homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Nuclear power stations (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Nuclear power stations
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What you believe is not the point here; the point is whether you can back up your assertions that a) Scottish nuclear power stations are in effect somehow home-grown b) "more successful" than English ones. If you can't back that up, you are free to declare it all you like but people are unlikely to take you seriously.

[ETA in response to Lilac]

[ 10. February 2014, 20:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lilac

This is a discussion forum. You can be as critical as you like about Alan Cresswell's posts. You do not get to speculate about his RL motivations for doing his RL job. That is ignoring Purgatory Guideline 3. Stick to the point! Do not wander off into social banter. Which certainly includes baseless speculation about the RL motives of one of your Shipmates.

Next failure to observe one of the Purg Guidelines or the 10Cs gets you a formal warning. Please refresh your understanding of the rules and guidelines you signed up to when you joined the Ship.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086

 - Posted      Profile for Hairy Biker   Email Hairy Biker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
Anyway, I got to wondering why Alan Cresswell doesn't seem to share many people's antipathy towards nuclear power.

I got the impression from this discussion so far that there is little antipathy left these days. My own opinions were formed in the 1970s and haven't really been updated or properly researched since then. The fact I'm a lone voice here seems to suggest that the world has moved on. In fact, in googling some of my points here I came across an article saying that even Friends of the Earth were dropping their opposition to nuclear power. (but I can't find the story now - it was 2010 if I remember rightly)

--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst

Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan, will this work?

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Synroc certainly seems to work, and does compress the radioactive material substantially - if not to the extent of the process to which you linked. An advantage of synroc is that it simplifies disposal of otherwise dangerous material.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Vitrification has been something that has been looked at for a long time. Like all long term waste storage approaches it suffers from the problem that it claims to be able to hold nuclear waste in a safe manner for 100,000 years or so ... how do you prove those claims? The biggest problem is that if it works as well as claimed it will make it very difficult to access what will in the future be very valuable material if we continue to utilise uranium and plutonium fission reactions to generate electricity. It'll only be a century or two and reserves of uranium will become sufficiently depleted that accessing the fissionable material in irradiated fuel will be very attractive.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086

 - Posted      Profile for Hairy Biker   Email Hairy Biker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll only be a century or two and reserves of uranium will become sufficiently depleted that accessing the fissionable material in irradiated fuel will be very attractive.

So nuclear power is unsustainable?
[Biased]

--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst

Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lilac
Shipmate
# 17979

 - Posted      Profile for Lilac   Email Lilac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Getting back to the MI5 investigation, as far as I could discover, the company involved had been conducting work in the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston while simultaneously maintaining a branch in Moscow. Following that their profitability declined and they were taken over by another organization. I'm not trying to run a personal crusade, but I believe Nuclear Power Stations should be built by people with some common sense.

--------------------
Seeking...

Posts: 62 | From: Birmingham / Coventry Area, UK | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lilac, do you have any links to all this stuff you're talking about or are we going to have to take your completely unsubstantiated word for it?

I only ask because this is the internet, where frankly most people generally need two reliable links to reputable sources before they'll believe someone who says Monday follows the weekend...

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll only be a century or two and reserves of uranium will become sufficiently depleted that accessing the fissionable material in irradiated fuel will be very attractive.

So nuclear power is unsustainable?
[Biased]

I think the phrase is non-renewable. A reactor burns fuel, when the fuel runs out there won't be nuclear reactors making electricity any more than there will be coal fired power stations after we throw in the last lump from the ground.

The current policy of reactors fuelled with low enrichment uranium fuel probably gives us a century or so, depending on how many new reactors we build in the next 10-50 years, to a small extent how many existing reactors we push to keep going for a few years more.

To extend nuclear power beyond that requires on of two approaches. One is use a different fuel, hence the interest in thorium reactors because 232Th is orders of magnitude more abundant than 235U turning that century or so into a couple of thousand years. The second approach is breeder reactor technology, turning non fissile 238U into 239Pu, coupled to fuel recycling to produce mixed 239Pu 235U fuel. That recycling will make the existing stores of spent fuel a resource to extract 239Pu, residual 235U and 238U.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555

 - Posted      Profile for agingjb   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's always fusion. Always 25 years away. The 25 years away was already a running joke in 1989 when the estimates of 25 years were remembered from 1964.

