Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

New Threat To Seaside Nuclear Plants, Datacenters: Jellyfish

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the filming-is-underway-on-jellyfishnado dept.

Power 123

Nerval's Lobster writes "One of the largest nuclear-power plants in the world was forced to shut down temporarily Sept. 29, after pipes that bring Baltic Sea water in to cool the plant's turbines became clogged with tons of jellyfish. The sudden influx of common moon jellyfish overwhelmed the screens and filters that keep flotsam and most sea life out of the Oskarshamn nuclear plant in southeastern Sweden. The plant was forced to shut down its No. 3 reactor – the largest boiling-water reactor in the world, which generates 1,400 megawatts of electricity when it is jellyfish-free and running at full power. The reactor stayed down until early Oct. 1, after the jellyfish had been cleared out and engineers approved the cooling system as invertebrate-free. It's not easy to overwhelm the cooling system for a nuclear power plant, but Oskarshamn's is unusually resilient. There is a separate intake- and cooling system for each reactor, all of which were designed for the brackish, polluted water in that area of the Baltic Sea. Most datacenters are too far inland to worry about jellyfish in their cooling water, though green-IT-promoters Vertatique estimated that a 5,000-sq.-ft. datacenter would consume almost 9 million gallons of water for cooling. That means ocean-side datacenters that use sea water for cooling (such as Google's datacenter in Hamina, Finland — also on the Baltic Sea) are just as susceptible to jellyfish attacks as nuclear power plants."

cancel ×

123 comments

Do they have 3 eyes? (1, Offtopic)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 10 months ago | (#45008191)

Do they have 3 eyes?

Re:Do they have 3 eyes? (3, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#45008461)

they're one eye.

not so sure about hamina being in same risk zone though(I think southern sweden has more of them than finnish side.. really I only remember seeing large amounts of them only when visiting sweden). also can't see why some added netting further away wouldn't take care of them. or maybe we should ask the russians to dump some more waste into the sea.

Re:Do they have 3 eyes? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45008637)

they're one eye.

Is it brown?

This is why I switched from Android to iOS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45008203)

I got tired of worrying about rooting, viruses, an insecure platform which is completely open source to attackers, and the whole jellybean/jellyfish release issue. I came to realize that although Apple products do cost more upfront, the long-term cost of running my enterprise on iPhones as compared to Android was much lower.

Clogged with niggers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45008217)

Another word for niggers is "urbans". Also "youths" is a fairly common synonym for niggers. And then sometimes you'll see "urban youths".

Anyway, our cities are clogged with niggers and the problem is just getting worse. Niggers are worse then ever, even after years of "sensitivity" and mollycoddling. Niggers are the lowest of the low. Jellyfish are more useful than niggers. I would rather liven in a world without niggers than a world without jellyfish.

By the way, that nigglet Travon is still dead. Boo hoo hoo.

Get Sponge Bob... (0, Offtopic)

KrazyDave (2559307) | about 10 months ago | (#45008283)

Square Pants on the job. He'll collect the #hit out of those jellyfish or they'll follow him home for a fantastic disco jam.

And the worst part... (4, Informative)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 10 months ago | (#45008313)

I guess we'll need a Geiger counter to figure out if they have a natural bioluminescent jellyfish glow, or if they are irradiated.

Re:And the worst part... (3, Funny)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 10 months ago | (#45009385)

Keep your eyes on those geiger counters, kids. Tick tick tickety means run your ass outta there.

Rampant Jellyfish (4, Interesting)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about 10 months ago | (#45008359)

There's been a huge increase in the jellyfish populations around the world, they've been thriving as the seas warm up - more plankton equals more jellyfish. Fishing boats are catching huge nets of the things when they're supposed to be picking up fish. It's such a problem, there's a Japanese effort to get people to eat jellyfish sushi.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45008413)

If an "effort" is required to get Japanese people to eat something that comes out of the ocean, you really don't want to go near it.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (3, Informative)

Trane Francks (10459) | about 10 months ago | (#45009759)

If an "effort" is required to get Japanese people to eat something that comes out of the ocean, you really don't want to go near it.

