Thread: Nuclear power stations Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026737
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
Now I know we have some atomic physicists here, how do they rate the chances of the planned nuclear power stations? Once upon a time, this country had a lead in nuclear power, but obviously something went wrong with the British-run projects. Are the French ones likely to work out better?
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
I don't rate the chances very highly. It has to do with public opinion and opposition rather than science. The French, for many reasons, have a much different attitude to state projects and the role of state science. There it's seen as benign, enlightened leadership, in English-speaking countries the attitude is much more critical and suspicious.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Nuclear Physicist reporting for duty.
In broadest terms there are two reactor technologies - gas cooled or water cooled.
The British reactor technology (Magnox then AGR) was developed around graphite moderated, gas-cooled reactor designs. They have several advantages. First, they have very good load factors (the percentage of time they're operating at, or very near, full power). The gas coolant doesn't moderate the reactor, so changes in coolant flow (eg: pump failure, pressure loss) doesn't alter the reactor characteristics making control simpler - though, in a well designed water cooled reactor loss of coolant pressure reduces reactor power, a nice safety feature (pity they were operating the Chernobyl reactor in a state where the reverse was true at the end of April 1986). In shut down, the reactor core can be cooled passively, so you don't need to maintain the coolant flow with pumps. However, gas cooled reactors are more expensive, and can't be produced to generate as much power per reactor.
Water cooled reactors are cheaper to build, produce more power per unit, and so commercially out-compete the gas cooled versions. If you design and operate the reactor properly coolant flow disruptions cause the power to drop even without intervention. On the other hand, once you shut the reactor it is necessary to maintain primary coolant flow for weeks, needing pumps (which means the reactor a) consumes power in shut down and b) adding a safety issue as those pumps are critical). Loss of coolant pressure is the most significant cause of historic accidents at nuclear plants, including Three Mile Island (pressure lost due to a valve sticking open) and Fukushima (pressure lost due to the destruction of back-up generators and external power by tsumani).
The new build programme in England and Wales will be entirely water cooled reactor technology. The French led consortium that are on the verge of starting to build at Hinkley Point, and very likely to be building at Sizewell shortly thereafter, will be building French designed Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR).
There are two other consortia still in the game, though they're not as far along the road of getting approval for their reactor designs and planning permission to build. Toshiba hold a controlling stake in NuGen, planning to build Westinghouse (owned by Toshiba) PWRs at a site next to Sellafield. Hitachi hold a controlling stake in Horizon, planning to build Advanced Boiling Water Reactors at Oldbury and Wylfa.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
Thorium commercially before 2050?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Commercially? No, not by then. An advanced prototype generating power for the grid, possibly. Though, with issues of weapons grade material proliferation even worse than uranium fuelled reactors it may never happen until we reach a point where there aren't states or organisations seeking nuclear weapons technology.
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on
:
Alan, as you're the expert around here, can you correct my, apparently false, impression? I had the idea that the main reason for having settled for Uranium fission in the first place was the readiness with which it produced weapons-grade material, and that Thorium fission was dismissed because it didn't? Certainly the article in The Engineer last month implied that the attraction of Thorium reactors was that they didn't produce material that could be used in weapons.
Word change.
[ 05. February 2014, 19:36: Message edited by: Darllenwr ]
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
That's a shame, Alan. I was hoping 35 years could be enough, in fission not even fusion!
And, Darllenwr, that was my impression too, that Thorium was easily used for weapons.
You're the man in the field, Alan - clear this up would you!?
[ 05. February 2014, 20:51: Message edited by: Mr Clingford ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The attractions of thorium reactors are primarily relative abundance of 232Th and the lack of non-fissionable heavy isotopes in the fuel meaning you get very little transuranic radionuclide production and no very long term storage problem. There are other attractions such as some reactor designs that are relatively cold compared to uranium or MOX fuel reactors.
I think it is incontrovertible that early reactors were built with plutonium production in mind. The experience thus gained in building reactors with military potential gave uranium fuelled reactors a leg up, and hence accelerated them into commercial development ahead of thorium fuel reactors. Also, the technology developed for uranium enrichment also allow low-enrichment fuel for reactors. The decision in the 1940s to pursue 235U and 239Pu as fissile material for bombs certainly influenced the direction of subsequent civil reactor technology. A thorium reactor won't produce 239Pu for a conventional nuclear weapons programme, so in that sense doesn't produce weapons material (though, it takes a lot of work to extract 239Pu from conventional reactor fuel as well - you really need a dedicated reactor where you can use some fuel elements for very short periods to produce 239Pu without large quantities of other Pu isotopes).