Of course we may, in some multiple of a quarter of a century from now, contrive a cheap renewable safe non-polluting energy source; whether we contrive an equally acceptable energy sink to go with it is another matter.

--------------------
Refraction Villanelles

Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fusion would be nice! But ..

Is this yet another false dawn?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Of course we may, in some multiple of a quarter of a century from now, contrive a cheap renewable safe non-polluting energy source

We've got a reasonable number of such sources now - wind, solar, etc. The problem is that they're unable to provide more than a fraction of the energy we need, so we need the non-renewable polluting sources to provide the bulk of it.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hydro-electricity is non-polluting and renewable. But it does have its own problems.

Shortly after WW II, a major system was developed here to both divert water from streams flowing into the Tasman Sea into much longer rivers that ran inland*. The diversion involved building dams, tunnels and pipelines and as well a number of power stations where the turbines were driven by the diverted water. In times of little demand for the power generated, some water is pumped back uphill for a second contribution.

The system has worked well for the 60 or more years once various sections were completed, but in recent years there have been claims of the ill-effects on the the streams from which water was diverted. The slogan "Let the Snowy run free" has lots of emotional appeal. Certainly, the reduction in flow has lead to a lessening in fish stocks, and perhaps had adverse consequences on other rare fauna.

*The whole was inspired by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086

 - Posted      Profile for Hairy Biker   Email Hairy Biker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Hydro-electricity is non-polluting and renewable.

Flooding the rainforests doesn't count as pollution then?

--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst

Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would not have called that, nor the flooding of valleys here (or indeed Switzerland, where hydro-electric power kept the country going in WW II) pollution. Damage yes, pollution no.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Fusion would be nice! But ..

Is this yet another false dawn?

I don't know if it's a false dawn. It's certainly a step somewhere. I'm not sure whether laser implosion is a viable technology for commercial power generation, though it is a fantastic way to study how explosive fusion works (which is why the work reported happens at Livermore). My money would be on magnetic confinement, adding energy more slowly and using some of the energy released in fusion to maintain the conditions needed seems far simpler than constantly starting over with a fresh bit of cold fuel and firing big lasers at it. Considering the money spent of ITER (€10 billion and counting), which dwarfs that spent on laser induced fission ($3.5 billion, much of it for weapons related research), many other scientists agree. Present schedule for ITER should have it producing net energy (sustained for periods measured in minutes) around 2030. The next step, to maintain net energy production for months at a time, would be at least 20 years after that.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lilac
Shipmate
# 17979

 - Posted      Profile for Lilac   Email Lilac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Lilac, do you have any links to all this stuff you're talking about or are we going to have to take your completely unsubstantiated word for it?

I only ask because this is the internet, where frankly most people generally need two reliable links to reputable sources before they'll believe someone who says Monday follows the weekend...

I don't have internet links. I do have a couple of files from years back which confirm the Russian connection. And the Atomic Weapons Establishment website referred to the same firm as a partner at the time. I know those files are genuine becasue I downloaded them myself, but skeptics could claim they were faked.

--------------------
Seeking...

Posts: 62 | From: Birmingham / Coventry Area, UK | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086

 - Posted      Profile for Hairy Biker   Email Hairy Biker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
[post temporarily deleted by B62]

Any update on the legal status of Lilac's post? I'm intrigued.

--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst

Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
I don't have internet links. I do have a couple of files from years back which confirm the Russian connection. And the Atomic Weapons Establishment website referred to the same firm as a partner at the time. I know those files are genuine becasue I downloaded them myself, but skeptics could claim they were faked.

You underestimate my skepticism. I'm unconvinced that the files even exist.

