Now, I wasn't aware this was a concern. In afterthought it makes sense that nuclear in relation to earthquakes would become a topic after Fukushima. So, I did some research.
First: fault lines are areas of increased earthquake activity, due to movements of the earth's upper crust (which "floats" on the earth's mantle). When separate pieces of the "crust" smashes into each-other, earthquakes result. To get an idea of where major fault lines are in the USA, take a look at this map:
Second: we want to know how many reactors are in fault areas. So, let's superimpose the reactors:
Right off the bat, we can see that the majority of reactors are built in areas with moderate or low earthquake risk. However, there are some plants of particular concern, from this source:
Two reactors at Diablo Canyon, (near the town of San Luis Obispo, CA) are 3 miles from the Hosgri Fault line and about half a mile from an offshore fault line scientists discovered in 2008.
Two reactors at San Onofre (next to Interstate 5 between Los Angeles and San Diego, CA) are 5 miles from the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault.
Two reactors at the Indian Point, NY nuclear power plant are one mile from a recently-discovered intersection of two active fault lines. Close to 10 million people live within 25 miles of the Indian Point facility.
These plants also have the added danger of being coastal, meaning that in addition to the earth shake, Tsunamis are feasible.
I'll talk about what the industry does to protect against earthquakes in my next post.
With near 100 nuclear reactors in the US, I'm actually surprised that this is an argument since 6% is far from "majority". I'm looking forward to learning more about how plants prepare for earthquakes. I know quite a bit about coastal plants and near nothing about earthquakes.
ReplyDeleteVery cool - I'm glad that we are smart enough to build them not so close to dangerous faults. In theory, the coastal plants in 'danger' of an earthquake/tsunami combo meal would be able to withstand the stresses seen. Also, the figures suggest an eastward tendency for reactor siting - can you account for this, Florian?
ReplyDeleteThe eastward trend comes from the population of the USA being more concentrated in the east and less in middle America. If you take a peek at a population map, you can see the correlation pretty quickly.
DeleteThis post did a great job of getting me interested to see what you are going to write next about how those few reactors near fault lines are protected from earthquake accidents. I also really like that map showing the reactors and the fault lines. The overwhelming view of this graph is that most reactors are not in areas near fault lines. I wouldn't even say "a lot."
ReplyDeleteCertainty the majority of US reactors are at minimal risk damage from a seismic event. The worst case would involve tsunamis, and those are restricted to the coastal regions.
DeleteI would also agree that from your research it does not seem that a lot of reactors are on fault lines. This does seem relatively safe. However I guess there are some reactors in places with moderate activity and letting even one more Fukushima happen would be a failure of our nation. Got to read through your next post.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this post! Most Americans think of California as the only place where earthquakes occur, but in reality there are many places along the Appalachian mountain range where there is a high probability of earthquakes. This is why you can see a higher hazard of earthquakes around the Tennessee area on your maps.
ReplyDelete