Kurage (jellyfish) have featured in the Japanese diet throughout history. There is no "effort" of which I'm aware, and I've been in Japan since 1991.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (1, Funny)

pspahn (1175617) | about 10 months ago | (#45010133)

As long as your kid's apathetic teacher isn't banging the chef, I suppose things will be okay.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (1)

Trane Francks (10459) | about 10 months ago | (#45010313)

As long as your kid's apathetic teacher isn't banging the chef, I suppose things will be okay.

I recognize the words as English, but the sentence itself certainly seems apropos of nothing whatsoever.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 10 months ago | (#45010401)

Don't eat the fugu.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (1)

Trane Francks (10459) | about 10 months ago | (#45010543)

Don't eat the fugu.

LOL - Thankfully, fugu and jellyfish are seldom mistaken for one another. :)

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (1)

gtall (79522) | about 10 months ago | (#45008863)

So....the jellyfish are the global warming's answer to overfishing of the oceans. That's sublimely wonderful.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#45010251)

It may well be more complicated [cbsnews.com] than global warming and / or overfishing, although both are likely to be an issue.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (0)

triffid_98 (899609) | about 10 months ago | (#45009521)

more plankton equals more jellyfish

Really? I thought more plankton equals more fish and whales. Unfortunately since we've decimated fish stocks worldwide, more plankton equals more jellyfish. Many fish are happy enough in warmer seas, it's the giant nets strewn everywhere that they have a problem with.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (2)

GNious (953874) | about 10 months ago | (#45011521)

Shouldn't we then see an increase in those species, that eat jellyfish?

Some of the most common and important jellyfish predators include tuna, shark, swordfish, and at least one species of Pacific salmon, as well as sea turtles, also known as leatherback turtle.

http://www.jellyfishfacts.net/jellyfish-predators.html [jellyfishfacts.net]

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45011845)

Nope, they have to survive to eat and we kill all of those for food. Or "protection".

It's a hell of a lot easier to reproduce than eat. Except when you have nets 10km long to do all the work for you.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about 10 months ago | (#45010035)

"There's been a huge increase in the jellyfish populations around the world, they've been thriving as the seas warm up"

Or is it as overfishing grows?

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (4, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#45010243)

We have been seeing ** lots ** more jellyfish the last several years in SE Alaska. This summer we kayaked through a half kilometer long field of them. Very, very trippy but fisherman absolutely hate them. You can't get them to move. If you net them you can't get their slimy bodies off the net. Nothing local eats them very effectively. Shooting at them with a shotgun doesn't do much except waste ammo and scare tourists.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45012097)

Well, there used to be local predators - but we ate them.

Or with less humour, jellyfish has predators at all stages - however since it mainly is turtles (tasty) and whales (tasty, blubber) the predators are in decline.

To further the problem one of the more effecient ways to keep jellyfish under control is simple starvation - but that requires other animals that eat fish and plankton (which means lots of tasty whales and tasty fish are needed).

And even nastier are that some jellyfish releases their reproductive juices when being killed (so killing them means they mate - quite often successfully - then and there (yup, killing them near water increases their numbers)).

And then we have my favorite - they can easily live in water that pretty much nothing else can live in (they have an impressivly low dependancy on oxygen, almost like they are adaptaded to the low-oxygen-enviornment they evolved in).

It isn't without reason they are some of the worlds oldest and most successful lifeforms and predators.

Oh yeah, some spieces of them also can't die of old age.

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (2)

AlecC (512609) | about 10 months ago | (#45012383)

I love the way Americans turn to guns to solve any problem. To bear arms - against jellyfish!

Re:Rampant Jellyfish (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 10 months ago | (#45011961)

Maybe someone needs to figure a way of turning jellyfish into energy.

What language is this? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45008389)

Jellyfish attack?

attack [uh-tak]
verb (used with object)
1.
to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2.
to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy. ...

Kind of implies a certain amount of forethought and/or planning. If jellyfish attacked the cooling system then I have a newfound respect for the intelligence of jellyfish.

Perhaps they simply infested the cooling system? Editors, they aren't just for breakfast any more.

