Nuclear Power

[Bryn]

Cooled passively? Does that mean the nuclear fuel cools itself down?

No, the two main coolants likely to be involved in passive cooling of the core in an emergency are sea water (fed mainly by gravity rather than being actively pumped, and air).

It was good to see Walt Patterson on Newsnight tonight. I wonder just how many got much of their inital grounding in nuclear energy matters from his writings. I know I did.

[amateur51]

It was good to see Walt Patterson on Newsnight tonight. I wonder just how many got much of their inital grounding in nuclear energy matters from his writings. I know I did.

Gosh yes, I remember well those television programmes in which Walter Marshall was speaking up for CEGB & the nuclear energy industry and Walt Patterson was the voice of Friends of the Earth in the 80s & the ordinary people, true David & Goliath stuff.

[Serial_Apologist]

Thanks for clearing up that point, Bryn.

[Mahlerei]

just seen some breaking news - there's a new fire in reactor four.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes. I haven't said anything while the situation has been unfolding. However, I haven't changed my mind. Overall, the Japanese government is not one of the world's worst. Still, given that is has been an economic powerhouse, why on earth were 1960s design reactors still operating in an earthquake zone? In fact, are we being told the truth? Are they really 1960s design reactors at all when they are purportedly so different from those in parts of the Soviet Union and the UK that were built at that time? Could it be that they are rather more modern than is being said to protect the future of the nuclear industry?

Then there is the IAEA. Like many international bodies of the great and the good, its members will jet off regularly to meetings with all of the accompanying finery and self-congratulation. If these are of a 1960s design, why hasn't the IAEA been imposing a stricter international standard? At present Japan appears to have made the reactors earthquake resistant but hadn't anticipated how powerful nature could be. That isn't good enough there or anywhere else. And I doubt the experts. They clearly know what could happen if (a), (b) and (c) occurs. They don't seem to know how to discover quickly what has happened and what to do about problems if they occur or if their one-dimensional measures don't work. There is no "Plan B".

I would imagine that Fukishima is to Tokyo what Dungeness and Sizewell are to London geographically. Our PM says that we are not in a seismically sensitive part of the world. Maybe but this from Wikipedia seems to reveal that the politicians here have the same blase approach - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami...United_Kingdom. This BBC article suggests that tsunamis in Japan "could" occur once in a thousand years. "Could"? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12740649. And this shows that in reality there have been 195 recorded tsunamis in Japan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_tsunamis.

I have with a very rough bit of arithmetic estimated the number of citizens a nuclear power station serves. Depending on size, I reckon it is 500,000 to a million.That is not a lot and I wonder if the effectiveness of this industry has been overestimated while that of other industry providers has been underplayed. There isn't much point in providing people with power that risks killing huge numbers of them off. Interestingly, the three western European countries that are sounding the most committed to nuclear power during these days are Britain, Italy and France, the same three countries which sold arms to Gaddafi and two of which are urging military involvement. This is more than a coincidence. It is about fundamental attitudes towards others' lives.

[johnb]

Still, given that is has been an economic powerhouse, why on earth were 1960s design reactors still operating in an earthquake zone? In fact, are we being told the truth? Are they really 1960s design reactors at all when they are purportedly so different from those in parts of the Soviet Union and the UK that were built at that time? Could it be that they are rather more modern than is being said?

The plant was first commissioned in 1971 therefore the design must have dated from a number of years prior to that date. It consists of six reactors. All were designed by General Electric who also supplied reactors 1, 2 and 6. The other reactors were supplied by Toshiba and Hitachi.

Perhaps a little research is better than succumbing to conspiracy theories.

This BBC article suggests that tsunamis in Japan "could" occur once in a thousand years.

No it doesn't.

It reads: "Tsunamis on the scale that hit north-east Japan last week may strike the region about once every 1,000 years, a leading seismologist has said."

the three western European countries that are sounding the most committed to nuclear power during these days are Britain, Italy and France, the same three countries which sold arms to Gaddafi and two of which are urging military involvement. This is more than a coincidence. It is about fundamental attitudes towards others' lives.

Sorry, but that is plain silly.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, on that scale. I should have said that. "Could". "Could occur". It doesn't sound very scientific. The very same headline grabbing guy, Dr Roger Musson, was saying in September that London is overdue an earthquake:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/09/16/london-overdue-a-killer-earthquake-claims-scientist-115875-22566185/

Given his comments on this scale of tsunamis in Japan, and the experts who disagree, I would be interested to see if he has any links to the nuclear industry.

"First commissioned in 1971" - but how have they been updated since then?

On the final point, I don't think so. All those Governments are a deep shade of blue, far deeper than, say, the one of Germany.

[johnb]

I'll leave you to enjoy your paranoid fantasies.

[johnb]

In fairness I should mention that the dates that the six reactors were commissioned are:

No 1 - 1971
No 2 - 1974
No 3 - 1976
No 4 - 1978
No 5 - 1978
No 6 - 1979

[Lateralthinking1]

I always thought that paranoia was about imaginary happenings (or a denial of what is happening) rather then real life nightmares. It looks as though parts were replaced around 1989 and in the last decade due to problems there. There was a safety review between 2002 and 2005 - some four years. I accept that this might not have significantly altered the major components. Interestingly, a senior report in 1993 declared that these kinds of reactors would not be safe in 40 years just because of wear and tear. Here we are halfway down the line and the IAEA experts considered that they could withstand earthquakes and tsunamis.

Well-known events on the Richter Scale - 1883 Indonesia 8.7, 1891 Japan 8.0, 1894 Argentina 8.0, 1906 California 8.0, 1908 Italy 7.1, 1931 New Zealand 7.8, 1944 Argentina 7.1, 1949 British Columbia 8.0, 1976 China 7.8, 1977 Romania 7.2, 1985 Mexico City 8.0, 1990 Philippines 7.8, 1993 Guam 8.1, 2009 Indonesia 7.0, 2010 Haiti 7.0

8.0-8.9 Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred miles across. Frequency 1 per year.
7.0-7.9 Can cause serious damage over large areas. Frequency 18 per year.
(6.0-6.9 Can be destructive in areas up to about 160 kilometres (100 mi) across in populated areas. Frequency 120 per year).

So while the good doctor might be correct in the acualite (specifically Japan and at 8.9), he is being a little economical with the truth. The message he is seeking to convey does not appear to provide the whole picture.

The Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...-stations.html. Here are a couple of paragraphs -

"In 2000, a report by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate startled even seasoned anti-nuclear campaigners when it revealed that workers at Sellafield had been faking quality-assurance data for four years – copying old records rather than carrying out new tests. The scandal led to the resignation of John Taylor, the chief executive of British Nuclear Fuels, which ran the Cumbrian site. Separate investigations since then have been hardly less alarming, finding, among other things, safety measures based on 'guesswork'; alarm bells routinely ignored; safety equipment left broken; cracks in crucibles containing highly radioactive nuclear waste; 'intermediate' waste on the verge of exploding; and major cracks in the graphite bricks used to make the reactors in some of Britain's older power stations.

In March 2004, declassified RAF documents obtained by the Labour MP Llew Smith showed there had been 49 cases since 2000 of 'near-misses' by fighter jets flying too close to nuclear stations. Most worrying of all, in May 2005, it was revealed that 83,000 litres of radioactive waste – enough to fill half an Olympic swimming pool – had leaked from a cracked pipe at Sellafield. It was the worst nuclear accident for 13 years".

Anything can be affected adversely by nature, system failure, wear and tear, human error, and human couldn't-care-less ness. The problem with nuclear power is that it has to be virtually or wholly 100% safe. This requires scientists to twist the laws of probability to the extent that they defy all logic and to pull rabbits out of hats more ingeniously than Paul Daniels. Sadly, Japan is having to fight a war with its own Frankensteins monster when, like Britain, it has extensive coastline and could have pursued energy measures that could only be an ally. If we all rationed car ownership and flights to early 1970s levels, the problem would be solved.

Anyway, if it was up to you then, would you still be going ahead with the planned construction in April 2012 of Fukushima 7 and Fukushima 8 (and keep operational the 23 of the same design in the United States whether near or not near water)?

[johnb]

Anyway, if it was up to you then, would you still be going ahead with the planned construction in April 2012 of Fukushima 7 and Fukushima 8 (and keep operational the 23 of the same design in the United States whether near or not near water)?

A calm rational reappraisal of risks and safety margins is what is needed now so that lessons can be learnt - not a reaction based on emotion, panic or electoral prospects (as in Germany).

This is about as serious a situation as one can imagine so I don't want to minimize that but the reactors themselves survived both the earthquake and the tsunami.

As far as the information available goes - what failed were the generators designed to run the cooling systems following a reactor shutdown. This seems to have been because they were designed for a 6.5 metre high tsunami whereas they experienced a 7 metre tsunami and the consequences have been disastrous.

However to then go on to make sweeping generalisations about nuclear power stations is unwise.

[Lateralthinking1]

True on the point about a calm review beyond Japan but it really is time to address some of the behaviour. This obsession people have now to tick off the numbers of countries they have flown to and all the three vehicle households (you can't call the black tanks that look like a cross between a gangster's hideaway and an obese, sawn-off, hearse, "cars" - they symbolise a kind of subconscious death fixation that sadly is increasingly prevalent in western societies) are quite obviously forms of total insanity.

I just don't see why we should be allowing people to power drive egotistically and fuel their greed at the risk of loss of lives and homes including their own. There was very little hardship when people made do with one beige Ford Escort and a holiday abroad every other year (normally Majorca). It is still more than most people in the world have now. Personally, I gave up car ownership in 1993 and stopped flying in 2004 on the basis that both were old fashioned and highly inappropriate given the depleted resources.

[Anna]

I have a friend who has lived in Tokyo with his Japanese wife for 7 years. He is keeping an online diary (his wife's family are in the North and have lost their homes but are safe) He says he is getting increasingly frustrated by the scaremongering stories (he cites in particular The Mail and The Guardian) and has posted some links which he feels give a balanced view of the situation. One of which is in The New Scientist but it's subscription only to read the whole article. The others are here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/

http://ukinjapan.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=566811882

He also says: "Some foreign newspapers and people are shamefully overblowing the whole crisis, i think, mainly for political reasons; Germany because they have a difficult decision on nuclear power at the moment and are trying now to use the situation here to help their own cause…. German Chief of Euro Atomic Energy commission yesterday calling the situation here ‘apocalyptic’. Not helpful at all. Similar in the US where people against Obama and the his decision to re-tool US with nuclear power, with bought-in Japanese technology in many places, are over-blowing the Japanese crisis to their own ends."

Apologies is this is a bit off-topic from the main discussion.

[Frances_iom]

Apologies is this is a bit off-topic from the main discussion.

no it is not - your friend is correct in that those with hidden (or not so hidden) agendas are pushing coverage in their direction - even the BBC until a day or so ago was in my opinion non-rational in how it presented the story - those who are against nuclear might well remember the significant loss of life in coal mining, the great polution it produces plus the recent disaster in Gulf of Mexio, Piper-alpha + many many more.
Remember how the US tobacco companies tried to discredit the anti-smoking or more recently how some energy companies have sought to discredit climate change - pushing towards an oil/gas based power generation will prove high cost in terms of resources (+ politically dangerous for Europe given the Russian supply + the mid-east turmoil)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I just don't see why we should be allowing people to power drive egotistically and fuel their greed at the risk of loss of lives and homes including their own. .......... Personally, I gave up car ownership in 1993 and stopped flying in 2004 on the basis that both were old fashioned and highly inappropriate given the depleted resources.

You are quite right. Those tanks that people use for the school run are indicative of an obscene society. There needs to be a reassessment of what is important to sustain quality of life. Expectations are that living standards will continue to rise. But this expectation also exists in India and China, where they (quite reasonably) expect living standards comparable with the USA and Europe. But the world's resources are finite, and technological advances cannot defer our facing of this fact for ever.
Nuclear power is just another example of avoiding reality - for the present.