If there was really some kind of Soviet conspiracy to damage British nuclear power plants at the design stage I'd expect that at least one conspiracy nut would have put it on a website by now. If there really were serious design issues or errors with British nuclear plants (you mentioned Dungeness B) then there would be links available to explain what they were and how they were fixed. If English nuclear plants had "flopped" in some way then there would be news reports all over the place.

As you have provided nothing to back up your assertions I see no reason why anyone should take them seriously.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lilac

In view of what you have said about your sources, and what we have told you about Commandment 7, please do not make any further references to these particular allegations here. As Marvin observed, without some substantiation, they do not provide a basis for serious discussion and if you try to be more specific, by for example naming names, you will certainly infringe Commandment 7.

You may however be interested in this link. It would seem to gel with your interest in the subject. I suggest you have a look there. There is a good deal to read.

Hairy Biker

You may draw your own conclusions from the fact that the post has not been reinstated.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lilac
Shipmate
# 17979

 - Posted      Profile for Lilac   Email Lilac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That nuclear information link doesn't have much to say about power stations. I'm not anti-nuclear, just anti-stupidity. If there wasn't a problem, why did the government decide on French reactors instead?

--------------------
Seeking...

Posts: 62 | From: Birmingham / Coventry Area, UK | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Are you talking about this specific deal or some wider intentions? If the specific deal, there are EC objections to some of the government's proposed subsidies. It isn't yet a done and ratified deal AFAICT.

[ 12. February 2014, 19:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lilac
Shipmate
# 17979

 - Posted      Profile for Lilac   Email Lilac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm talking about previous British reactors, particularly the gas-cooled ones, and their problems. I wasn't thinking about the politics or economics, I was concerned about the technological mistakes and whether future projects are likely to involve a repetition of these. Which seems ever so likely if people go into a state of denial about them.

I seem to have landed inside a "Christians for nuclear power" club. I can't see why they don't take more account of public concerns like these.

--------------------
Seeking...

Posts: 62 | From: Birmingham / Coventry Area, UK | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
As far as accidents go, I submit that an alternative view of Fukushima would be: a nuclear power station was hit by a tsunami, one of the most devastating natural catastrophes imaginable, and the number of people who died as a result is arguably zero.

On the other hand, over 10,000 people died as a result of "living in towns on the coast". Do we therefore conclude "having towns on the coast is obviously a dangerous idea which we must back away from"?

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station wasn't hit by any old tsunami. This was a tsunami generated by the largest earthquake ever recorded in Japan, the fifth largest ever recorded. The tsunami wave in places reached 40m high and reached 10km inland. Over 15,000 died. The waves exceeded the height of tsunami defences along large sections of the coast, the wave being 2-3 higher than any previous known tsunami in the region (and, that includes wave height deduced from pre-historic tsunami debris).

The destruction from earthquake and tsunami was widespread and affected people far more severely than the accident at Fukushima Daiichi. Which isn't to say that the nuclear accident didn't have serious consequences. I wouldn't want my children playing here every day (though once in a while isn't going to hurt).

This is the point.

To look at Fukushima and conclude that Nuclear power is unsafe is ridiculous. Fukushima was hit by a once-in-several-centuries event and still the damage was relatively minor.

The World Health Organisation Risk Assessment provides the first data on what the actual effects are likely to be: There is 70% higher risk of developing thyroid cancer for girls exposed as infants (the risk has risen from a lifetime risk of 0.75% to 1.25%), a 7% higher risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants, a 6% higher risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants and a 4% higher risk, overall, of developing solid cancers for females.

I want to draw your attention to the ABSOLUTE risk of thyroid cancer which is still 1.25% even though the RELATIVE risk is notably higher.

The point is this:

In an ideal world we wouldn't have nuclear power. But, as long as we use electricity we will need to make it somehow. I long for the time when we can be 100% renewable but in the meantime - and whilst we should pursue increased energy efficiency aggressively - we need something.

Given the huge health effects of petrochemical and coal pollution, given the massive effects of climate change, it is only slight hyperbole to describe nuclear as amazingly safe and healthy.

