Nuclear Plants: What happens when earthquakes threaten?

I believe that nuclear power plants need to be part of the mix of electrical generation options for our future.  The challenge is in understanding the hazards that might impact them and then measuring those risks against the benefits.  This is especially true with new power plants, but what do you do when you have established facilities in operation and you learn more about the hazards than were known when they were built in the first place?

 

This is the issue addressed in a three part article on Preparing Hanford for a major earthquake  I'm quoted in the third installment talking about the fact that there are other risks to be considered, especially when you are located in one of the most contaminated places here in the United States.  We really don't know a great deal about the seismic hazards here in this country.  We are a relatively new nation and we don't have  long history that records the number and types of events that have been experienced here hundreds of years ago.

 

One of my other concerns is about the regulators of these facilities.  They have an interest in the plants staying in operation and many of their staff will have come from the industry in the first place.  It makes me think of the Gulf Oil Spill and the too cozy relationship that had developed over time between the industry and the operators.  If you are a regulator and are reading this, remember your first allegiance is to the citizens who you are supposed to be protecting. 

 

Lastly, check out this map of the world for where nuclear plants are by nation and the percentage of power that is provided via the nuclear option.  France has a very high percentage of their power coming via nuclear energy.