Nuclear Power

[Lateralthinking1]

BBC news, headline story, 10.13am - "Japan to scrap stricken nuclear reactors". I have updated my last post slightly to reflect the ongoing developments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12903725

[johnb]

Just a couple of points.

... johnb and Bryn, I agree with you on your point about millisieverts. I don't know what the poster had in mind but it seems to me that here the BBC has either provided a balanced report or used (accurate) statistics to understate the position, depending on how someone sees it. Quite obviously, had they included the figure 8,760,000, this would have been regarded either as sensationalising or being more transparently accurate, depending on how someone sees it. Perception again - and on both sides.

I think that Budapest thought that the BBC's figures were inaccurate ("This BBC report mixes up annual doses with hourly doses and as such is totally inaccurate") but I can't see that is the case. Perhaps someone would enlighten me if I am wrong.

Assuming that the BBC's figures are correct I think their report puts the radiation level in a way that is transparent, easily understandable and does not minimise the situation in any way.

The announcement from TEPCO that reactors 1 to 4 were going to be scrapped was merely stating the bl**ding obvious, though I understand that the statement was probably intended to be an official confirmation of the situation in order to comply with TEPCO's statutary regulations.

Budapest referred to a Guardian article based on an interview with Richard Lahey. The article is rather curious and I suspect somethings were lost between Richard Lahey's lips and what got into print - it would have been much better to have printed Lahey's actual words. I had the impression that the journalist sometimes got into a muddle over the Reactor Pressure Vessel, the Primary Containment Vessel (which surrounds the RPV) and the Drywell (which, as far as I can gather, is another name for the PCV in the Boiling Water Reactors at Fukushima).

Incidentally, I have read that it is GE's recommended procedure to flood the containment in the event of a 'loss of coolant accident'. This is to provide an additional heat sink for the reactor vessel in order to reduce the risk of a breach of the reactor pressure vessel (if water is in contact with the RPV it won't melt), not to provide a coolant for any material escaping from the RPV.

Once again - I have no expertise in this area and am only trying to piece together information and might well arrive at the wrong conclusions. (There is so much written in the media that is misleading, inaccurate or ill informed.)

[Lateralthinking1]

johnb - Thank you for these helpful comments. It will be vitally important for it to be determined in the longer run whether employees were working in accordance with accepted procedures. Personally, I think there are caveats too - the highly unusual nature of this incident, combined with understandable stresses, will need to be taken into account and allowances made. So too the extent to which those procedures had been endorsed, or simply overlooked, by the Japanese Government and international regulatory authorities. Less scope for allowances there.

As in any organisation, not every employee will be sweetness and light even in the best of times. It is clear that there is a history of extensive falsification of documents but not by the vast majority - that is obvious given the spread of roles - and as far as any business culture is concerned, I am in no doubt that this goes to the very top. I am not wholly convinced by the reason given for the sudden disappearance of the Tokyo-based Tepco President but I suppose we have to take it at face value and not think of the strange and unique medical case of Ernest Saunders, among others.

When he is well, and the Government is more orderly, they may find themselves asking questions related to this item from Bloomberg, suggesting that warnings about the dangers of a tsunami to the plants were made two years ago and ignored. I would also like to know more about the politics of MOX and specifically the role of Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, in 2009 and the Coalition Government now.- Best regards, Lat.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-25/tsunami-risk-well-known-to-nuclear-engineers-regulators-who-failed-to-act.html

[Frances_iom]

BBC news, headline story, 10.13am - "Japan to scrap stricken nuclear reactors". I have updated my last post slightly to reflect the ongoing developments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12903725

I understand some were due to be decommisioned in short term anyway.
The staff apologising is a cultural thing - the company 'failed' the population - don't treat it like a western apology.
I think that given that we hold quite a bit of plutonium from the coldwar weapons program getting it inside a reactor is the of best thing we can do with it.
Re Budapest's post - I'm not sure how 'corium' (the moltern ceramic like core material) would explode on contact with water considering they have been trying to stuff the reactor full of water - the main problem I seem is that certain fission products are soluble inc Iodine but in 80days assuming no more is released the level will be 1/1000th of current levels

There is quite a level headed article in the current issue of the Economist - short term natural gas will replace lost nuclear as part of the base load generation - possibly the same will occur in UK - America and Canada will develop the tar shale etc to extract NG (I'm sure the evirnomentalists will be happy) but that should reduce demand in short term for the North African supplies so the price should remain reasonably stable - Germany will adopt more Russian Gas until the danger is seen too late when the Kremlin start playing politics with the supply.