I don't know the details of 233U fission. There may be an issue with the number of neutrons generated (with 2 less neutrons than 235U it might be expected that the mean number of neutrons produced per fission would be less than 235U, which is in turn less than 239Pu). I read stuff about 232U contamination affecting the development of a chain reaction, although I can't see how 232U gets into the material. So, it's quite possible that 233U won't make as "good"* a bomb as 235U or 239Pu - you may need more material, different initiator or something.
But, 233U would be relatively easily separable from spent 232Th fuel - you can rely of chemical processes as you won't have other U isotopes present, although you'll need to work in heavily shielded environments as the material will be highly radioactive. And, although there may be practical issues developing a weapon, 233U is fissionable and there will be some way to make a lump of it go bang.
* Not that I consider any bomb to be "good".
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
Alan, could you explain in layman's terms what needs to be done/invented that takes so many decades before we can have commercial thorium reactors?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There are two issues. One is technical, the other is legal.
Technical first. We have already a small number of old prototype thorium reactors. Although the designs are decades old this gives us useful information on the way the physics works out inside a reactor. Many of those designs, including the liquid flouride design that was probably closest to commercialisation, are radically different from current reactor technologies. So, in addition to slightly different physics in the core (number of neutrons produced, different proportions of fission products etc) you also need to develop new technologies for everything outside the core as well.
Just because it probably came closest to commercialisation in the 1960s, let's look at the LFTR. Here you have the fuel dissolved in a fluid that is pumped around a circuit through the critical core and a heat exchanger. The 1960s work showed it was possible, but you would have a reactor pumping extremely hot, albeit low pressure, fluid around.
Ensuring that the pipes carrying that do not, under any circumstances, break will be critical. Remember this fluid carries the fuel, and all the fission products. In a conventional reactor the coolant (water or gas, usually) is isolated from the core, so although it may become slightly radioactive it is relatively benign if it escapes the pipes carrying it - so, a PWR or BWR for example would have pressure release values that let this fluid escape into the reactor building (in a controlled location) if needed. It's only if the core overheats that cracking of fuel cannisters and coolant pipes allows fission products into the coolant and hence provides a route for them to get outside the core. A LFTR would routinely carry the contents of the core outside the core, hence the need for a much higher standard of engineering for those pipes.
The LFTR design allows online refuelling by simply siphoning old liquid flouride salt out of the system, containing burnt and unburnt 232Th, bred 233U and fission products. Then you just add in additional liquid flouride salt to replace it with fresh 232Th. What do you do with that old liquid flouride salt? In a conventional reactor, old fuel rods are solid objects, you can put them in a pond and allow them to cool with relative ease. Storing highly radioactive liquid is a much more challenging problem. It would also, presumably, be advantageous to try and recycle that material - if you can extract a large proportion of the fission products you will be left with liquid flouride salt containing 232Th and fissile 233U. You don't even need to get back to pure 232Th and 233U, small quantities of residual fission products wouldn't hurt. Letting it stand a couple of years would let most of short lived radioactive fission products decay, making it easier to handle. But, you'd want to remove the stable isotopes as well. Remember, these will react with your carrier salt forming different chemicals that almost certainly won't have the physical properties you want (and, may be corrosive when at high temperature in those pipes) and will also capture neutrons forming new radioisotopes and reducing the reactor efficiency.
Those are the first two technical challenges that come to mind. You would also face the challenge of making sure the salt removed from a reactor doesn't enter any process that would extract the 233U, for non-proliferation reasons. You would also need to develop capacity for producing the flouride salt fuel (but, that would be a relatively minor obstacle to MFTR development).
