Perhaps the only time you'll be happy to see a nuclear cooling tower explode.
May 22, 2006 3:23 PM Subscribe
Over the weekend Oregon's Portaland General Electric demolished the decomissioned Trojan Nuclear Plant's 499ft cooling tower using 1.3 tons of TNT. Plenty of implosion pr0n is all that remains. Oh, and the containment dome, a bunch of rods with no home, some asbestos, but the tower, man, that's gone.
Arranging explosives such that when they explode a building collapses in on itself is not an implosion. That's simply arranging explosives around a building such that when they explode the building collapses in on itself. An implosion has a very precise scientific definition.
Buildings are colloquially, though mistakenly, described to implode when demolished through explosives, causing them to collapse on themselves.
posted by ChasFile at 3:46 PM on May 22, 2006
Buildings are colloquially, though mistakenly, described to implode when demolished through explosives, causing them to collapse on themselves.
posted by ChasFile at 3:46 PM on May 22, 2006
I few months ago I bought on eBay a circuit board holder that turned out to have a sticker indicating it was once used at the Trojan plant. I wonder if the thing is contaminated.
posted by exogenous at 3:55 PM on May 22, 2006
posted by exogenous at 3:55 PM on May 22, 2006
The Trojan tower was a PDX landmark, the kind that bands get photographed in front of.
posted by dw at 4:11 PM on May 22, 2006
posted by dw at 4:11 PM on May 22, 2006
Trojan was an awesome place to visit as a kid. I lived in Longview, WA for a bit and we'd go visit my Grandpa in Portland. Often times we'd stop along at Trojan and have a picnic and go into the visitor area.
There were all sorts of neat interactive displays about nuclear power. I learned quite a bit there and I suspect that was one of the big reasons I wanted to study nuclear physics in college. As it turned out, I didn't care for the physics faculty where I went, but nonetheless, my interest in atomic and subatomic physics remains.
Its a shame that nuclear power had all the problems that it did (especially at Trojan). From an 8 year old geeks perspective back in the early 80's, it was like living in the future.
Sadly, the memor and remaining public debt associated with Trojan means that nuclear power will have a very tough time gaining acceptance in the Northwest any time soon. So its with a bittersweet feeling that we bid Trojan adieu.
posted by afflatus at 4:29 PM on May 22, 2006
There were all sorts of neat interactive displays about nuclear power. I learned quite a bit there and I suspect that was one of the big reasons I wanted to study nuclear physics in college. As it turned out, I didn't care for the physics faculty where I went, but nonetheless, my interest in atomic and subatomic physics remains.
Its a shame that nuclear power had all the problems that it did (especially at Trojan). From an 8 year old geeks perspective back in the early 80's, it was like living in the future.
Sadly, the memor and remaining public debt associated with Trojan means that nuclear power will have a very tough time gaining acceptance in the Northwest any time soon. So its with a bittersweet feeling that we bid Trojan adieu.
posted by afflatus at 4:29 PM on May 22, 2006
PDX Flickr Group takes an early morning trip to the Trojan Explosion.
posted by mnology at 4:34 PM on May 22, 2006
posted by mnology at 4:34 PM on May 22, 2006
Aside; I've never understood why some Portlanders refer to the city by its airport code. It seems to be more common among newer arrivals. In any event I don't know of any other city where that's common.. Perhaps it's to distinguish it from Portland, Maine, but I doubt it, since few people who didn't know what city you were talking about to begin with are likely to recognize its airport code.
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:43 PM on May 22, 2006
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:43 PM on May 22, 2006
My good friend lives across the river from the (now ex-)tower. She had a morning destruction party as she's got a wonderful view. I'll ask her about it this evening...
posted by Parannoyed at 4:52 PM on May 22, 2006
posted by Parannoyed at 4:52 PM on May 22, 2006
I've always liked cooling towers. Just a gorgeous, simple, imposing structure. In a thousand years, after the apocalypse, I think they'd be among the most totemic things around in the eyes of the primitive agrarians living in our ashes.
