)

I propose synchronized panicking!

Everyone go to www.nukewebcam.edu, pick one of the 26 plants, and as soon as you see precipitation, run out the front door screaming as you run along all the easily reached streets where you live.

Around here (4, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809209)

Around here, the nuclear power plants are designed to survive a 747 flying into them. I'm sure a little bit of a breeze isn't going to be any trouble

Re:Around here (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809301)

Like Fukushima, it isn't the breeze that's the problem. It's the storm surge.

Re:Around here (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809499)

If there's a storm surge on the Eastern seaboard big enough to damage a nuclear power station, millions of people are going to be having a REALLY bad day before they start worrying about the nuclear plant.

Re:Around here (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809613)

Yes, but it's NUKELEAR! Who cares about a few million dead people if someone gets a moderately high radiation dose?

Re:Around here (1, Informative)

suutar (1860506) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809663)

and leaving the backup generators in an insufficiently drained basement. And not being able to get extra generators in because of hilly terrain and road damage.

Re:Around here (1)

Zoxed (676559) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809635)

> Around here, the nuclear power plants are designed to survive a 747 flying into them.

Care to share a reference ? IIRC, the last I heard the *best* designs currently in use could only survive a direct hit from a light aircraft (sorry: no ref !).

Re:Around here (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809815)

Ahh yes, but what if two or three 747s flew into them, at once? I'm sure just for posting this I'll have DHS all over my ass.

Unsubstatiated Claim (4, Interesting)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809225)

Human Error has caused more nuclear incidents than Weather. That said, I want one of those backyard mini nuclear plants. - HEX

Re:Unsubstatiated Claim (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809335)

To be fair, at least one reactor at Fukushima was already beyond recovery when the tsunami hit. TEPCO has already stated this. So to say that a water swell or other kind of water hazard was the reason is a bit of an overstatement. Earthquakes are the real danger to reactors.

Just wait until Wednesday... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809237)

There's a chance the eastern seaboard could get hit by a mile-wide asteroid.

If you're gonna fearmonger, go big or go home.

Witty sarcasm aside (1)

mitcheli (894743) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809243)

I'm sure that the folks at the fukishima plant never thought they'd have to survive what they went through.

too soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809289)

I'm sure that the folks at the fukishima plant never thought they'd have to survive what they went through.

A lot of them didn't.

Doesn't even include Canadian reactors. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809253)

Then again, Canadian reactors are CANDU - and in True Canadian Style, they're a bit less efficient, but vastly more safe when it comes to the possibility of meltdown.

And when the storm has passed... (3, Insightful)

greg_barton (5551) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809275)

So when the storm has passed, if nothing happens, will the fear mongering anti-nuke folks admit that nuclear power is safe?

*crickets*

Re:And when the storm has passed... (1, Flamebait)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809721)

And if there's a meltdown, will all the obsessive nukes-will-save-us zealots admit that there's a problem?

Nuclear Technology (2, Interesting)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809319)

In Germany the Federal government massively moved away from nuclear technology because they feel it is unsafe and you don't know what to do with the waste. Vorsprung durch Technik - be first in the next wave of technology innovation. We now have 5MW wind generators serial production and it looks like only the network is an issue. Progress in solar technology is also amazing, Chinese companies took over the lead. When US nuclear power plants would be affected by the storm (just remember Fukushima) that would be very dangerous to the densely populated area. I really wonder how many levees they build. Remember the WTC towers were "designed" to survive a 747 flying into them.

Re:Nuclear Technology (3, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809481)

The WTC towers did survive an aircraft flying into them.

What they didn't survive was the jet fuel fire after the crash knocked the insulation off the girders.

This is stupid fear-mongering, plain and simple.

Fukushima didn't fail until AFTER a catastrophic earthquake, AFTER a catastrophic tsunami, AFTER the reactor was run past its design lifetime, and AFTER the company in charge of it did not make the manufacturer's recommended safety upgrades. Do you have any evidence we're facing anything remotely similar to those circumstances with the 26 nuclear reactors in the storm's affected area?

Re:Nuclear Technology (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809495)

Of course, you do realize that the real winner with the nuclear switch off in Germany was coal, right? You might have more windmills, but you probably would have even with the nuclear plants.

Turning off nuclear based on a scare reaction to an accident puts Germany firmly in the luddite column, even with the movement on green sources. It's more like "OMG, nuclear is scary turn it off now!", and then suddenly realizing that people would eventually realize that the thing that everyone is not scared of is the thing they think they understand very well: burning stuff with carbon in it. So now, they have to do a crash build program on technologies that aren't even there yet.

So, much like the US subsidizes pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world, Germany is now subsidizing green tech for the rest of us. Thanks for that, but don't pretend it's because Germany is forward thinking.

Re:Nuclear Technology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809505)

Eat shit kraut. Go back to being a cowardly sausage eater. We took your balls 60 years ago, you guys have never recovered. Enjoy letting the rest of Europe ooze your economy away.