Re:What language is this? (3, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | about 10 months ago | (#45008685)

Muahahahaha.

Those are MY jellyfish. With with frikin laser beams attached to their heads.
Except the lasers fell off.... because have you ever tried attaching something to a jellyfish?

-

Re:What language is this? (1)

DoubleJ1024 (1287512) | about 10 months ago | (#45009453)

jellyfish don't have heads stupid, that is why your evil plan FAILED!!!!!!

Re:What language is this? (1)

pspahn (1175617) | about 10 months ago | (#45010143)

How the hell do you expect them to see who kicks first?

Jetsam, not flotsam (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 10 months ago | (#45009451)

Since we are being pedantic about language, it is jetsam , not flotsam , that is clogging the pipe. Flotsam is floating debris. If the debris is drifting below the surface, it is jetsam. Since nuke intake pipes are always well below the surface, they cannot be clogged by flotsam.

Re:Jetsam, not flotsam (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45009579)

Since you want to be pedantic, neither term really applies. Flotsam is cargo or gear that floats away from a ship, eg accidentally lost. Jetsam is cargo or gear that is deliberately thrown overboard. The distinction makes a difference to the salvage rights if you find it. Since the jellyfish were never on a ship in the first place, they would come into a different category, eg "marine wildlife".

Re:What language is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45009587)

You can set upon someone in a forceful, violent, hostile or aggressive way without any forethought or planning. One doesn't imply the other.

The Gandhi Jellyfish Non Violence Fraction attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010951)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence

Why not?

Re:What language is this? (2)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 10 months ago | (#45012211)

God-damn it Jellyfish, I'm tired of your passive-aggressive bullshit.

Atomic Jellyfish (-1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#45008423)

Unless we're talking about 30 story, airborne Man-O-Wars attempting to devour Manhattan, I don't see why this belongs on Slashdot...

Which causes my mind, which functions much like a runaway train, to immediately wonder: if such a thing were to happen, how would the Pastafarians react?

Re:Atomic Jellyfish (2)

gtall (79522) | about 10 months ago | (#45008871)

Oh c'mon, science is interesting regardless, especially here on slashdot.

Re:Atomic Jellyfish (0)

pspahn (1175617) | about 10 months ago | (#45010159)

Don't you mean "irregardless"?

Re: Atomic Jellyfish (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010579)

No, since regardless is a proper word. Irregardless is both not a word and redundant.

Re:Atomic Jellyfish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45011311)

Um, it's a technical issue, and i thought slashdot is about technology, not jsut about new apple products.

Good thing there's no nuclear plant in Seattle (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 10 months ago | (#45008455)

We have the world's largest jellyfish here in Puget Sound.

Remember, jellyfish are smarter than Congress. Not that that's hard to do.

Re:Good thing there's no nuclear plant in Seattle (4, Funny)

slick7 (1703596) | about 10 months ago | (#45009519)

Remember, jellyfish are smarter than Congress. Not that that's hard to do.

That jellyfish has my vote. Finally, someone with a brain larger than a politician's.

Old News Is So Exciting! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45008527)

I remember reading about power plants having this issue back in the '90s.

Secret (0, Redundant)

trongey (21550) | about 10 months ago | (#45008535)

I'm not saying the CIA was behind this,
but the CIA was behind this.

Why pump in sea water? (4, Interesting)

willy_me (212994) | about 10 months ago | (#45008537)

Does it not make more sense to use clean, filtered water to transfer the heat out into the ocean? The heat exchanger can sit in the ocean to facilitate removing heat without the worry of having jellyfish clogging filters. Effective cooling capacity might be reduced without an active water stream going over the heat exchanger, but this can be compensated for by using a larger one.

The only possible problem I can see is the build-up of aquatic life on the head exchanger. They would require periodic cleaning. But unlike filters, you would not have to shut down the cooling system to do so. In addition, you don't have to worry about there being any sudden changes in the cooling capacity of the system so it should be much easier to plan and perform the cleaning.