I was so excited* about the Trojan Implosion, I wrote a song. [Self-link, natch.] If someone were bored, they might grab implosion footage and get their ytmnd on.
*it was such a slow news day
posted by cortex at 5:07 PM on May 22, 2006
I was so excited* about the Trojan Implosion, I wrote a song. [Self-link, natch.] If someone were bored, they might grab implosion footage and get their ytmnd on.
*it was such a slow news day
posted by cortex at 5:07 PM on May 22, 2006
Ha, ChasFile actually cited Wikipedia as a source. Did that page used to say what you quoted? (And I SWEAR it wasn't me who changed it.)
posted by smackfu at 5:08 PM on May 22, 2006
posted by smackfu at 5:08 PM on May 22, 2006
(Confidential to George_Spiggot—I think we just think it sounds cool. It's fun to say, for one thing: "pee dee ecks!")
posted by cortex at 5:08 PM on May 22, 2006
posted by cortex at 5:08 PM on May 22, 2006
Aside; I've never understood why some Portlanders refer to the city by its airport code.
Good question. When I moved here 13 years ago, that's what everyone else was doing, so I figured, when in Rome... and haven't given it much thought since.
/derail
posted by pieisexactlythree at 5:14 PM on May 22, 2006
Good question. When I moved here 13 years ago, that's what everyone else was doing, so I figured, when in Rome... and haven't given it much thought since.
/derail
posted by pieisexactlythree at 5:14 PM on May 22, 2006
"I've never understood why some Portlanders refer to the city by its airport code. ... In any event I don't know of any other city where that's common.. Perhaps it's to distinguish it from Portland, Maine, but I doubt it, since few people who didn't know what city you were talking about to begin with are likely to recognize its airport code."
I'll agree that it is strange how we Portlanders refer to the city by its airport code. You wanna know what I think is even more strange though? The Phoenix Suns using their airport code in their logo on their center court.
It's one thing to call yourself by your airport code. At least both have one of those "extreme" exes in them. It's another to use one in a graphic or a logo.
p.s. Go Clips!
posted by pwb503 at 5:29 PM on May 22, 2006
I'll agree that it is strange how we Portlanders refer to the city by its airport code. You wanna know what I think is even more strange though? The Phoenix Suns using their airport code in their logo on their center court.
It's one thing to call yourself by your airport code. At least both have one of those "extreme" exes in them. It's another to use one in a graphic or a logo.
p.s. Go Clips!
posted by pwb503 at 5:29 PM on May 22, 2006
Aside; I've never understood why some Portlanders refer to the city by its airport code.
I think Seattleites do it because it's a little derogatory to refer to a city by its airport code, as if there's nothing else there.
posted by dw at 5:35 PM on May 22, 2006
I think Seattleites do it because it's a little derogatory to refer to a city by its airport code, as if there's nothing else there.
posted by dw at 5:35 PM on May 22, 2006
Hmm. I'm Portland born and raised and I use PDX quite often. I might be an outlyer, though. I suspect it all started for me with the PDXBBS*.txt listings. Good times.
posted by Skwirl at 5:40 PM on May 22, 2006
posted by Skwirl at 5:40 PM on May 22, 2006
You wanna know what I think is even more strange though? The Phoenix Suns using their airport code in their logo on their center court.
At least the letters P, H and X are actually in the name of the city, unlike PDX.
p.s. Go Clips!
Your favorite team sucks! Go Suns!
posted by mullacc at 5:53 PM on May 22, 2006
At least the letters P, H and X are actually in the name of the city, unlike PDX.
p.s. Go Clips!
Your favorite team sucks! Go Suns!
posted by mullacc at 5:53 PM on May 22, 2006
Man, I was just there last summer, canoeing down the Columbia. It was beautiful and haunting, seeing this old, abandoned nuclear station with all of its vintage signs and strangely shaped buildings and weird old pipes sticking out. I love solid, industrial history, especially when it's surrounded by nature. The hard cliffs and the tiny little beaches on the island that the nuclear station was on made it all just perfect.
