Solar flares greater nuclear power plant risk than quakes, tsunamis

[mooncliff]

Solar flares happen all the time, but mostly they are not aimed at us, so we barely notice.

However, once in a few hundred years, one is aimed directly at us, and the next time a big one is aimed at Earth, within 1 to 3 days, we would have many of the electrical grids knocked out, some possibly for a very very long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...rringtonflare/


A report by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory said that over the standard 40-year license term of nuclear power plants, solar flare activity enables a 33 percent chance of long-term power loss, a risk that significantly outweighs that of major earthquakes and tsunamis.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1941...gton-event.htm

[c1ue]

Re: Solar flares greater nuclear power plant risk than quakes, tsunamis

A report by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory said that over the standard 40-year license term of nuclear power plants, solar flare activity enables a 33 percent chance of long-term power loss, a risk that significantly outweighs that of major earthquakes and tsunamis.

Yes, but unless said solar flare can destroy the nuclear plant's existing generation capacity as well as backup diesel generators, it is quite unclear why this would introduce any particularly high level of danger to nuclear power plants.

It is loss of power combined with cessation of operation which is dangerous; a flare would introduce the former but I don't see how it would cause the latter.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Solar flares greater nuclear power plant risk than quakes, tsunamis

Might I suggest that a major solar flare that would light-up the night and send the northern lights as far south as the Caribbean Sea ( < 20 N ) in the Northern Hemisphere and to a similar low latitude ( < 20 S ) for the southern lights in the Southern Hemisphere, that such a super-flare would expose the Earth and humanity to more ionizing radiation than any melt-down of an atomic reactor ever could. Yet, such a super-flare as was observed on Earth as the 1859 Carrington super-flare event did not produce any major and observable ill effects for any living-thing on this planet.

Need I say more about ionizing radiation? Life on Earth has evolved to tolerate massive doses of radiation of all types, even ionizing radiation, otherwise life would have disappeared on this planet eons ago.

No issues are ever "settled" in science, no issues can be; but the evidence of innate radiation tolerance in all living-things is compelling.

[D-Mack]

Re: Solar flares greater nuclear power plant risk than quakes, tsunamis




We had an explosion in our power grid (at a local substation, which lead to shutdowns of a dozen connected substations) a couple of months ago, some speculated it was a solar flare from the day before. The power was gone not even for an hour, they rerouted it.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Solar flares greater nuclear power plant risk than quakes, tsunamis

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1944...earth-noaa.htm

August 8, 2011 1:37 PM EDT

Three large explosions from the sun over the past few days have prompted U.S. government scientists to caution users of satellite, telecommunications and electric equipment to prepare for possible disruptions over the next few days.

With solar activity expected to peak around 2013, the sun is entering a particularly active time and large flares like recent one will likely be common during the next few years.

"The magnetic storm that is soon to develop probably will be in the moderate to strong level," Joseph Kunches, a scientist at MOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center, told Reuters.

The NOAA predicted four "extreme" solar emissions which could threaten the planet this decade.

Similarly, NASA warned that a peak in the sun's magnetic energy cycle and the number of sun spots or flares around 2013 could produce extremely high radiation levels.

...Last month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said U.S. plants affected by a blackout should be able to cope without electricity for at least eight hours and should have procedures to keep the reactor and spent-fuel pool cool for 72 hours.

[mooncliff]

Re: Solar flares greater nuclear power plant risk than quakes, tsunamis

That flare was nothing special. Read about The Carrington Event. For a few minutes, the brightness of the Sun doubled.

The aurora borealis moved as far south as Honolulu and Havana.

When something like that happens again, since we just can't bring ourselves to spend the pittance it would take to shield the most vulnerable parts of the electrical infrastructure, we could lose electricity in places for months. If that seems to be an exaggeration, a few years ago when there was a moderated quake in Hawaii, if the electrical generators on Oahu had been damaged, it would have taken a month to replace them. The island would essentially be blacked out for a month. The back up generators to pump water are only designed to last for a week. You can live without electricity, but not without water. Now, imagine if this happened not just in one city, but in many cities across the entire northern and southern hemisphere. It would take months or years to repair the damage.

These flares happen all the time, but since they are usually not aimed at Earth, we pay them no mind.

The last serious quake in Honolulu was about the same time, about 150 years ago, and damaged every building in the city. But it, like the flare, is out of living memory, so no one pays much attention to it.

[don]

Re: Solar flares greater nuclear power plant risk than quakes, tsunamis

pegging the meter . . .

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medial...lfspdH.264.mov

[astonas]

Re: Solar flares greater nuclear power plant risk than quakes, tsunamis

Might I suggest that a major solar flare that would light-up the night and send the northern lights as far south as the Caribbean Sea ( < 20 N ) in the Northern Hemisphere and to a similar low latitude ( < 20 S ) for the southern lights in the Southern Hemisphere, that such a super-flare would expose the Earth and humanity to more ionizing radiation than any melt-down of an atomic reactor ever could.

You may certainly suggest this, but I'm wondering on what grounds it would be believable? The very existence of the Northern Lights demonstrates that the Van Allen belt is capturing a significant portion of the solar wind before it arrives at the earth's surface. The fact that enough additional charged particles enter the Van Allen belt to shift its visibility is not in any way evidence that a greater percentage of these make it to the surface. While a solar flare will of course increase incident ionizing radiation, the proper way to place to assess the danger is on the earth's surface. Do you have anything to back up the idea that "such a super-flare would expose the Earth and humanity to more ionizing radiation than any melt-down of an atomic reactor ever could."?