SHIPPINGPORT -- Chesapeake Energy has a permit for hydraulic fracking just one mile from the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station in Shippingport. Whether that is cause for alarm, experts can’t say. http://www.timesonline.com/permit-t...cle_12b10f0b-6b5b-5045-aaf8-582260c9fa80.html Earthquakes triggered by fluids injected deep underground, such as during the controversial practice of fracking, may be more common than previously thought, a new study suggests. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/fracking-earthquake-conne_n_1752414.html
I'm not against fracking or drilling, just not sure how smart it is to do next to a nuclear power plant that was built in 1976.
Article first appeared on Livescience.com and was reposted by Huffpost - http://www.livescience.com/22151-fracking-earthquakes-fluid-injection.html
HuffPost has an agenda. None of these minor tremors are big enough for a human being to notice. I'm quite sure that a nuclear power plant is built to a specification that it should trivially withstand an earthquake much larger. In fact, http://www.energydigger.com/articles/2011-08-23/no-problems-at-beaver-valley-nuclear-plant.aspx
Ask New York City. It's 50 miles away from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center
Dammit sly. I clicked on this thread thinking it was about a mrs. hcp gangbang. Way to ruin my Friday:-(
Seems logical to make a permit contingent upon a) all of Chesapeake Energy's reactors (if they have any) being certified for completion of all Planned Maintenance and previous Corrective Actions and b) same at all plants in the vicinity (whether CE owns them or not). I mean, the Port of Seattle had to go through years of environmental studies, soundproofing neighborhoods' worth of windows, and ensuring adjacent wetlands habitat drainage and survival before just building a 3rd runway at SeaTac. For setting up an operation that has a decent chance of causing geological and/or seismic action a mile from a near-end-of-life nuclear plant? You're inviting trouble if you skimp on it. Isn't this was zoning and permits are for?
So you're saying that this probably isn't the smartest thing to do? Because Denny doesn't have a problem with this.
I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that most commercial plants are designed to withstand a direct, large-scale quake (some designs had to be a 6.0, some 7.0, iirc--I don't know the NRC specs for all the different years and sites). But as was written about in the "Die a painful death" thread, some inspectors have been sloughing off on their inspection rigidness, or not reporting all the things they find, or not ensuring that problems are fixed, etc. and the plants haven't been held accountable to fix those things. IF the plants are in normal, functioning order, then I don't have a problem with this based on current info. If not, you're inviting a problem. I'll put it this way. If the pilot of your JetBlue flight finds a screw missing during his preflight walk-around, he doesn't fly it until it's fixed. Doesn't matter if it's holding the spare landing gear tire or fastening the engine to the wing, it gets fixed before he flies. You don't mess around with suboptimal conditions.