It is tragic that children will get leukaemia because of Fukushima but a whole order of magnitude more have life-threatening asthma due to coal-pollution.

Current death-toll from Fukushima: 0.

And that's before - as Alan mentioned - the lessons learned about how to be even safer and find ways to keep the coolant systems working in the face of disaster.

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
I'm talking about previous British reactors, particularly the gas-cooled ones, and their problems. I wasn't thinking about the politics or economics, I was concerned about the technological mistakes and whether future projects are likely to involve a repetition of these. Which seems ever so likely if people go into a state of denial about them.

WHAT technological mistakes? You haven't actually mentioned any!

quote:
I seem to have landed inside a "Christians for nuclear power" club. I can't see why they don't take more account of public concerns like these.
Because they're not public concerns, they're vague unsubstantiated implications from a single person who can't provide any reason for us to take her seriously in the first place.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
If there wasn't a problem, why did the government decide on French reactors instead?

The UK government didn't decide on French reactors. The UK government made a policy decision that the UK needed to have more nuclear reactors to replace those that have been taken out of use, and those that will be closed in the next 10 years. They invited private companies to submit proposals to build new nuclear plants. It happens that a consortium of European firms with a proposal to build European Pressurised Water Reactors on sites operated by EDF (and, they only operate UK reactors because of a previous UK government selling off the national silver) will be the first to get new reactors operating. There are also still proposals under evaluation for building American PWRs and Japanese BWRs.

Why no British reactor designs on the table? Mainly because we stopped building them. The people who designed the very successfully AGRs have retired, or are close to retirement, and there isn't the expertise to bring the AGR design up to date. Ultimately that comes down to the decision to build an American PWR at Sizewell, purely by giving the contract to the lowest bidder.

AGRs are reliable, robust, safe ... but more expensive to build and operate (operating costs per MW produced are higher because they don't produce as much electricity).

And, as Marvin has indicated there are questions from Europe about the legitimacy of the loan guarantees offered by the UK government to companies building new reactors here - guarantees offered to all those who get through the necessary regulatory steps. To me, that legal challenge is based mainly on the policy of some major European nations against nuclear power. It seems to mainly have legs because the UK government is trying to pull a fast-one - they have a policy statement that they won't use public money to build new reactors, but in offering loan guarantees they are effectively putting tax payers money on the table (in this case as collateral allowing the companies wanting to build reactors to get better deals for financing the construction).

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Plus the less we are able to produce our own, the more we'll depend on power through the cross-channel power cables. Which is also good for the French Nuclear industry. Maybe they see advantage in increasing our dependency on power produced across the Channel? Not sure of the technical limits there, but it's an idea.

Anyway, why bother to look for a technological plot when there is mileage aplenty in a possible Franco-German political plot via the EC. Not that I know that's happening, of course. There is a pretty good anti-subsidy case to be made anyway, as my link* showed, and as Alan has clarified.

A new set of Yes Prime Minister scripts could have fun with this one.

* for clarity, 'twas me, not the Martian

[ 12. February 2014, 22:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lilac
Shipmate
# 17979

 - Posted      Profile for Lilac   Email Lilac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
WHAT technological mistakes? You haven't actually mentioned any!
...they're not public concerns, they're vague unsubstantiated implications from a single person who can't provide any reason for us to take her seriously in the first place.

Looks like I'll just have to leave these issues as an exercise for the reader. If you've never seen documentaries about the unsatisfactory construction of the AGRs, and never met anybody else who has, I can only say I'm surprised.

Ultimately the safety of these establishments and their generating capacity depends on engineering skills. I'm not the only person who's skeptical about the political stuff. Policy decisions and subsidies are just the bureaucratic human element intruding in an irrelevant way. They just indicate the same problems are likely to happen all over again, only with different reactor designs.

--------------------
Seeking...

Posts: 62 | From: Birmingham / Coventry Area, UK | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
AGRs

Let me try to help out

Lilac, the Wiki article does provide an overview of the history of AGR design, development and usage in the UK. It hardly paints a glowing picture of the design, development, implementation and maintenance of the AGR stations.