Re:Why pump in sea water? (0)

maz2331 (1104901) | about 10 months ago | (#45008809)

This idea makes far too much sense for anyone to ever implement it.

Re:Why pump in sea water? (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 10 months ago | (#45011561)

My god, the smugness of back-slapping armchair engineers can be incredible.

OK, my smarty pants, you come up with a feasible design which can dissipate 2GW thermal in a reasonable amount of space. Don't forget that you have to be able to fit in all the reactors for this power station, not just this one.

Re:Why pump in sea water? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45008937)

Mineralization is a big problem with that. It's easier to deal with mineralization (as well as having better heat exchange) by having a high flow rate at higher pressures, and that's done by pumping water in through piping. In industrial plants it's also not about volume, but more about mass flow rates, the mass is what moves heat around and a simple radiator typically doesn't cut it.

Of course they could do like most shipboard steam plants do and have some design in the plant that allows for a valve line-up that lets you purge the intake. More or less, it's a method of temporarily reversing the flow. (It's nowhere near efficient, but if you're blowing steam or pumping high pressure water out the intake, most typical flotsam and jetsam goes bye-bye. Anything that doesn't get requires a tear-down and/or divers.) Some steam powered ships also have more than one intake so they can be alternated for servicing, which is a nice redundancy feature.

It's been some years since I dealt with a little bit of that stuff, so I may be a bit fuzzy on it, but if you asked a plant operator I'm probably not too far off the mark.

Re:Why pump in sea water? (4, Informative)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 10 months ago | (#45009199)

Heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference between the return water and the surrounding (approach temperature), the surface area, and the thermal conductivity of the medium. Higher temperature differences reduce the thermodynamic efficiency, and fouling of the heat exchanger is going to reduce the thermal conductivity, as will the thicker metal that will withstand the corrosion. You also need to deal that without inducing water flow across the heat exchanger you are going to get stratification of warmer water and further reduce heat transfer.

But, the problem has been solved for a long time. In Hong Kong they use harbor water to run through the chillers for cooling buildings. You can't possibly get worse water than that no matter how hard you try. It takes a lot of maintenance and multiple stages of filters, but it works pretty well.

Re:Why pump in sea water? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45011885)

In Hong Kong they use harbor water to run through the chillers for cooling buildings. You can't possibly get worse water than that no matter how hard you try.

I have some reservations about that. Highly polluted, yes, but also devoid of jellyfish, or any marine life for that matter, might make it easier to filter!

Re:Why pump in sea water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45009287)

At this particular facility, cold seawater is pumped in to absorb reactor heat, then pumped to a massive cooling reservoir where the reciprocal heat exchange ultimately takes place with surrounding atmosphere. The effects of steam and heat release in this manner are known, slow, and minimal. Your design would place a huge "heat sink" right into the ocean water: not the optimal idea for surrounding aquatic organisms/ecosystems.

Re:Why pump in sea water? (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about 10 months ago | (#45009313)

It's probably an issue of cost. I'm shooting from the hip here, but I think you'd still need a heat exchanger inland so that in case of a radioactive leak, your last line of defense isn't the heat exchanger out in the salt water. So now you have two heat exchangers instead of one. And the big one in the salt water is going to be murderous to service unless you had some way to raise it up out of the water, which would of course add a lot of cost. Salt water is incredibly rough on anything - you try not to touch it unless you really have to.

Re:Why pump in sea water? (1)

mrvan (973822) | about 10 months ago | (#45011959)

Look at it this way: you can't really put the heat exchange out in the ocean without any protection, since you really don't want a trawler, submarine, or whale disrupting the cooling of your nuclear plant. So in effect you will be building a contained heat exchange in the ocean, which will have some sort of intake, which can be clogged.

Also, the water needs to flow to bring cold water to the heat exchange. While the convection will cause some flow, powered pumps can make a lot more flow. And pumps by necessity have intakes and outflows, and these can be clogged.

Of course, you can filter every intake in any way you want, and then the filters will get clogged. Which I'm sure is what happened here (I don't think the jellyfish made it to the actual heat exchange).