Then you would have a legislative challenge. You would want to build a prototype initially. You'd need a country willing to have that, and go through all the planning requirements, satisfy the authorities that you can do it safely etc. Let's just say you can fast track that ... you cna have a prototype running in 10 years. You'd want a few years of data to refine your design and produce a blue-print for a commercial reactor. Next step. Form a commercial partnership of companies with the necessary engineering and construction skills, an electricity producer wanting a new plant, people who can raise capital. You won't do that overnight. Then your consortium puts in a proposal to a country to build a reactor. For the new build programme in the UK this is a multi-stage process. First there's a Generic Design Assessment (GDA), does the design meet necessary safety criteria at a generic level. GDAs for conventional reactor designs take 10+ years to get, go for an unconventional design and I can see that process taking longer. Then you need to apply for permission to actually build one of these things, find a location, satisfy the specific requirements for safety at that location (eg: if near the coast that you'll take measures to prevent coastal erosion undermining the reactor or essential support buildings), get planning permission and start building. It's probably another 10 years from getting your GDA to finishing construction, minimum. You'll then still need final permission to actually turn the thing on. In a lot of other countries you'll also need to get past an initial step - to convince government and people that they need a nuclear power reactor (of any sort) at all.
So, what is the time scale:
Technical developments to get a safe, working prototype and address other technical issues. I've no idea, 10 years minimum I'd guess at.
Build prototype and run for a few years to get data. 10 years minimum.
Get GDA to actually build a commercial reactor. 10 years minimum.
Local planning permission and construction, 10 years minimum.
You can see how, by that reasoning, I consider 35 years to get to having a commercial thorium reactor as very short.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
Thanks, Alan, that was comprehensive. I might be dead before commerical thorium reactors.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I don't rate the chances very highly. It has to do with public opinion and opposition rather than science.
I recall being dragged along, as a teenager, to “Nuclear Power, No Thanks” rallies in London in the late 70s. As I recall there were 3 objections to nuclear power, none of which has been addressed by the passage of time.
1) Risk of accidents. Event Japan, probably the most advanced user of this technology, can’t keep the lid on all their reactors still after all these years.
2) What happens to all the waste. The news seems to have been quiet on this front in recent years, but I still don’t know where it all goes. Has the issue been resolved, or have we just resigned ourselves to vast radioactive landfills as the legacy of our civilization?
3) “Atoms for peace are atoms for war” as the slogan used to go. The motivation for creating the reactors in the first place was the nuclear arms race, as has already been noted here. Without that side-line, the technology has never been, and can never be, profitable. I don’t know if the low carbon economy and the price of oil has changed the economics; but the charge still remains, as we have seen in Iran.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Re what happens to nuclear waste, I'd find that much more persuasive if there were any practical alternative power source that was notably less polluting!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Any means of generating significant amounts of electricity is polluting. Burning coal, oil or gas generated CO2 pollution, and usually results in produciton of other pollutants (heavy metals, carbon particulates, assorted polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Even non-negligible amounts of radioactive waste). Producing solar panels involves processes that produce chemical waste. Our energy-rich western lifestyle is generating a legacy of pollutants for our descendents, and in many cases to the detriment of others in the world today.
A properly run and managed nuclear power capacity produces a small quantity of contained waste (unlike, say burning coal where a lot of the waste goes straight up a chimney and into the environment). Yes, that nuclear waste needs careful handling and storage. But, it's not intrinsically more hazardous than the waste products of many chemical processes. There are long term storage questions about how we communicate to future generations that it is dangerous to enter a store of nuclear waste. But, how do you communicate that ground contaminated with heavy metals is equally dangerous?
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
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"?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
ISTM that the Japanese disaster has something to do with forethought of what the safe areas are to build things. I would hope the waste facilities have better forethought than this. Earthquake zones and ocean front locations seem to me to be bad ideas.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Not really. The benefit of a seaside location is lots and lots of water to dilute radioactive runoff in.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Nuclear power plants don't, under normal circumstances, have radioactive run-off to dilute. So, that's not why they're usually built on the coast.
The main reason they're built on coasts (or near major rivers) is availability of cooling water. The power station has two enclosed coolant systems. The primary coolant (usually water or carbon dioxide) flows through the reactor core removing heat from fission, and through heat exchangers outside the core. The secondary coolant (water) takes energy from the heat exchanger and boils, the superheated steam then drives the turbines to generate electricity. Both these systems use purified water, because salt and other contaminants would cause corrosion.
So, you may ask, where does sea water come in? After the steam has driven the turbines it needs to be returned to the heat exchanger to extract more energy from the primary coolant and hence the core. It needs to be condensed back to water, and to cool the condensers power stations use readily available from sources - large river or sea.
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
Surely people got suspicious because gas-cooled reactor projects like "Dungeness-B" went wrong long before generating any power. What guarantee is there it won't happen again?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
Surely people got suspicious because gas-cooled reactor projects like "Dungeness-B" went wrong long before generating any power. What guarantee is there it won't happen again?