Most of us who have had more than a passing interest in the UK Nuclear Energy Programme are already aware of the major points in the Wiki article. You can pretty much take that as read for the folks who have chipped in here.

So, with that to look at, what are your concerns for the present and the future?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lilac
Shipmate
# 17979

 - Posted      Profile for Lilac   Email Lilac   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Obviously I'm concerned about the human element, which is alot more dangerous than any radioactive element. It manifests itself as unsubstantiated allegations... For instance, there was an organized purchasing fraud at Dungeness-B involving a core of 30 people and a total of at least 100. So many people were implicated that the management despaired of ever sorting out the full extent of it. That's what I heard from somebody who'd visited the place. But then somebody else from Dungeness-B denied this story, saying the company mentioned didn't have a purchasing department. Strange sort of company... I guess the purchasing department was itself an unsubstantiated allegation.

--------------------
Seeking...

Posts: 62 | From: Birmingham / Coventry Area, UK | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Host Hat On

That is more than enough. You have now posted another allegation, this time about purchasing practices. More muckspreading, again without any link to any news item. And no reference to technological risks which you claimed was your concern. Every sign that not only are you muckspreading, you are also mucking about.

I am reporting this post to Admin for consideration of disciplinary action.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

[ 13. February 2014, 19:34: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thread temporarily closed, pending Admin view.

B62, Purg Host

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thread now open again for discussion. We'll see how we go.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thread now open again for discussion. We'll see how we go.

I'm quite pleased about that as - whatever else is going on - there are some interesting and important discussions to be had.

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The link I am about to attach is to a very long conference recording which took place just a couple of days ago in Japan. (3 hours in length)

AFZ and others, if you have the patience for it, there is much of interest re radiation; perceived and actual risks to life and health. It is unusual to attach a link of this length but the issues of perceived and actual risks from nuclear power station accidents are in the news once again, so I thought this link and the current news might serve as a kind of relaunch topic. Particularly in view of some earlier contributions.

Anyway, see how you go with it. The Nick Ross intro is interesting in itself, even if you don't want to delve any deeper.

Risk Communication

(In particular, Professor Thomas's presentation from about 48 mins in.)

[ 15. February 2014, 07:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Risk Communication

(In particular, Professor Thomas's presentation from about 48 mins in.)

Great link Barnabas... I put this on to listen to whilst doing some DIY. Am an hour in and completely hooked.

OK, so me really sad but...

Anyway proper thoughts to follow.

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can't take the credit, AFZ. That goes to the Mad Scientist.

Some fascinating stuff; Professor Thomas's presentation was an excellent example of how to present by-no-means-simple ideas very clearly and simply.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have found this very interesting.

On a professional level I have some knowledge of the cancer-biology side of things (I have BSc in molecular biology before doing medicine). I am an amateur physicist only and was good to relearn the bits I'd forgotten.

The other side which does fascinate me - and for which I have no formal training but daily experience - is on perceptions of risk. On an essentially daily basis I ask parents to consent to surgery for their children. The perception and understanding of risk is a very varied thing. It's not really analytical or emotional it's both for most people.

For me, having seen the evidence presented in such an effective way, I am increasingly 'pro-nuclear'.

So here's what I think our energy policy needs to be:

1. We need to be really aggressive about energy efficiency. The less we use the better! There's a lot yet that can be done in terms of home insulation etc.
2. As far as possible, we should pursue renewable source of energy. Off shore wind, and yes I think on balance we should build a Severn barrage. Also, why not make it a requirement that all newly built homes have solar panels? Given that the biggest cost in housing is the land and if it was rolled out to all new builds the economies of scale would make the marginal costs very minimal.
3. In the medium term, replace and add to our nuclear power plants so that we can heavily reduce our need for fossil fuels.

and 4. this is just my personal crazy idea but...
Cars are the next big category of energy requirements. The current focus on electric cars I don't think is likely to be particularly productive as battery life is insufficient to be practicable and the environmental effects of battery production are significant.