Whether it is cheaper/safer to shutdown the reactor to clean out the intakes once every decade or to use some sort of automatic cleaning system with redundant pipes is an engineering question (as in, a question that takes actual fucking power plant engineers to solve, not armchair /.ers....)

Re:Why pump in sea water? (3, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about 10 months ago | (#45012207)

not armchair /.ers....

As a mechanical engineer, I can say that armchair engineering can sometimes be a lot more fun than actual, real life engineering! :)

Re:Why pump in sea water? (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 10 months ago | (#45012423)

Damn, I wish I had mod points today! What a true statement.

Re:Why pump in sea water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45009969)

Because the US EPA in its infinite wisdom refused to allow the environmental impact analysis to just be reviewed for comment on just such a cooling system for a commerical nuclear power plant some two decades ago because they did not "do nuclear". And the US NRC, also in its infinite "Rickover's Reserves" never take responsibility for anything, also refused to allow the design to be reviewed. Which is why I left the industry in total disgust over two decades ago.

abstraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010425)

problem: water filter overwhelmed by large quantity of jellyfish

willy_me: why not just use filtered water

Re:Why pump in sea water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010717)

hell, the 'heat exchangers do'nt need to be radiator like, that take up little space and can easily have debris or apparently organisims clog it. make the damn 'radiatior' just a fe thousand miles of pile in the ocean. worst case is barnicles or coral, and so what, don't they have a higher specific heat absorbtion? and thy would still eventually radiate to the ocean water.

Re:Why pump in sea water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45011583)

[quote]this can be compensated for by using a larger one."[/quote]

You have to cool 3GW away. Good luck doing that with your design.

Hope you like 'em! They'll dominate in a few years (5, Interesting)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about 10 months ago | (#45008559)

Ah, jellyfish. This is one of my favourite up-and-coming ocean doomsday scenarios.

Consider:
- No hard parts, so unaffected by ocean acidification
- Perform well in anoxic (low oxygen) environments
- Eat everything
- Have almost no nutritional value of their own
- Can shrink when food resources are low, and simply eat less
- Few natural predators
- Some species are effectively immortal by way of reverting to earlier life stages

To a certain extent, it's a bit of a miracle that the oceans managed to ever keep them in check, but oxygenation of the oceans created whole ecosystems of creatures that could--as a group--effectively compete against jellyfish.

There's no one predator that we can release that will keep the jellyfish contained or under control. It takes whole ecosystems to combat a real jellyfish problem.

Here's a review of a book written by Dr. Lisa Gershwin (composer Gershwin's granddaughter, I believe) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/sep/26/jellyfish-theyre-taking-over/?pagination=false [nybooks.com]

Fortunately, humans are adept at obliterating species if they can get a taste for them. Better acquire a taste for them quick.

Re:Hope you like 'em! They'll dominate in a few ye (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45008669)

Just convince the Chinese that they are an aphrodesiac. They'll become an endangered species in no time.

Re:Hope you like 'em! They'll dominate in a few ye (4)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45009035)

Incredible read - thanks for the link.

Re:Hope you like 'em! They'll dominate in a few ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45009791)

Incredible read - thanks for the link.

Seconded. Quite chilling.

I for one welcome ... (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 10 months ago | (#45009259)

Our new radioactive, immortal jellyfish overlords.

Re:Hope you like 'em! They'll dominate in a few ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45009435)

People eat jellyfish. Any Chinese store will have them.

Re:Hope you like 'em! They'll dominate in a few ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010795)

Dr. Lisa Gershwin (composer Gershwin's granddaughter, I believe)

Now it's decomposer Gershwin

Re:Hope you like 'em! They'll dominate in a few ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45011329)

In the end, Mnemiopsis was controlled, and then only partially, by the accidental introduction of another comb jelly. Beroe has tooth-like structures that allow it to eat Mnemiopsis. Only a jellyfish, it seems, can halt a jellyfish invasion.

Gotta fight jelly with jelly.
(Hm, that phrasing just doesn't have the same sting as "fight fire with fire".)

Re:Hope you like 'em! They'll dominate in a few ye (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about 10 months ago | (#45011893)

Holy fucking cow.