I'm sad that it's gone, but at least it was well-documented. Sheesh.
posted by blacklite at 6:59 PM on May 22, 2006
I'm sad that it's gone, but at least it was well-documented. Sheesh.
posted by blacklite at 6:59 PM on May 22, 2006
I enjoyed the "Arial" view.
I wish they had a Bodoni DemiBold view, though.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:00 PM on May 22, 2006
I wish they had a Bodoni DemiBold view, though.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:00 PM on May 22, 2006
Also, I understand using PDX occasionally for Portland because it's a cool set of letters. And it makes Portland seem all high-tech and futuristic. Which, you know, it could claim to be at times; there's a large Intel-employed population there.
There aren't any Canadian cities that do that, as far as I know, but Vancouver International refers to itself as 'YVR' in all of its PR material. It seems to work for them. And of course we can't forget that Rush has a song named YYZ. (Toronto!)
/threadhijack
posted by blacklite at 7:03 PM on May 22, 2006
There aren't any Canadian cities that do that, as far as I know, but Vancouver International refers to itself as 'YVR' in all of its PR material. It seems to work for them. And of course we can't forget that Rush has a song named YYZ. (Toronto!)
/threadhijack
posted by blacklite at 7:03 PM on May 22, 2006
I'm sad that it's gone, but at least it was well-documented. Sheesh.
blacklite, if you want local nuclear legacy that really lasts, just head upstream a bit (okay, about 2/3rds of a stateful) to Hanford. Admittedly that's a lot of paddlin' so instead you could just wait for it to come to you.
[On preview, I assumed, incorrectly, you were in Portland]
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:11 PM on May 22, 2006
blacklite, if you want local nuclear legacy that really lasts, just head upstream a bit (okay, about 2/3rds of a stateful) to Hanford. Admittedly that's a lot of paddlin' so instead you could just wait for it to come to you.
[On preview, I assumed, incorrectly, you were in Portland]
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:11 PM on May 22, 2006
The local paper did a great job covering the demolition -- from the time it was announced through to the end. The paper -- The Daily News (which at one point one a Pulitzer Prize and this year swept a Washington state journalism contest) -- also explained the politics, science and cultural myths behind the cooling tower and Trojan power plant, and provided public space for people to talk about the event.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 7:36 PM on May 22, 2006
posted by croutonsupafreak at 7:36 PM on May 22, 2006
The cooling tower never contained any radioactive materials. While the plant was operating, from 1976 to its shutdown in 1993, nuclear fission reactions took place in a dome-topped containment building next to the cooling tower. Heat from the fission turned water into steam, and this steam turned turbines to generate power.
The nonradioactive steam was then channeled into the hollow cooling tower, where it would circulate until it cooled back into water.
The containment building was cleared of all nuclear materials by May 2005, when Trojan was officially certified as decommissioned, and it should be demolished by late 2008, Fryburg said.
Now all the remaining radioactive materials from the power plant are stored in 26-inch-thick concrete and steel casks in a safe location on the 643-acre Trojan campus, Fryburg said. It's unclear when they'll be removed.
The waste is currently scheduled to be shipped to a nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., in 2024, Fryburg said. But a political battle in full swing surrounds nuclear storage issues at Yucca Mountain, and it's unclear when -- or whether -- the federal government ever will authorize Trojan materials to be shipped to the site.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 7:39 PM on May 22, 2006
The nonradioactive steam was then channeled into the hollow cooling tower, where it would circulate until it cooled back into water.
The containment building was cleared of all nuclear materials by May 2005, when Trojan was officially certified as decommissioned, and it should be demolished by late 2008, Fryburg said.
Now all the remaining radioactive materials from the power plant are stored in 26-inch-thick concrete and steel casks in a safe location on the 643-acre Trojan campus, Fryburg said. It's unclear when they'll be removed.