People got optimistic. It takes more than 5 years to build something as complex as a nuclear reactor. Especially as Dungeness B was the first of the AGR reactors to be built. Scaling up from the Windscale prototype was found to be much more difficult than envisioned. Several parts needed to be redesigned after construction was started. So, despite Dungeness being the first to start construction Hinkley Point and Hunterston were finished first - because the lessons of building Dungeness B had been learnt before they started. It still took 8-9 years to build an AGR even after the initial problems were sorted. The reactors there have been running since 1983, which admittedly was 13 years behind the original schedule.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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"?
Exactly, and another comparison would be the numbers killed in coal mining accidents and those in nuclear accidents since 1955 or so. I imagine a difficulty in that is in determining the numbers killed in the Chernobyl incident.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I imagine a difficulty in that is in determining the numbers killed in the Chernobyl incident.
There were 31 people involved in the immediate emergency response who died relatively quickly from causes directly related to radiation exposure. That's the easy number to determine.
There have been between 6000 and 10000 thyroid cancers in the Ukraine in excess of the expected rate, a number likely to rise as more thyroid cancers develop. However, thyroid cancer is easily treated with a >95% success rate. So, there may be 50 or so deaths from thyroid cancers. As of 2011, UNSCEAR reported 15 thyroid cancer deaths. A reasonable estimate of around 30-50 deaths expected from thyroid cancers can be made (many of whom will die in the next decade or so).
There is no evidence of an increase in incidence of other cancers, nor of birth abnormalities.
Where things get difficult is with mental health effects. If people who are displaced suffer mental health issues (not unlikely) and subsequently commit suicide, are those deaths attributable to the accident? Likewise there were stories of UK hill farmers committing suicide after sheep movement restrictions shut down their farms. I don't know of any data on such deaths at all.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you Alan - it would have been better had my question been "How many people have died or will die as a result of the Chernobyl incident" but you answer covers the point well. I'm not aware of any deaths in uranium mining, but over the period there must have been thousand of deaths in coal mining alone (Chinese figures always look rubbery), to which must be added indirect deaths from pollution. That makes the usual cry about the extreme danger from nuclear power rather baseless.
And there is no record I know of that there have yet ben any deaths directly or indirectly from the disposal of waste. Even that problem disappears if thorium is the fuel.
I grew up in the 50s, when nuclear power was seen as the way to go. AFAICS, there is little, save the cost, and an agreed method of disposing of waste to ensure that it is not available for weapons, to stop that happening. Even here, with virtually no spare water other than from the sea, a programme is feasible. And think of the reduction in greenhouse gases which would follow.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
re: Uranium mining. Friends of the Earth have some detail on the risks to the miners (mainly from lung cancer). Also point out that nuclear is quite energy intensive, creating 3-4 times the CO2 of generating the same electricity by wind turbine. Emissions are caused by the mining, processing and transport of Uranium.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
Oh, and here's a fun quote from them on the waste issue:
quote:
If spent fuel rods were buried around the time of the Norman Conquest 1000 years ago, they would still be highly dangerous today.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Oh, and here's a fun quote from them on the waste issue:
quote:
If spent fuel rods were buried around the time of the Norman Conquest 1000 years ago, they would still be highly dangerous today.
Sure. And if we'd been burning coal and gas at current rates since the Norman Conquest the world would be virtually uninhabitable by now.
No realistic method of producing the amount of power we use these days (let alone projected increases in demand) is without risk or environmental consequences. Nuclear has fewer than most, though.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Mining is, undoubtedly, the part of the uranium cycle with the greatest risk to workers. The major part of that risk is common to all forms of mining - an enclosed environment, air full of dust and gases not normally present in surface air (at least, not in the concentrations observed underground), will cause a variety of respiratory disease. Then add in the risks of cave in, other accidents in locations where getting medical treatment quickly is difficult, flooding and the like. Exposure to radiation is a minor contribution to risk - the average uranium concentrations in the rock are still quite low, the high grade ore will be in narrow veins within rocks of normal-ish uranium concentrations. There will be radon gas present, but in a reasonably well ventilated mine that can be easily controlled. Radon also accumulates in other mines, and so is another hazard common to all mines.