Re my comparison of the 1960's - you must have had a deprived childhood - I knew of no outside toliet in my working class street - there were large estates of then new council houses built to standards that were for many years much better than private housing - I never once saw a gas light in a house (yes for street lights) - re TV's they were not exactly energy efficient (1 tv then = 4 smaller ones today) - yes there were major differences with 1910/1960 coal was starting to decline and private transport accounted for much more energy use but people still travelled as much if you count hours - they moved from trains to cars and then swopped Spain for Blackpool etc - people will not give up the freedom to travel and that needs to be accounted for - look how the railways developed in the period 50yrs prior to 1910 as did steam ships.

[Lateralthinking1]

Frances_iom - Thanks for those comments, all interesting. I accept that the apology is partially cultural. I have had a close look at several photos from the BBC. It is quite possible - but by no means certain - that those on this photo were not far from the top of the company. Nevertheless, I have seen how the top two or three layers of business and government organisations can often be cut throat with a lot of buck passing. It will be interesting to see if there are apologies from those with "ultimate responsibility".

The need to do something with age old plutonium is a convincing angle which I hadn't thought about before. I would like to know more - how much is there, range of alternative uses etc.

People wanting the freedom to travel - Yes, but I think a lot of perceptions will naturally alter as a consequence of environmental change. Our understanding of freedom itself will change. You mention earlier travel by rail and many people then spending comparable time on travel to now. It is just that further distances in that time are possible. All fairly true - holidays now are of course longer - not just the two weeks. I think though this shows how closely linked the idea of freedom and time itself are. When you get to the situation where choices have to be made, questions will be asked. "Do you want all the freedom to travel in the world now and hardly any later?" or "do you want measures to spread it out a bit?" Then people will choose the latter. There will be a generation - it is probably already born - which will get to 30 or 40 and have to face precisely those questions. I don't think that we should leave them with that - that kind of taking it to the wire.

Deprived childhood? No. Leafy suburbia, quieter, less crazy speeds, fewer crowds, playing outside, wrapping up warm. First car 1968. Central heating 1969. First real holiday - Wales - 1972. I went abroad once between 1962 and 1988. My parents though had gaslight in their flat in 1956. My grandparents certainly had an outside toilet and just a bath in the kitchen until the very late 1970s. I was there often! Another grandparent did not have a fridge until about 1980 and never a TV, a vacuum cleaner or a washing machine (she used her daughter's one).

2011 - I don't own a car, a mobile phone, a microwave oven, a dishwasher, a freezer, a laptop, a hairdryer, a food mixer, a dvd player or garden lights. I don't fly and I travel once or twice a year by intercity rail. I have only travelled more than eight miles twice in the last six months. Can't say that any of it worries me much. It wasn't a deliberate green thing initially. More me. In fact, it is the modern world that worries me - I find it stressful, mad, grasping, pushy, irrational and overwhelming. Not having some of these things is a positive advantage. I live in a nice, small, 1968 built semi, irrespective of the Government turfing me out of a job - the cuts - and putting my long-term future here at risk. I'm trying to hold onto it. Why would I want much more? In fairness, I do like my central heating to be on in winter - a luxury - and that is obviously one of the biggest drains. - All the best - Lat.