The waste is currently scheduled to be shipped to a nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., in 2024, Fryburg said. But a political battle in full swing surrounds nuclear storage issues at Yucca Mountain, and it's unclear when -- or whether -- the federal government ever will authorize Trojan materials to be shipped to the site.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 7:39 PM on May 22, 2006
Say it ain't so, Homer!
As the Lower Columbia region readies for the May 21 implosion of the Trojan Nuclear Plant's cooling tower, a long held-belief about its brush with television fame may crumble along with it.
Many -- in the region and throughout the Internet -- have long claimed that Trojan was the inspiration for the nuclear power plant where Homer Simpson munches donuts and naps while he's supposed to be monitoring control panels.
The tale makes sense, because the show's creator, Matt Groening, grew up in Portland, less than an hour away from the cooling tower that dominates the landscape along Interstate 5. There are several other Portland or Oregon references in "The Simpsons," so why not Oregon's only nuclear plant?
Debunking the Springfield myth?
posted by croutonsupafreak at 7:41 PM on May 22, 2006
As the Lower Columbia region readies for the May 21 implosion of the Trojan Nuclear Plant's cooling tower, a long held-belief about its brush with television fame may crumble along with it.
Many -- in the region and throughout the Internet -- have long claimed that Trojan was the inspiration for the nuclear power plant where Homer Simpson munches donuts and naps while he's supposed to be monitoring control panels.
The tale makes sense, because the show's creator, Matt Groening, grew up in Portland, less than an hour away from the cooling tower that dominates the landscape along Interstate 5. There are several other Portland or Oregon references in "The Simpsons," so why not Oregon's only nuclear plant?
Debunking the Springfield myth?
posted by croutonsupafreak at 7:41 PM on May 22, 2006
That was awesome.
But there is no explosion that beats this one.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:11 PM on May 22, 2006
But there is no explosion that beats this one.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:11 PM on May 22, 2006
Oh, right. Reactors.
My smart friend John is a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor design, because it's (a) passively safe (b) designed to reuse as fuel what would end up as high level waste with other designs (c) extract 99% of the available energy from the fuel instead of 1% (d) make the fuel reprocessing task simple enough to be done on-site (e) run on fuel that's so much lower-grade than weapons-grade as to draw a very big distinction between a reactor fuel production program and a weapons production program, thus making it implausible for governments to claim their weapons-grade fuel production facility is actually intended for peaceful uses.
His arguments are pretty good, and if my available options for Things To Support were restricted to nuclear power plants, I'd support IFR's. But I don't expect to see them deployed in my lifetime, because of a combination of basic economics and point (e).
Nuclear power generators are already so expensive, and offer such a poor return on investment, that they have no private-enterprise customers; the only organizations currently contemplating ordering new reactors are governments. I can't think of a single government that would want to miss out on a plausibly deniable weapons production program.
Energy efficiency is where we have to go. It's cheaper than nukes, easier than nukes, will make more profit for more people than nukes, and will help rather than hinder the process of cutting over to sustainable, renewable energy sources.
posted by flabdablet at 11:19 PM on May 22, 2006
My smart friend John is a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor design, because it's (a) passively safe (b) designed to reuse as fuel what would end up as high level waste with other designs (c) extract 99% of the available energy from the fuel instead of 1% (d) make the fuel reprocessing task simple enough to be done on-site (e) run on fuel that's so much lower-grade than weapons-grade as to draw a very big distinction between a reactor fuel production program and a weapons production program, thus making it implausible for governments to claim their weapons-grade fuel production facility is actually intended for peaceful uses.
His arguments are pretty good, and if my available options for Things To Support were restricted to nuclear power plants, I'd support IFR's. But I don't expect to see them deployed in my lifetime, because of a combination of basic economics and point (e).