Seems REALLY easy to fix (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 10 months ago | (#45008707)

THe issue is the screen before the intake is clogged right?

Okay... what about another screen well away from that one with a much larger surface area...

That fixes the problem right? Right... okay. Do that.

Re:Seems REALLY easy to fix (1)

mirix (1649853) | about 10 months ago | (#45008905)

No, that's all wrong. They need to make the screen sharper.

Then the reactors will be cooled with jellyfish puree. I'd imagine that would have a similar specific heat to water.

Re:Seems REALLY easy to fix (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 10 months ago | (#45008929)

I suspect that would increase maintenance costs.

Re:Seems REALLY easy to fix (1)

blippo (158203) | about 10 months ago | (#45008927)

Well...

As the spot prises go UP when they have to shut down a large part of the total production capacity,
then they may actually make more money from their other plants when that happens.

So there's not exactly any incentives to go check the intake filter too often...

So that's how it's all going to end, jellyfish. (1)

kawabago (551139) | about 10 months ago | (#45008805)

I live 1.3km from salt water. Late in the quiet of the night I hear a distant thrumming, "we're coming we're coming we're coming we're coming......"

Re:So that's how it's all going to end, jellyfish. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#45010267)

Either turn down your radio or up your meds.

Not new (4, Informative)

zmooc (33175) | about 10 months ago | (#45008877)

Re:Not new (2)

Tailhook (98486) | about 10 months ago | (#45010183)

That's what I thought when I read the summary. Water intakes have been getting plugged up with all sorts of schooling critters forever. I've read at least a dozen NRC reports about everything from seaweed to beaver dams interfering with power plants.

Our infrastructure just isn't as fragile as gullible office people seem to wish it were. Jellyfish aren't going to revert us to yurts and hobby farms anytime soon. Sorry.

Re:Not new (4, Insightful)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 10 months ago | (#45010295)

"A quick google comes up with at least 5 similar incidents in 2011 and 2012."

I don't think "not new" means what you think it means.

Re:Not new (0)

zmooc (33175) | about 10 months ago | (#45011487)

Fine. Here a's discussion about similar events in 2005.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=167378 [hockeysfuture.com]

I repeat: this is not new. It's just that the older news - including the article referenced in my link above - has disappeared from the interwebs.

Jellyfish overflow (1)

arf_barf (639612) | about 10 months ago | (#45008933)

The new way breach a datacenter.....

Your "RDA of Useless Knowledge" post for the day: (4, Informative)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about 10 months ago | (#45009017)

It amuses me that the collective noun (you know, like a "pack" of dogs or a "flock" of birds or a "tantrum" of Representatives) for jellyfish is a "smack".

It's like you can just hear them smashing themselves into water intakes. "SMACK!".

We now return this thread to people with more directly relevant things to write.

Re:Your "RDA of Useless Knowledge" post for the da (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45010487)

(you know, like a "pack" of dogs or a "flock" of birds or a "tantrum" of Representatives)

Correction: a collective of Representatives is known as a "shutdown"

Re:Your "RDA of Useless Knowledge" post for the da (1)

gsslay (807818) | about 10 months ago | (#45012321)

90% of collective nouns are made-up bullshit only ever referenced in quizzes and "Did You Know" observations. No-one uses them in actual conversation, ever.

In my book that not only makes them Useless Knowledge, but also Fictional Knowledge.

"almost 9 million gallons" (2)

aliquis (678370) | about 10 months ago | (#45009099)

Not bad for 100 years of service.

Per second?

Who knows.

It will also use 2 liter. Or possibly a library of congress.

Blender blades (1)

backslashdot (95548) | about 10 months ago | (#45009327)

Have a giant fan with blender blades in front of the intakes. It might be cruel though, so that may be a bad idea. Doesn't sound very humane or jellyfishane .. i am sure there are other ways to deter jellyfish.

Re:Blender blades (3, Interesting)

InvalidError (771317) | about 10 months ago | (#45009937)

Considering how much of an invasive species jellyfish are, drastic measures to get rid of them might become necessary and "raw jellyfish in, cooked jellyfish out" might end up not being such a bad thing.