[Lateralthinking1]

.....Anyway, I've found the key document that covers the points about the plutonium stockpile in Cumbria. Good God! No wonder the discussion beyond this forum doesn't seem very open. This is the study from Prof King and team which addresses the issue of spent fuel. http://s3.oxforddigital.tv/SSCH/nucl...r_study_sm.pdf. The presentation to the PM was cancelled this week because of Japan but one suspects that the study will still be influential. Clearly something has to be done with the highly dangerous spent materials - not only plutonium but AGR and even uranium - but I really don't like the look of any of this at all.

1. Option one would try to manage and then dispose of the plutonium and AGR waste where it is in Cumbria by 2075. Disposal would be in a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). Obviously, this is not exactly a wonderful time frame although it appears that in all of the options there would eventually be use of the GDF. We are told that the stockpile of plutonium in Cumbria is a security risk. What then would one think of it being scattered in smaller amounts?

2. Two out of the other three options appear to involve driving plutonium products from Cumbria to a new generation of nuclear plants in different areas of Britain. These seem to be the preferred options of Prof King. New plants would enable plutonium to be made into MOX and be reused. There is a facility in Cumbria that produces MOX. However, hardly anyone wants it. Germany did but now that is doubtful. MOX is precisely what the Japanese thought they had voted against for being too dangerous and arguably what is responsible for the problems there now. The fourth option would require it being transported in Britain for export.

3. In Prof King's options, not only would MOX be used in new nuclear plants across Britain. There would be the "before" and "after" use scenarios. Storage of plutonium powder and plutonium-based MOX waste would be permitted at plants around the country rather than simply being allowed at Sellafield. During use in the plants, MOX would be in two designs, one French, one Japanese.

4. The study spends far more time on money than safety. The emphasis on use of MOX is closely linked to saving the taxpayer expense. Once MOX was seen as an answer to the fact that plutonium had little use as soon as fast breeder reactor programmes were halted. But although the Cumbrian MOX production plant has had a billion pounds of British taxpayers' subsidies, MOX production has been dismal. Something needs to be done with the plutonium and now the MOX plant needs to be justified.

5. In reality, all the options are horrendously expensive, some in the short-term, others in the longer-term. All require levels of investment that were always going to be doubtful even before Fukushima. Option one - disposal - is not necessarily the most expensive overall. However, it has the misfortune of being the most expensive in terms of base cost before adjustments, hence it is argued against by enthusiasts of MOX fueled nuclear plants more easily.

6. Various technical processes being considered in the study are entirely new. They are thought feasible by scientists but are as yet unproven. The level of safety compliance of each option is described as equal but this would appear to be a sleight of hand. It simply means that they all should theoretically be able to comply with the current regulations. As such, the relative dangers of the options are deliberately ignored by Prof King in his study.

7. Any procedure would need to comply with a Regulatory Justification. Justification has been agreed for the new generation of plants but so far only on the basis of uranium use. Prof King has rushed out a statement to say that Fukushima should not deter the project. In fact, full speed ahead and presumably in line with his MOX enthusiasm. In my humble view, he needs to be stopped.

[johnb]

Just a few minor points, for now:

MOX is precisely what the Japanese thought they had voted against for being too dangerous

This seems misleading. As I understand it, if it is proposed that MOX be used in a nuclear power plant, the assembly of the prefecture where the plant is located has to vote whether or not to allow its use. If the prefecture assembly votes against the use of MOX it does NOT go ahead.

...and arguably what is responsible for the problems there now.

You must already know that that statement is totally incorrect.

In my humble view, he needs to be stopped.

Good to see that you are an advocate of open discussion .... Not.

[Lateralthinking1]

It is difficult to be precisely clear about the referendum. I have this from way back which doesn't wholly help:

"In the case of TEPCO, in 2001 a citizens' referendum was held in Kariwa Village, Niigata Prefecture about the pluthermal plan and the majority voted against. (Kariwa Village hosts TEPCO's Kashiwazaiki-Kariwa NPP.) Then in August 2002, it was discovered that data from periodic inspections at TEPCO's NPPs had been altered and Niigata and Fukushima Prefectures both rescinded their 'prior understanding' for pluthermal. With the two leading power companies' pluthermal plans derailed and the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant scheduled to begin active trials (using spent fuel) in December, Kyushu Electric and Shikoku Electric were under pressure to submit applications for permission to use MOX fuel, in order to be able to show some progress in the pluthermal program. They plan to introduce pluthermal by 2010, while the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant is scheduled to begin operations in 2007, so it's a tight schedule. In addition, to induce local and prefectural governments to accept pluthermal, in 2004 METI introduced new subsidies. Apparently consideration is being given to further raising these subsidies".