Nuclear power generators are already so expensive, and offer such a poor return on investment, that they have no private-enterprise customers; the only organizations currently contemplating ordering new reactors are governments. I can't think of a single government that would want to miss out on a plausibly deniable weapons production program.
Energy efficiency is where we have to go. It's cheaper than nukes, easier than nukes, will make more profit for more people than nukes, and will help rather than hinder the process of cutting over to sustainable, renewable energy sources.
posted by flabdablet at 11:19 PM on May 22, 2006
Chernobyl was by far the worst nuclear disaster, and it killed a tiny number of people directly. With respect to indirect deaths - how many deaths have there been due to oil and coal power?
I simply cannot grasp the comparison. This, to me, is like saying, "Well, to be fair, nuclear weapons have only killed ~340,000 in the last century, which pales in comparison to the millions killed by small arms in that same time frame, so why not always use nuclear weapons?"
I'm not trying to set up a straw man here, but I'd sooner my fellow humans be nickle-and-dimed by mining disasters than have "mismanagement" result in 350,000 people relocated out of a 30km exclusion zone, a massive radioactive cloud falling over most of eastern Europe, and a statistically significant rise in horrific birth defects across the affected area.
posted by quite unimportant at 1:39 AM on May 23, 2006
I simply cannot grasp the comparison. This, to me, is like saying, "Well, to be fair, nuclear weapons have only killed ~340,000 in the last century, which pales in comparison to the millions killed by small arms in that same time frame, so why not always use nuclear weapons?"
I'm not trying to set up a straw man here, but I'd sooner my fellow humans be nickle-and-dimed by mining disasters than have "mismanagement" result in 350,000 people relocated out of a 30km exclusion zone, a massive radioactive cloud falling over most of eastern Europe, and a statistically significant rise in horrific birth defects across the affected area.
posted by quite unimportant at 1:39 AM on May 23, 2006
Does Ontario still plan on decommissioning all of its coal power plants? I've been a bit out of touch with local news since I moved away.
Oh, and cool building implosion. I love that shit.
posted by antifuse at 1:40 AM on May 23, 2006
Oh, and cool building implosion. I love that shit.
posted by antifuse at 1:40 AM on May 23, 2006
Hold up... here they contradict themselves - were the blasting caps non-electric or not?
posted by Tzarius at 2:50 AM on May 23, 2006
posted by Tzarius at 2:50 AM on May 23, 2006
I always thought they should fill it with soil and plant a giant Douglas Fir in it, with a sign that said "Welcome to Oregon". No matter what they do with it, leaving all that concrete in place will eventually make a strange soil type for that area, so there will probably be some kind of biological marker there for a long time anyway. Still... the state tree woulda been nice.
posted by primdehuit at 12:00 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by primdehuit at 12:00 PM on May 23, 2006
The problem of nuclear power remains the resultant radioactive waste. So the technology is still incomplete.
posted by Cranberry at 1:08 PM on May 23, 2006
posted by Cranberry at 1:08 PM on May 23, 2006
b1tr0t: you and I both agree that reducing greenhouse gas emission is something that needs urgent action. My argument is that what you're apparently proposing - replacing coal-fired power generators with nukes - is too little, too late.
It takes ten to fifteen years and a tremendous amount of capital to move a new nuclear plant from planning to lights-on. During those years, the construction of the plant is responsible for a net increase in greenhouse emissions. It doesn't start cutting emissions until the coal-fired plants it's replacing are decomissioned; which, absent any real push toward energy efficiency, may well be never.
By contrast, spending the same amount of capital on energy efficiency measures buys us at least five times as much greenhouse reduction, starting right away; and the fact that efficiency measures represent a lowering of energy demand makes that demand easier to fulfil with fully renewable power sources in future.