One thing some water treatment plants do is put a conveyor mesh in front of intakes. Jellyfish and other solids get tangled in the mesh, lifted as the mesh rotates, gets scraped off and dumped with solid waste. If they do not care about cleaning up solid waste in the water, they can dump the intake's catch in the return stream.

Slow news/slate nuclear energy day? (1)

Gareth Iwan Fairclough (2831535) | about 10 months ago | (#45009593)

So remind me, how is this news? They would have known about the possibility of this happening from the day the plant was designed.

Fish blocked the intakes? Shut the reactors down.

Wait what?! That's exactly what happened!? Well holy mackerel it worked as intended.

This is a FUD piece designed to sway people from nuclear energy. Nothing more. Does it really belong here on /.?

Turn it down a big ... 1,210 MW ought to be enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45009757)

You could even express it in gigawatts. Are they looking to not have to go 88 MPH or something???

To be fair... (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about 10 months ago | (#45010393)

To be fair, this issue could easily affect any sizable power plant, nuclear or fossil. Giant coal-fired boilers also typically use nearby bodies of water to cool their condensers, same as a nuclear plant. The sensationalist "threat to nuclear plant" bit in the title is a bit overmuch.

WANO SOER (1)

echusarcana (832151) | about 10 months ago | (#45010441)

This was already the subject of a WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators) Significant Operating Event Report a few years ago - something to do with loss of heat sink. All nuclear stations worldwide will have a credible and audited plan to deal with this by now. Jellyfish does make a good headline, though,

The Swarm? (1)

udoschuermann (158146) | about 10 months ago | (#45010471)

Any reports of a blue glow in the deeps?

Old threat (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 10 months ago | (#45010757)

It was a steamship problem and then a coastal coal fired power station problem.

Why not jellyfish cooled? (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about 10 months ago | (#45011089)

Just remove the screens and let em all through; maybe add a macerator. Anyone happen to know offhand the thermal coefficient of jellyfish jelly?

just add reverse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45011113)

Why do they not reverse the in and out pipes? They could make it suck and blow and it would move the jellyfish off the screen.

Re:just add reverse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45011125)

If the turbine is up to speed when they chuck it into reverse that would blow the stuff right off.

1912 Diablo Canyon knocked offline, jellyfish like (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 10 months ago | (#45011239)

A horde of jellyfish-like animals has forced the shutdown of a nuclear power plant in California.
The gelatinous creatures, 2 to 3 inches long, are called sea salp.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2012/04/24/2041453/diablo-canyon-nuclear-reactor.html [sanluisobispo.com]

Sea salp can reproduce sexually and asexually, and "you can have millions in a couple of days," e
http://www.newser.com/story/144935/jellyfish-like-creatures-shut-down-nuclear-plant.html [newser.com]

Actually jelly fish took down a California reactor many years ago but 1912 (the above links) is all the shows.

BT, DT, sort of... (2)

Terje Mathisen (128806) | about 10 months ago | (#45011553)

A few years back we were sailing on my father-in-law's nice sloop when the wind dropped so we had to start the engine.

At the time we were in the middle of the narrow Drøbakssundet sound which all shipping to/from Oslo has to pass through, so we had to get out of the shipping lanes quickly, right?

After just a minute or so the engine choked up, and with a dead calm we had no other option than to declare an emergency and use the VHF to call for assistance from Sea Rescue.

We got towed into harbour and lifted up, then we found that the cooling water intake had got clogged by jellyfish puree. :-(

Terje

Will it blend ? What about cooling with jellymilk? (1)

advid.net (595837) | about 10 months ago | (#45011715)

There's so much water in those jellyfish that they can be processed through a mixer / blender to make a jellymilk.
The cooling pumps and tubes could be adapted to this fluid a little bit thicker than water.

I thought nuclear never went out..? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45011785)

Surely this must be fabricated! Nuclear is the ONLY solution to baseload I'm told at every turn and that renewables will NEVER manage to power people's needs because it goes out occasionally if there's no wind over the entire globe or somthing.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...