Also common to other mining operations, uranium mines create spoil tips with material slightly enriched in the metal sought, and often other metals co-deposited, and leach waters that are likewise contaminated. Without careful controls of these wastes there is risk to the public, especially those living downstream of these mines. But, whether uranium mining is worse than other mining activities, particularly mining for toxic metals such as lead, is a difficult question to answer.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Oh, and here's a fun quote from them on the waste issue:
quote:
If spent fuel rods were buried around the time of the Norman Conquest 1000 years ago, they would still be highly dangerous today.
Sure. And if we'd been burning coal and gas at current rates since the Norman Conquest the world would be virtually uninhabitable by now.
No realistic method of producing the amount of power we use these days (let alone projected increases in demand) is without risk or environmental consequences. Nuclear has fewer than most, though.
But we haven't been burning coal and gas for 1000 years. And in 1000 years, we probably won't be using electricity to transmit power to our devices, whatever those devices might be. Plant life will have re-absorbed all the spare carbon we put in the atmosphere over these two misguided centuries, and quarries and mines will have reverted to their natural state. Nuclear waste will continue to be a hazard and will compromise our options for the use of whatever space they take up.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Spoil tips and tailings from mines (including, but not limited to, uranium mines) will contain toxic materials for millenia, unlike radioactive materials heavy metals don't decay. Our nuclear waste will occupy a relatively small area of land. Especially if we break it apart, remove the valuable fissionable material to fuel more reactors, and only store the very small fraction of the spent fuel that has very long half lives. The nuclear waste from the UK can be stored in a space comparable to a single mine. The difficulty isn't finding the space for it, it's finding the right space - somewhere geologically stable with the right ground water (non)movement properties etc. The irony is that we'll spend a lot of time and money finding long term storage solutions for nuclear waste, but won't even think about the legacy of other industrial wastes that are equally, if not more, toxic.
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
Around 10 years ago I heard of one prominent nuclear company being investigated by MI5. I think it was in "Newsnight" on BBC2. I never heard any more about this, which makes me wonder what the issue was, Communist saboteurs, terrorists or whatever, and whether anything effective got done about it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It's very difficult to speculate on a partially remembered story from a decade ago.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Just a very simple question for Alan Cresswell . No bias either way as far as nuclear power stations are concerned, but could you explain why a new power sation cannot be built on the site of an old one. It seems that the country will become littered with places like Bradwell (Essex) or Hinkley 'A'.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
All the proposed new build sites are on existing nuclear power station sites.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Sorry Alan , that not quite what I meant.
It looks as if the buildings and ground area are just left to rot - why can't they be used again?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Oh, right ... on exactly the same spot as existing reactors.
Put simply, at present those reactors are safer left alone. They contain significant quantities of radioactive material, even after the spent fuel removed is. There were lots of neutrons in the core that activated a lot of the structure, making it radioactive. Activation products have relatively short half lives, certainly in comparison to transuranic elements formed in the fuel, so it'll only take a few decades for most of that activity to decay away. Then it will be possible to carefully remove the buildings and dispose of the remaining waste, or concentrate the waste in one location and entomb the lot. So, the actual reactor buildings will have to remain for 20-30 years. Of course, many of the ancillary buildings will be removed before then, or reused for other purposes if appropriate.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
re: Uranium mining. Friends of the Earth have some detail on the risks to the miners (mainly from lung cancer). Also point out that nuclear is quite energy intensive, creating 3-4 times the CO2 of generating the same electricity by wind turbine. Emissions are caused by the mining, processing and transport of Uranium.
And by the mining, processing and transport of material for wind turbines as well and the energy costs of construction. Then there's the large area of land needed for a wind farm sufficient to provide the power needs for even a small city.
I recall reading (in The Economist in the early 70s from memory) that there was a higher level of radiation in the streets of Edinburgh and other Scots cities than in the countryside around nuclear power stations. The cause - the use of Scots granite for constructing buildings, there being much more radioactive material in that than in materials used in other parts of the UK, and the tight control on emissions from the power stations,
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
re: Uranium mining. Friends of the Earth have some detail on the risks to the miners (mainly from lung cancer). Also point out that nuclear is quite energy intensive, creating 3-4 times the CO2 of generating the same electricity by wind turbine. Emissions are caused by the mining, processing and transport of Uranium.
And by the mining, processing and transport of material for wind turbines as well and the energy costs of construction. Then there's the large area of land needed for a wind farm sufficient to provide the power needs for even a small city.