I do however have high hopes for hydrogen fuel cells. Chemical energy is always a good way of making energy portable. As I understand it the technology is ready to go - This is a production hydrogen fuel cell car. It seems to me that the limiting factor is the logistics of switching over.

I was recently considering a LPG car. And was pleased to know that there are a couple of nearby locations I can get LPG but it's still difficult to find. I can't see hydrogen taking off whilst petrol remains (relatively) cheap and there is nowhere to buy it but how about this...

London taxis.

London taxis have a limited life-span - they have to be replaced (I think it's 3 yearly but it might be five) and there has already been a hydrogen fuel cell version made for the 2012 Olympics) so how about making all new London Taxis from say 2016 Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered?

With a bit of nudging from government you could have a whole host of petrol stations in London supplying hydrogen. And then it becomes possible for London residents to switch over. And more manufacturers will make hydrogen cars available. And then you roll it out to other cities.

Anyway, just my thoughts...

AFZ

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086

 - Posted      Profile for Hairy Biker   Email Hairy Biker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Any thoughts on how we create all the hydrogen? I know you can electrolyse water, but isn't that horrendously inefficient?

--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst

Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The in depth examination of the real medical effects of nuclear power plant accidents, and the explanations of the relationship between toxicity, half-life and dose levels was very helpful. As was the quite startling evidence of actual fatality and morbidity rates associated with radiation effects, both post Chernobyl and post Fukushima, compared with public perceptions.

I reflected also on political impacts. Why did Germany go the way it did post Fukushima? Given Germany's considerable economical and political influence in Europe, how big will the knock-on effects be?

I did know that much of the media scare talk on the medical front was ill-informed - as it was over MMR - and that the general understanding of risks and probabilities was an issue in many walks of life. I hadn't realised just how far off-base it was.

"I want my children to be absolutely safe. I can't afford to take any chances." People have died as a result of thoughts like that taking hold, producing a kind of irrational risk-aversion. And scare stories make such good copy, don't they?

Doing the hard work, collecting the evidence, looking at the facts, taking pains to consider these things carefully. These approaches seem in many ways to be out of fashion. Why is that? I don't think it's just related to general competence levels re the related sciences and mathematics.

Has the considered application of thought become boring? Is political manipulation so much easier if we play on people's emotions, particular our fears?

The misperceptions about the nuclear power industry seem to be an illustration of some more general problems.

[ 17. February 2014, 07:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think people are less worried about creeping radiation exposure than about a) an explosion and b) a situation where you have to abandon a large amount of land.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The misperceptions about the nuclear power industry seem to be an illustration of some more general problems.

Definitely.

Leaving aside the wider issues, the reservation I have about nuclear power is the waste storage, which is the bit I know the most about. Proper solutions require more long-term investment than governments seem to want to commit to.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aren't there issues with tellurium supply in the production of cheap solar panels?

And there are real issues with wind power and gear boxes (I know far more than I ever wanted on lubrication of wind power gear boxes from listening to my daughter practising a presentation).

I suspect many of the fears about nuclear power are the way that post-apocalyptic world is embedded in our films and books - On the Beach (sorry owly link as the wiki has brackets), The Chrysalids for example - and that feeds into our beliefs of the dangers of nuclear power.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Do not all the risks of accidental explosions and land contamination amount to the same thing, DT. What are the risks of these events and what are the risks to life and health if they occur?

The fire at Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima were all different in the ways things got out of control. None of them produced a nuclear explosion. My understanding of the science is that the need for the rapid creation of critical mass rules out the likelyhood of a nuclear power plant becoming a nuclear bomb. I stand to be corrected on that; the reality is that no nuclear power plant accident has produced a nuclear explosion despite the different types of loss of control and containment which occurred. I don't know enough nuclear science to rule it out entirely; I can't see how it could happen. Our resident "Mad Scientist" will be able to do better! So far as conventional explosion by other means is concerned, what that would do is release contaminants, which leads back to the question, how contaminating are the contaminants?