Re:Nuclear Technology (1)

anerki (169995) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809543)

Isn't Vorsprung durch Technik the Audi slogan? Not much clean energy there buddy :)

Re:Nuclear Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809567)

They feel it is unsafe but they are wrong. Fission until we get Fusion or something else decent is the only way forward.

Wind Generators are an eyesore everywhere they are. Solar is ok but not practical.

Hydro (Think The Aswan Dam) is useful.

Wind isn't innovation (We have had windmills for ages.)

Re:Nuclear Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809589)

You are just apart of the fear mongering, this is not the first time these plants have been hit by a hurricane. They haven't had problems in the past what makes you think this time is going to be so much worse?

Re:Nuclear Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809637)

Designed to survive a 727 hit. 747 was not in service until after the ground breaking of the WTC.

Re:Nuclear Technology (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809759)

That reminds me, what's going to happen the next time to all those turbines and roof mounted panels then next time that Germany is hit with a really big storm?

Storm of the century?? (5, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809393)

It is a cat 1 storm. Yawn.

Re:Storm of the century?? (2)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809801)

Ike was only a Cat 2 when it hit the Gulf Coast. When it comes to damage and cost, square mileage matters just as much as wind speed.

Re:Storm of the century?? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809853)

Enough to cause a meltdown? Now if it had a +23 foot surge Katrina style cat 5 that could take down backup generators then wake me up?

Heck, a Godzilla attack would be a bigger problem. (5, Funny)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809403)

>> Heck, a nuclear meltdown would be a much bigger problem.

Heck, a Godzilla attack would be a much bigger problem.

Re:Heck, a Godzilla attack would be a bigger probl (0)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809733)

You're obviously not Japanese. If you were, you'd know that Godzilla is a myth and meltdowns are not.

Give me a break (3, Informative)

samantha (68231) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809431)

A) Sandy has average winds less that 80 mph so the major danger is heavy rainfall (or perhaps snow) only.
B) "Nuclear meltdown" is largely a media myth. Real nuclear plants do not melt down in the way the popular mythology claims.
C) Real nuclear plant are designed to push in the control rods if anything like a power drop happens.

So stop with the 70s anti-nuclear FUD.

Re:Give me a break (5, Informative)

captaindomon (870655) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809533)

You should probably do some research on Fukushima. The control rods did drop when the earthquake hit, as part of the emergency shutdown, the chain reaction did stop as designed, and there was enough residual heat from fission by-products that the entire fuel assembly melted anyway.

Re:Give me a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809843)

The control rods at Fukushima did not drop, they actually go up.

Re:Give me a break (2)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809607)

A) Sandy has average winds less that 80 mph so the major danger is heavy rainfall (or perhaps snow) only.

Agreed.

"The Frankenstorm of the Century"? Okay, I haven't been in a hurricane since the turn of the century, granted, but I just checked and the maximum sustained winds are 90 MPH. Hurricane Gloria [wikipedia.org] had wind speeds of 145 MPH and hit Long Island--I remember going out during the eye. Hurricane Andrew [wikipedia.org] had winds of 175 MPH and was very destructive.

90 MPH? Pfft.

Interesting Fact (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809473)

The title is an interesting fact (previously unknown to me), but the article has no real point. It has a lot of fearful speech and reads like religious propaganda. If it were calling for increased preparedness, then that would be one thing. It doesn't do that, though -- it's just appears to sound scary by using scary bullet points.

TL;DR: Crap article.

China - Russia - North Korea - Iran invasion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809483)

what would happen were CRNKI to invade the US during this strange weather?

Ohnoes!!! (2)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809501)

I am sure they will melt down just like the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant has done every time a tropical storm or hurricane has it it.... Oh wait... That has never happened.

Critical fact missing from TFA (3, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809553)

And they're all rated for much more severe storms than Sandy. Not sure why the fearmongering article, which goes out of its way to imply that meltdown is imminent...

If it does what, now? (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809581)

if it knocks out power to any of the 26 nuclear power plants
I'm pretty sure the power plans have reliable sources of power, should they not be able to get any from the grid.

Coming soon, on SyFy (3, Funny)

MrLizard (95131) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809691)

Nuclear Wind! Atomic Tide! Nukestorm! Windpocalypse! Radioactivecane! Frozen Meltdown! Atomic Hailstorm! Nukenami! Any other ideas for the inevitable SyFy movie?

IDIOTS on slashdot??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41809715)

cut power off the a nuclear plant? What sort of idiots you have on slashdot these days?

Listen, you country idiot, assume that a nuclear generator will have enough generating power inside, like, you know, back up generators for emergency power?

Morons of the first order. Please, do not breed.

FUD (3, Insightful)

confused one (671304) | about a year and a half ago | (#41809719)

I'm sorry... This is a bunch of FUD. These plants have all seen impact of large storms before. Other nuclear plants along the Atlantic coast have been impacted by larger storms than Sandy. Despite this, the U.S. Mid Atlantic coast is not a radioactive wasteland.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...