I recall reading (in The Economist in the early 70s from memory) that there was a higher level of radiation in the streets of Edinburgh and other Scots cities than in the countryside around nuclear power stations. The cause - the use of Scots granite for constructing buildings, there being much more radioactive material in that than in materials used in other parts of the UK, and the tight control on emissions from the power stations,
yeah, there was a lot of that sort of stuff around in the '70s. The thing was though, that no one doubted that they could keep the radiation in on a good day. It was exactly the sort of stuff that happened at Chernobyl we were worried about. And it turns out we were right to worry. But concerns were dismissed by saying that radiation is completely natural, especially in Scotland. We design these things not to leak, so how could they possibly leak? How indeed?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
We all live exposed to radiation every day from natural sources. Those natural sources are highly variable, and some parts of the world are considerably higher than others. In Scotland, Aberdeen (the "Granite City") would be thought of as being particularly radioactive. By coincidence a group of honours students doing their projects with us have mapped radiation levels around parts of old Aberdeen and Edinburgh, and there's considerable variability in activity even within small parts of each city. Mostly driven by the geology rather than construction materials, although some building materials (granite cobblestones being the most significant) do produce a noticeable increase in activity on a local scale.
Of course, the natural activity is variable around nuclear sites as well. The vast majority of nuclear sites have no impact on the levels of radioactivity in their local environment. Indeed, many coal fired power stations have a bigger impact on the local radiation level (though the urban myth that burning coal produces more radioactivity than nuclear power is an urban myth - the radioactivity produced by burning coal exceeds the radioactivity released into the environment from nuclear power stations, excluding accidental releases ... but that's not the same at all).
I'll be flying to Fukushima tomorrow. The radiation dose I'll receive in flight from cosmic radiation will exceed what I'll receive during a week in Fukushima. And, my dose while in Fukushima from fallout will be at least an order of magnitude less than what I'll get from natural sources - and a good deal of that artificial dose will be because work takes me to contaminated environments. That doesn't mean that it's OK that there is widespread contamination from radioactive materials from Fukushima Daiichi, it also doesn't mean that there is a very small chance that residents of Fukushima (especially those who were there during the accident and got a much larger dose, including from radioiodine that is thyroid seeking) will develop cancers they would have other wise avoided. Of course, what happened was a tragedy, and any extra exposure to radioactivity is best avoided. But, a sense of perspective is missing when you read about people in California in March 2011 worried about radiation from Fukushima, yet those same people wouldn't think twice about boarding a plane to travel to New York.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Yes, the Fukashima response shows that modern technology and decent maintenance may be stretched by the most violent of incidents, but that security wins through. I appreciate that the consequences of failure at a conventional station would have been less severe, but would it have withstood the quake and subsequent tsunami?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
No building would have withstood the tsunami impact undamaged. All along that coast there are what had been substantial buildings and structures reduced to barely more than foundations. I linked to some photos earlier, that collection includes some pictures of the sea defences with massive holes knocked through. If you go to Google Earth and look up and down the coast there are vast areas which had at one stage been industrial sites wiped off the map.
The fact is that the Fukushima Daiichi power station buildings were relatively undamaged by the tsunami. What did it for the reactors was loss of power to maintain the pumps, and hence the coolant overheated. Normally in shut down pumps are maintained from the main electric supply, this was knocked out by the earthquake and tsunami bringing down power lines. In the event of no main power, water cooled reactors have diesel generators to prove emergency backup. The tsunami flooded the diesel generator rooms for reactors 1-4. The generators for reactors 5 and 6 (built on slightly higher ground) were undamaged but there was no means of connecting them to the other reactors - and, even if they could be connected they wouldn't have been powerful enough to maintain cooling for 6 reactors and associated fuel storage ponds. There were batteries designed to maintain power between loss of external power and the diesel generators kick in, but they were depleted in an hour.
The lessons learnt from the disaster were that diesel generators need to be located with more thought to what might potentially damage them, preferably more dispersed around the site so that one event is less likely to take them all out. Also, that there needs to be means of connecting generators for one reactor to others on the site. These should be features of all new reactors (though, personally I'd much prefer gas cooled reactors which don't need diesel generators at all), it may not be possible to retrofit all existing reactors to make these changes.
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
[post temporarily deleted by B62]
[ 08. February 2014, 22:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Lilac
I've temporarily deleted the contents of your post above, pending an Admin view about any legal exposure to the Ship which it may contain.