I wasn't trying to mislead on the plutonium point but my understanding was that the detection of plutonium outside the plant
was effectively what triggered the decision to decommission. Is this wrong?

Prof King is a man who has considerable sway, having been the Government's Chief Scientist. While this also means that he has huge amounts of expertise, my concern is that his views will be given too much weight by the powers-that-be. Had the study been produced by Frank Barnaby, it would have looked very different. Had it been produced by George Monbiot, it would have been somewhere between King and Barnaby. Had it been produced by Wade Allison it would have probably gone further than King. The expert "personality" is all very well but I would prefer co-authorship by a range of experts on vitally important studies. This would be a better starting point for open discussion.

[Frances_iom]

I wasn't trying to mislead on the plutonium point but my understanding was that the detection of plutonium outside the plant
was effectively what triggered the decision to decommission. Is this wrong?
.

yes wrong - pumping sea water + overheating by lack of cooling in the associated storage ponds almost certainly meant that the reactors would never again be useful.
As several have pointed out to you Plutonium is a natural product of the reactor cycle - it is possible to operate a reactor in a mode that maximises Plutonium production and this was done to build up stocks for weapons by all nuclear powers (the Nagasaki bomb was plutonium based) - hence spent fuel is reprocessed in places like Sellafield.
If there are leaks then plutonium will be found - in general it is an alpha emitter which means it doesnt penetrate skin however if ingested then it is absorbed by the bone marrow and liver (+ possibly other organs) - I suspect very similar to lead poisoning - and then alpha radiation from these can damage surrounding cells however it is also toxic in same way that lead is toxic. A long half life actually means that the fission of the Plutonium is a slow process - the longer the half life the fewer alpha particles you will see.
You seem hungup about Plutonium - you would appear to have much spare time to do some serious reading - maybe sign up for A level physics and work from there ?

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks. Anyone else hung up about plutonium or am I the only one?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would be hung up about one of the most dangerous substances on earth. But that doesn't mean we should have a serious debate about it, which of course is what we are doing. But

4. The study spends far more time on money than safety.

That always seems to be the priority, and that's what worries me.

[Frances_iom]

Anyone with a modicum of common sense would be hung up about one of the most dangerous substances on earth. .

Have you read http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf15.html or don't you believe in doing any research ?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Thank you for that. I've read it and it doesn't exactly reassure me, particularly as the source is hardly an impartial one. And I did say "one of" the most dangerous substances on earth. There are others, of course - caesium, strontium, asbestos dust, for starters, but plutonium is up there with them, whatever cosy reassurances we may be pampered with from the nuclear industry.

[teamsaint]

Thanks. Anyone else hung up about plutonium or am I the only one?

i am very hung up about the whole nuclear industry. It is an utterly INSANE way to produce electricity.
It is/was an accident waiting to happen.
I wonder if the poor devils who used to call that area "home" are hung up about it.
I am sick to death of apologists for dangerous expensive industrial methods which benefit mostly wealthy engineering and manufacturing companies, and the goverments and banks that fund them.

And I REALLY REALLY wish that the atomic energy spokespeople and the japanese government would stop managing the information, or Lying as it used to be known.
Can't imagine how i would feel about it if I was Japanese.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And I REALLY REALLY wish that the atomic energy spokespeople and the japanese government would stop managing the information, or Lying as it used to be known.
Can't imagine how i would feel about it if I was Japanese.

The British covered up the 1957 Windscale fire far more than anything the Japanese have attempted, so if we're casting the first stone. (But I repeat myself - it's a bad habit of mine, I know. )