Land contamination is also a matter of assessing the real risks from the contaminants. Land is abandoned if it is not safe. What does safe mean? Dr Thomas's presentation contained some accurate information re long term medical risks following Chernobyl.

Massive oil spills produce analagous questions.

I think environmental risk needs to be taken very seriously, but the real issue is still what are the risks? How do we measure them?

[ 17. February 2014, 08:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For an overview of the kind of issues involved in storage, see here.

Essentially, methods of long-term storage judged to be the best and safest tend to be rejected due to Nimbyism. They also happen to be expensive long-term investments so are unpopular with overspending governments. So in the meantime, temporary storage solutions are used. These are not suitable long-term and far more hazardous.

The problem I see is not so much the inherent dangers in the technology but poor political management. Governments are poorly equipped to address the hazards appropriately over the lengths of time involved, leading to greater hazards in the medium term.

A similar problem is occuring due to foot-dragging about building new nuclear power plants: the older ones are being pressed into serving beyond their original design lifespan, which again increases the hazard.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem here is that the Greens work on emotion, rather than thought. Emotion can take the role of people dressed as koalas collecting money "to save the environment" as they say, rather than the more honest "to give us money for our election campaign". When it comes to nuclear power, the references are to weaponry and the possibility of an explosion as real risks and ignoring the impossibility of an explosion.

It's now over 50 years since I studied any science (I did physics and chemistry for my Leaving Certificate, and you'd be surprised just how little any science shows up in my everyday work) but way back then you needed something like a half kilo of appropriately enriched uranium to get a chain reaction and hence an explosion of energy. You just don't get that amount in a power station. Greens either did not do science, or if they did, overlook such simple rules as there are few votes there.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My understanding of the science is that the need for the rapid creation of critical mass rules out the likelyhood of a nuclear power plant becoming a nuclear bomb. I stand to be corrected on that; the reality is that no nuclear power plant accident has produced a nuclear explosion despite the different types of loss of control and containment which occurred. I don't know enough nuclear science to rule it out entirely; I can't see how it could happen. Our resident "Mad Scientist" will be able to do better!

The physics is described by a coefficient which is the average number of neutrons produced by fission that initiate further fissions. Reactors operate with a value of 1, with scope for a fraction of a percent variation to allow slow increases/decreases of power. The greater distance the neutrons need to travel before they can initiate fission the greater the chances that they'll do something else (get captured by something non-fissile, escape the core etc).

As fission releases a lot of energy one of the consequences of fission is that there is increased pressure which attempts to push the material apart. To make a nuclear bomb you need to have the fission happen in a very short space of time, before the explosion pushes the fissionable material far enough apart to bring reactivity below 1. That requires a very high density of fissile material. Power reactors simply don't have a high enough density of fissile material - the enrichment is too low, and the core also contains pipes carrying coolant, fuel cladding and other stuff.

If you have enriched fuel you can get criticality accidents, where the reactor goes super-critical and generates a lot of neutrons and pressure. This can create an explosion, and as the energy is supplied by fission "nuclear explosion" is not too inaccurate although the force of the explosion is a lot less than that produced by a nuclear bomb. My first piece of work here involved a review of past nuclear accidents, of which there have been many. Several research reactors and experimental assemblies have generated criticality accidents. At least one naval power reactor has also done so during refueling.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086

 - Posted      Profile for Hairy Biker   Email Hairy Biker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The problem here is that the Greens work on emotion, rather than thought. ... Greens either did not do science, or if they did, overlook such simple rules as there are few votes there.

and yet we are all very happy to accept their "scientific" conclusions when it's climate "science" and not nuclear science.

--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst

Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961

 - Posted      Profile for Mr Clingford   Email Mr Clingford   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The problem here is that the Greens work on emotion, rather than thought. ... Greens either did not do science, or if they did, overlook such simple rules as there are few votes there.

and yet we are all very happy to accept their "scientific" conclusions when it's climate "science" and not nuclear science.
Eh? What are you talking about? Greens have been right about climate change; it is happening and is seriously bad for current ways of living.

--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.

If only.

Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools