Nuclear Power

[Frances_iom]

Nuclear power is just another example of avoiding reality - for the present.

and what is 'reality' - 15th Century, 18th C, 19thC 20th C (pre or post antibiotics) ? - we are where we are, with the world population that can only increase albeit at a slower rate unles of course you wish the 4 horsemen to enter at full gallop - so what would be your answer ?

It was some quake - it unleased about 300Mtons TNT equivalent (Hiroshima was I think about 50kton) - it moved the northern Island of Japan about 2.5metres with the result that the earth is now spinning a little faster (day reduced by 1.8microsecs)

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks Eine. I've spent some time thinking whether and how to respond to the last few comments. I realise that people have family and friends in Japan and want to try to make any points with due sensitivity. My opener here would be that very possibly, and hopefully, there will not be a dramatic turn for the worse. I feel though that we have seen enough already not to like and certainly the Japanese people in the region have. Officials tearing backwards and forwards between four buildings, working under huge stresses to the point of exhaustion, and with all of their expertise and knowledge still feeling unsure about what exactly is happening. The Register is what it is. To say that this has been a stunning success - "Build more reactors" - has to be irony on one level, if also a genuine attempt to bring balance. It is Private Eye like in that way and I see that even it has changed its tune.

Those who oppose nuclear power may have varied and wide ranging agendas. I make the point about greed. However, in all honesty, that is an attempted answer to the question of "what would we do without it?". The extent of my politics in terms of my opposition to it is precisely to prevent the kinds of experiences people have had to endure this week, particularly when they come on top of the devastation of natural phenomena. Japan is the size of Montana, which incidentally is one of the states that doesn't have a nuclear power station. The UK is two thirds the size of Japan. Possibly, just possibly, in a country the size of the US, Russia or China, one can afford to risk situations arising where significant chunks of land become uninhabitable. I don't think we can here, nor do I think Japan can, where 70% of the land is uninhabitable purely due to the natural terrain. There is an issue of scale.

Furthermore, here in the UK, the prevailing winds are from the south west (approx 70%). I find it astonishing that the proposals to site new nuclear power stations should include an equal number of sites on the east and west coasts so that some, if they went wrong, would be more likely to have impacts on huge areas of land while others would be more likely to have impacts simply over the sea. 4% of this country's power is provided by nuclear energy. If we are serious about climate change, this should be a small enough percentage to cope with in energy savings. In fact, it is a small percentage of the whole to which I thought we were committed. As I said, I am not advocating the horse and cart or even lifestyles for everyone based on my own but a late sixties level of consumption per person would hardly be to take people back into the dark ages. Only in setting that kind of example can we hope in diplomacy to take the lead in sensible discussions with advancing nations about sensible and manageable growth.

The wider press reaction is understandable given that the nuclear industry has always been permitted to downplay and hide problems. If it had been more open, we might have seen that it is in the main well run. Still, all of the covertness to me implies that there is a gut instinct in the industry itself that even when it is reasonably managed it is more risky than many have ever come to terms with fully. That resistance even now is prevalent. I believe that a part of it is about ego. In some respects, in the battle of man against nature, the science behind it was a remarkable achievement. Now nature is reminding us rather crushingly that it can still have the upper hand. I wish the very best to those who have worries about people in Japan as this discussion takes place. Lat.

[johnb]

4% of this country's power is provided by nuclear energy.

Just one point: the percentage of UK electricity generation that is provided by nuclear is about 18%.

[StephenO]

and what is 'reality' - 15th Century, 18th C, 19thC 20th C (pre or post antibiotics) ? - we are where we are, with the world population that can only increase albeit at a slower rate unles of course you wish the 4 horsemen to enter at full gallop - so what would be your answer ?

Hopefully Lat's excellent post (#62) has provided you with the answer you were looking for. If the Four Horsemen do enter at a gallop, it will have been our failure to look after the planet that spurred them on.

[vinteuil]

Just one point: the percentage of UK electricity generation that is provided by nuclear is about 18%.

... and France obtains about 80% of its electricity from nuclear. France is also planning to increase the percentage of electricity it generates from 'green' sources (wind, waves, sun etc) to 20%; it will then presumably have no need for coal/oil/gas burning power stations...

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes johnb but nuclear power generates 4% of the country's energy. (I just got the words "power" and "energy" the wrong way round).

At its peak, nuclear provided 26% of this country's electricity generation so that has already dropped by eight percentage points. In just 14 years too. At a time of a considerable increase in population numbers, a considerable increase in the number of elderly people, almost certainly an increase in energy use per person and a decrease in more traditional means of electricity provision. If that can occur with all of those trends and almost no effort on the part of the average member of the public, I doubt that it is needed.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

and what is 'reality' - 15th Century, 18th C, 19thC 20th C (pre or post antibiotics) ? - we are where we are, with the world population that can only increase albeit at a slower rate unles of course you wish the 4 horsemen to enter at full gallop - so what would be your answer ?

We are where we are, because of the refusal to face the population time bomb. What do I suggest? International co-operation in seeking humanitarian ways to control the world's population. People condemn the Chinese for their one child policy, which could go pear-shaped, but at least that's one country that's trying.

[charles t]

Currently, there is a doomsday search for potassium iodide tablets here in States (not 'immune' to it meself)...

