Nuclear power

ninky_2

another link from your australian pro nuclear spokesperson.

http://nuclear-news.net/2011/03/15/australian-pro-nuclear-expert-explains-how-fukushima-nuclear-plant-is-safe/

a lot of that is already looking pretty outdated. i'm concerned about anyone who says not to trust 'the media' (a very broad church) but to trust them.

kittypimms

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Looks like that is bang on a fault line to me.

Ae you taking the mickey? Seriously now. Because I'm no geographer, but if you say so I'm sure Caithness and North Sutherland are well known for their earthquakes. Crikey, the Dounreay Dome is like a bouncy castle.
/End Sarcasm/

I'm still in the camp of "let's wait and see". If you look at the number of major events at Nuke licenced sites in the past 20 or so years, compared to those at oil, coal, etc, Nuke still looks like a safe bet.

Notwithstanding the fact that since the industry took off all the "major" nuke events (Tokaimura, TMI, Windscale, Chernobyl) were all caused by human error, rather than infrastructure failure. This is the first major Force Majure event impacting a nuclear installation, and the actual Nuclear part acted as it should; sadly the failure of the coolant systems appear to be the catalyst here.

The new gen designs have been rigorously tested and proven. Europe is (AFAIK*) not prone to major earthquakes, and as stated earlier, the major incidents that could affect UK/ Euro installations (fire, plane strike, etc) have been accounted for.

Yes there will be repercussions throughout the European energy sector, but as stated above this will be down to people pressure, rather than doubtful technology.

Hope this makes sense; it's been a long day!

Edit: *I'm a physicist, not a geographer!

ninky_2

kittypimms wrote: »

The new gen designs have been rigorously tested and proven. Europe is (AFAIK) not prone to major earthquakes, and as stated earlier, the major incidents that could affect UK/ Euro installations (fire, plane strike, etc) have been accounted for.

tested against what though? they might not rely on pumping systems to circulate coolant but they still rely on replacement coolant coming into the system at some point afaik. a natural disaster (major flooding, landslides etc) could knock out this system just as has happened in japan. unless someone can say why not.....

it's not the earthquake that caused the issue so much afaik as the tsunami / flooding. so it's not just being in an earthquake zone that is cause for concern. any major flooding is cause for concern.

WHITEVANMAN

Ninky do you really believe that human-kind is ever going to live the way you think they should, continually doing less with less and being considerate for every other human being on the planet? You only have to look to the current situations in the middle east to understand that this will never happen, exagerated of course because these people have been deprived for years, but ultimately every one on the planet wants more, not less, its part of human nature, even if some can surpress the desire. When things get so bad in the future if there is no way for some nations to sustain food and energy, I guess you will end up seeing a whole lot more deaths from weapons of the machines, be they nuclear, chemical or plain old explosives. The human race is far more unstable than the nuclear reactors you detest so much.

kittypimms

ninky wrote: »

tested against what though? they might not rely on pumping systems to circulate coolant but they still rely on replacement coolant coming into the system at some point afaik. a natural disaster (major flooding, landslides etc) could knock out this system just as has happened in japan. unless someone can say why not.....

it's not the earthquake that caused the issue so much afaik as the tsunami / flooding. so it's not just being in an earthquake zone that is cause for concern. any major flooding is cause for concern.

The EPR (Proposed UK NB design) has active and passive protection systems; I'm afraid I've nicked this from Stickypedia, but it's more eloquent than I...:

• Four independent emergency cooling systems, each capable of cooling down the reactor after shutdown (i.e. 300% redundancy).
• Leaktight containment around the reactor.
• An extra container and cooling area if a molten core manages to escape the reactor
• Two-layer concrete wall with total thickness 2.6 meters, designed to withstand impact by airplanes and internal overpressure.

Back in Pimmswords, if you look at the proposed locations for the UK NB (Hinckley, Seascale), you will notice that they are next to the sites of current/ in the process of decomms Nuke reactors, and that they have had an awful lot of investigation done on the above risks (flood etc). As Nuke plants are best to be built on coastlines, flooding and stability is a large consideration!

A._Badger

ninky wrote: »

don't be so ridiculous. you really think they care what is in the guardian or daily mail more than scientific experts who are advising them? look if the technology had not so catastrophically failed we would not be having this conversation. i don't think the media have created this crisis or are overreacting to it in anyway. in fact the bbc seems yet to report the upgraded level 6 incident.

What is ridiculous is the hysteria.

Of course the German government reacts to political pressure - not least because it has a huge 'Green' lobby permanently at its heels.

Nothing has 'failed' in Japan. What has happened is that an event the Japanese should have planned for but didn't has taken place - an event which could not happen in Germany - and certainly not in landlocked Switzerland.

Reactors that were safe yesterday are no less safe today when the cause of concern is the result of a 10m tsunami. Pretending otherwise is just panic-stricken propaganda.

ninky_2

okay kittypimms but how are the coolant systems supplied and how is that supply protected? this issue here has not just been the pumps but lack of suitable coolant and supply network.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

kittypimms wrote: »

Ae you taking the mickey? Seriously now. Because I'm no geographer, but if you say so I'm sure Caithness and North Sutherland are well known for their earthquakes. Crikey, the Dounreay Dome is like a bouncy castle.
/End Sarcasm/

I'm still in the camp of "let's wait and see". If you look at the number of major events at Nuke licenced sites in the past 20 or so years, compared to those at oil, coal, etc, Nuke still looks like a safe bet.

Notwithstanding the fact that since the industry took off all the "major" nuke events (Tokaimura, TMI, Windscale, Chernobyl) were all caused by human error, rather than infrastructure failure. This is the first major Force Majure event impacting a nuclear installation, and the actual Nuclear part acted as it should; sadly the failure of the coolant systems appear to be the catalyst here.

The new gen designs have been rigorously tested and proven. Europe is (AFAIK*) not prone to major earthquakes, and as stated earlier, the major incidents that could affect UK/ Euro installations (fire, plane strike, etc) have been accounted for.

Yes there will be repercussions throughout the European energy sector, but as stated above this will be down to people pressure, rather than doubtful technology.

Hope this makes sense; it's been a long day!

Edit: *I'm a physicist, not a geographer!

Good post. I suppose they tested reactors rigorously also.


Anyway, you see that big crack that starts in Fort William & runs all the way to Inverness (well, I am sure it runs further but under the sea)?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=map+of+scotland+fault+line+fort+william+to+inverness&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

macaque_2

A._Badger wrote: »

Anyone looking for a less hysterical reaction to this event can find a useful sci/tech overview at:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-15-march-summary/

Warning: It's a bit short on discarded teddybears and Greenpeas spokespersons.

Mr Badger; the hyperbole in your responses (including the repeated use of the word hysterical) and the continued search for websites which are somewhat biased may not be hysterical but certainly qualifies as over reaction.

As a matter of interest, if a nuclear power plant was planned to be located one mile from your house, would you object?

A._Badger

macaque wrote: »

Mr Badger; the hyperbole in your responses (including the repeated use of the word hysterical) and the continued search for websites which are somewhat biased may not be hysterical but certainly qualifies as over reaction.

That's biased defined as: 'written by scientists who know something about the subject, as opposed to Guardian journalists', is it?'

macaque wrote: »

As a matter of interest, if a nuclear power plant was planned to be located one mile from your house, would you object?

As a matter of fact I used to eat my lunch several days a week within a quarter a mile of one and rarely gave it a moment's thought. You should read James Lovelock on the subject. He's on record as saying he'd have one in his back garden.