I may be being overcautious, but we have very conservative policies over Commandment 7 matters. If Admin OK it, the contents will be reinstated. Please bear with us and please refrain from any repetition until the Admin view is known.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 08. February 2014, 22:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
Okay, I'm sure there's a reason for these rules. I looked on the Companies House website and found a number of organizations with similar names, so it might not be clear which was involved. But you can check the records of the Parliamentary Select Committees for some details. I can send you a private communication about this. I trust this is okay.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thanks
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Lilac
While Admin are deliberating, this Hostly advice may render their consideration moot.
The Ship is a public forum for discussion. We are not in any sense, nor ever will be, an investigative news organisation, even in part. It is therefore quite inappropriate to invite investigatory support from another Shipmate in their real life role.
Please also bear in mind Commandment 8.
You should also note that we apply Commandment 7 very cautiously here, to minimise the chance of legal complaint re possible libel. We are too strapped for cash to take that risk.
I hope this helps. I appreciate you have not been on board very long. Please bear this advice in mind for the future.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
Anyway, I got to wondering why Alan Cresswell doesn't seem to share many people's antipathy towards nuclear power. Then the obvious occurred to me: He lives in Scotland. I heard a rumour that the Scottish Nuclear power stations were alot more successful than the English ones.
Could this be connected with cultural differences between the two countries? Scotland has different legal and educational systems. Would this make Scottish engineers more competent at complex construction projects?
Should we consider buying Scottish nuclear power stations rather than French or Japanese ones? And if Scotland decides on independence, should they guard against nuclear sabotage by setting up a Scottish intelligence service, less secretive than the English one?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The opposition here to nuclear power stations, and I suspect that it's the same elsewhere, is emotional rather than thought out. Nuclear weapons = bad; therefore nuclear power = bad also. And emotion, rather than thought, is how the Greens operate. But even allowing for Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear power, including the mining of uranium, is much better than coal powered, and probably better even than that of hydro-electric stations.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
I heard a rumour that the Scottish Nuclear power stations were alot more successful than the English ones.
The usual standard in Purgatory is to deal in sourced assertions rather than rumours. And I'm curious to know on what basis you think nuclear power stations in Scotland were designed by Scottish designers, or built by Scottish construction firms.
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
I believe it's more than just a rumour, though it dates back awhile. My point is that we don't want English nuclear power stations which flop the way they did before.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
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)
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Alan, will this work?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
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]](wink.gif)
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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?
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.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Fusion would be nice! But ..
Is this yet another false dawn?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Hydro-electricity is non-polluting and renewable.
Flooding the rainforests doesn't count as pollution then?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
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.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
[post temporarily deleted by B62]
Any update on the legal status of Lilac's post? I'm intrigued.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
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?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
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.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
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
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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).
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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?
Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thread temporarily closed, pending Admin view.
B62, Purg Host
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thread now open again for discussion. We'll see how we go.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
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
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
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
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
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
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
Any thoughts on how we create all the hydrogen? I know you can electrolyse water, but isn't that horrendously inefficient?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
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.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
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.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
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.
That's exactly what I'm talking about! Thanks for the illustration. There is unchallenging acceptance that greens are right about climate change. But when they start to challenge one of the main alternative sources of energy, suddenly they're being emotional and un-scientific.
(and it's a tangent, but just because climate change is happening, doesn't mean that we understand anything about the mechanisms or causes of it.)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I thought the point being made was that scientists tell us that the dangers of nuclear power have been greatly exaggerated, and that changes to the composition of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, deforestation etc are going to significantly change the global climate. Some Greens are inconsistent in accepting the scientific consensus re: climate change while simultaneously rejecting the scientific consensus re: the safety of nuclear power.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Yes. It's about cherry picking. The careful hard work of data collection, examination of processes, reaching provisional conclusions, subjecting these to test and modification, has been applied to research in both areas. If one accepts the results of such activities in one area, why not in the other?
Alan, thanks for the clarification over the risks of nuclear explosions in reactors going out of control. My understanding has been enlarged again!
And please accept my public appreciation for the value of the long link. Maybe I'm a bit nerdy too, but like AFZ I found I got hooked, despite the advert breaks and the length.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
It is science that tells us about climate change, giving the data, the conclusions and how you get from one to the other. The Greens don't. Here, they pick up what they want of the conclusions, use that to grab headlines, but offer no answers, no alternatives.
[ 17. February 2014, 20:22: Message edited by: Gee D ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0