Yesterday, for example there were 30...count them
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
potassium iodate's sitting on e-bay - current bid was $255.00 (not a typo) two-hundred-fifty-five smackers before I fainted...

[LHC]

Yes johnb but nuclear power generates 4% of the country's energy. (I just got the words "power" and "energy" the wrong way round).

At its peak, nuclear provided 26% of this country's electricity generation so that has already dropped by eight percentage points. In just 14 years too. At a time of a considerable increase in population numbers, a considerable increase in the number of elderly people, almost certainly an increase in energy use per person and a decrease in more traditional means of electricity provision. If that can occur with all of those trends and almost no effort on the part of the average member of the public, I doubt that it is needed.

As I understand it the reduction in the use of nuclear power is a result of successive governments (particularly labour) putting off any decision to build new reactors. It has only been possible because of a very large increase in our reliance on gas imported from the continent, especially Russia. This reliance on imported gas makes us vulnerable to disruptions in the supply chain and also to the risk that Russia might use its control of the gas supply for political ends (as it has done in Georgia). Gas generation is also not very 'green'.

This is not a comfortable position to be in, hence the demand for an increase in nuclear generation.

[johnb]

LHC,

Quite correct. The total electricity that was generated increased over the period that Lat was referring to and the reduction in nuclear generation was more than offset by an increase in gas. (Google is a wonderful thing!)

[johnb]

I had Radio 4 on this afternoon and happened upon a really excellent programme (Material World) devoted to the situation with the nuclear plant in Japan. It deals with the reactor design, the performance of other reactors in Japan, what is happening and what might develop and the potential effects on health if things get worse.

It was a really excellent programme and I urge anyone interested to listen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zf4j5

IMO the reporting of the crisis on Radio 4 and the BBC TV has been extremely poor indeed. The presenters and the news teams behind them seem to be out of their depth and some of the opinions expressed by experts have been almost derisory.

Yesterday I heard one 'expert' saying that reasons the Japanese were using helicopters to spray water was either (a) to keep the buildings cool, which wasn't very efficient or (b) to cool the reactor core, which wasn't very efficient or (c) to refill the pools holding the spent fuel rods, which wasn't very efficient. For heaven's sake - any idiot would have known that.

Another example on the BBC TV news was that in one news bulletin it described how the people in Tokyo were flooding out of the city in response to radiation fears (with a reporter standing by as people boarded a train). The next news bulletin said that many non-Japanese people were leaving Tokyo but not the Japanese.

Having said that, the situation isn't helped by the lack of accurate information from the Japanese authorities. It would have been much, much if they had set up a system of explaining exactly what was happening and the reasons behind those actions. Often the lack of knowledge [Edited] and uncertainty is much more alarming than knowing the facts of the situation.

[Simon]

Having said that, the situation isn't helped by the lack of accurate information from the Japanese authorities. It would have been much, much ______ if they had set up a system of explaining exactly what was happening and the reasons behind those actions. Often ______ the lack of knowledge that is more alarming than actually knowing the facts.

Perhaps they are a bit under pressure at the moment, John, and have more important things to bother about than whether we at the other side of the world know every detail. After all, we even have to fill in a couple of blanks for ourselves in your last paragraph...

But I do agree that the reporting hasn't been helpful, in general.

[johnb]

After all, we even have to fill in a couple of blanks for ourselves in your last paragraph...

Whoops

(I was really thinking about keeping the Japanese people informed rather than the global onlookers but you are quite right in what you say.)

Must remember to proof read
Must remember to proof read
Must ....

[Lateralthinking1]

The leaders of China, the United States, Russia, Germany and Switzerland have all obviously been duped then.

Chris Huhne is a wily bird. He needs to play his cards right but good luck to him.

Better news from Reactor 2. Good. Let's hope and pray. It is just as well that a few brave souls are willing to risk life and limb. Perhaps they could have done with the help of many enthusiastic volunteers.

Beddington and the Foreign Office have changed their tune but the wheels of Westminster do turn slowly. Luckily, their change of heart just might prevent a stampede and further mayhem.

It seems that according to eminent scientists there is still the possibility of significant radiation travelling around the whole of the northern hemisphere if the attempts at cooling don't work.

Dr Musson has gone quiet. His work on the history of earthquakes in the UK on Google is actually fascinating. Clearly he has made a big contribution to wider knowledge on that subject. Credit where it is due.

One of our current plants is of a Chernobyl design and it is on a fault line. The Government's proposals include a new one at the same site. There have been several earthquakes in the region - we tend not to go above 6 on the Richter scale here: most serious ones are about 3 to 5.5 - but there are a lot in this country every decade.

To say that Fukushima is a demonstration of nuclear success is perverse. It is akin to a dangerous sports fanatic leaping out of a plane, crashing, losing two arms and a leg permanently, and saying that his body stood up well.

As for Sellafeld, for once I completely agree with Gerry Adams. A full review and let it be by an international panel.

[Frances_iom]

Dr Musson has gone quiet. His work on the history of earthquakes in the UK on Google is actually fascinating. ..

One of our current plants is of a Chernobyl design and it is on a fault line. .

I presume you skipped maths at school ? - earthqukes are measured on a logarithmic scale - a 3.5 quake is not going to cause any damage - the Japense reactors were not damaged by the quake magnitude 9 but the very high tidal wave (which also did most of the death + destruction)
Which reactor is of Chernobyl design - or are you generalising to graphite moderated reators ?