You could perhaps argue that it's not an either-or choice: we should be embracing energy efficiency as well as replacing fossil fuels with nukes. I would agree that we need to be replacing fossil fuels; but it seems to me that we need to be doing that as quickly as possible which means spending as much as we can on those measures that will reduce emissions as fast as possible. It's my considered opinion that (a) the economics of nukes mean that they don't fit that bill (b) the market agrees - the installed capacity of renewable generation methods is growing faster than that of any other energy-generation method (c) once we're running fully renewable generation we won't need nukes.
Yes, I *could* reduce my personal greenhouse emissions by giving up my little car and walking to work backwards on my hands in a Troy Hurtubise bear-fighting suit; but regardless of how cool a technology that bear suit is, a bicycle is cheaper and works better.
You really ought to track down a copy of Amory Lovins's book "Soft Energy Paths". If nothing else, it's a good starting point to move away from emotive hand-waving toward solid thinking based on real numbers.
posted by flabdablet at 5:42 PM on May 23, 2006
It takes ten to fifteen years and a tremendous amount of capital to move a new nuclear plant from planning to lights-on. During those years, the construction of the plant is responsible for a net increase in greenhouse emissions. It doesn't start cutting emissions until the coal-fired plants it's replacing are decomissioned; which, absent any real push toward energy efficiency, may well be never.
By contrast, spending the same amount of capital on energy efficiency measures buys us at least five times as much greenhouse reduction, starting right away; and the fact that efficiency measures represent a lowering of energy demand makes that demand easier to fulfil with fully renewable power sources in future.
You could perhaps argue that it's not an either-or choice: we should be embracing energy efficiency as well as replacing fossil fuels with nukes. I would agree that we need to be replacing fossil fuels; but it seems to me that we need to be doing that as quickly as possible which means spending as much as we can on those measures that will reduce emissions as fast as possible. It's my considered opinion that (a) the economics of nukes mean that they don't fit that bill (b) the market agrees - the installed capacity of renewable generation methods is growing faster than that of any other energy-generation method (c) once we're running fully renewable generation we won't need nukes.
Yes, I *could* reduce my personal greenhouse emissions by giving up my little car and walking to work backwards on my hands in a Troy Hurtubise bear-fighting suit; but regardless of how cool a technology that bear suit is, a bicycle is cheaper and works better.
You really ought to track down a copy of Amory Lovins's book "Soft Energy Paths". If nothing else, it's a good starting point to move away from emotive hand-waving toward solid thinking based on real numbers.
posted by flabdablet at 5:42 PM on May 23, 2006
I don't think that aggressively eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with nuclear or (even better) non-polluting 'renewable' energy is "too little, too late." If we take that as our motto, then why bother implementing any new or existing but underutilized alternative to fossil fuels?
Electric vehicles and clean, relatively affordable small scale user owned solar / wind rigs are already widely available. Diesel semi trucks and trains could be phased out or converted to biodiesel. This would cost a lot of money, and would leave a bunch of people without jobs, but maybe for once the fucking economy has to take a back seat to more important matters.
If we spent the kind of money on the development and infrastructure of these kinds of alternatives that we do on Iraq and the war on tara (poor chick) we could already be much of the way there.
posted by Sukiari at 7:01 PM on May 24, 2006
Electric vehicles and clean, relatively affordable small scale user owned solar / wind rigs are already widely available. Diesel semi trucks and trains could be phased out or converted to biodiesel. This would cost a lot of money, and would leave a bunch of people without jobs, but maybe for once the fucking economy has to take a back seat to more important matters.
If we spent the kind of money on the development and infrastructure of these kinds of alternatives that we do on Iraq and the war on tara (poor chick) we could already be much of the way there.
posted by Sukiari at 7:01 PM on May 24, 2006
By the way wind power here in Oregon is really growing. Most of the equipment is made here in Oregon as well which benefits the local economy more than imported petrochemicals and Virginia coal.
posted by Sukiari at 7:04 PM on May 24, 2006
posted by Sukiari at 7:04 PM on May 24, 2006
« Older Promoted Above Accountability | Debunking Jet Blast? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pieisexactlythree at 3:33 PM on May 22, 2006