mikewsmith - Memberwonny j
This is the roof of Bentley motors in Crewe, 100% comsumed on site.
Not a very useful stat is it...
Fair point, the case study says (somewhat ambiguously):
"Bentley’s powerful new solar system produces up to 40% of their energy requirements at peak times."
Like the modifications we've made to the earth's climate?is it really a good idea to build machines we cannot control
Fast breeder reactors have been technically viable for years but are not economically viable as we have a lot of surplus plutonium. The view in the industry is that commercial fusion reactors are about 30 years away, and always have been (and maybe always will be).Breeders shut themselves down if you try to run them too hard and fusion is literally a flick of a switch to knock it out (just stop providing fuel). Both are looking viable in the near future.
Nuclear decommissioning safety is a joke (and is not costed in the already high price /MWh )
On the solar panel thing Ikea have 6,000 solar panels on the roofs of its stores in Glasgow and Edinburgh – to generate 30% of their total power use. Not exaclty the game changing tech some people make out.
how many people have died due to nuclear accidents at UK power stations?
Coal has the worst safety record by a long way, deaths in mines, deaths through smog etc. hideous stuff, but we still use it! Currently coal is contributing 22.4% to the National grid as I type.
I think the point with nuclear safety is the potential that if something goes wrong it goes really, really wrong. As such maybe it's not valid to compare deaths from nuclear during a no-big-accident period with the deaths from other causes (lung cancer from coal mining etc.)
Not saying that proves anything one way or the other - just a comment on methodology.
Would we still be able to evacuate England, if a reactor gets stroppy, post Brexit ?
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
and why not re-use the old gasometer sites for huge Prussian Blue liquid batteries
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/04/us_hits_battery_storage_holy_grail/
aracer - MemberGo on then, list the major nuclear accidents which have happened at UK nuclear power stations and how many people have died due to nuclear accidents at UK power stations?
This is more about the use of nuclear material in general, not just for power plants but.
lazy link to first non comprehensive list on a google.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
To ask about UK specific is somewhat shortsighted as when radioactive material gets out into the enviroment it travels and the damage it does is irreversable and can last for many generations.
A nuclear incident anywhere is relevant .
The number of deaths and illnesses due to accidents and the effects of permitted leakage and use of radioactive materials in conventional weapons etc. is high and probably impossible to accurately count, and this is without there having been any serious (in relative terms)incidents.
mikewsmith - MemberWhat are you basing that on?
Nuclear energy is controllable. A modern reactor and fuel rod is much different to the early tech.
The majority of the waste issues is from rapid historic and unplanned developments.What is the disaster that can happen to a power station - do you think those risks are not considered and mitigated.
No. Of course the risks are considered.
If you define controlable as something that is not a problem when everything is opereational and undamaged then I suppose it is not a problem.
As far as I know (IANANE), there is really no way to remove the material effectively from the enviroment or food chain.
I would class this as something that is not controlable.
Another not talked about issue is how vulnerable reactors,processing plants,mines, material in transportation and waste storage facilities are to deliberate attack, physical or cyber, also they are preferred targets in times of conflict.
Not sure how this can be mitigated, technology is unlikely to improve this.
aracer - MemberI note that the number of deaths due to other methods of power generation isn't zero.
noted... 😕
DrJ - Member
I think the point with nuclear safety is the potential that if something goes wrong it goes really, really wrong.
And yet, it all the accidents we have had (windscale, Chernobyl, 3mile island etc) none have actually caused significant devastation?
A few people have been killed, a few more will die a bit younger, and there as few hundred square miles of land we can't live in for a bit (although nature is loving the isolation and thriving without mans presence!)
Compare that to coal power. Hundreds of deaths from work related injuries, hundreds of square miles torn up to mine the raw materials, the potential to change our climate for ever, if it already hasn't done so.
But to the average person, the fear of what "could" happen in a nuclear accident is stronger than the knowledge of what fossil fuels are actually doing to our planet....
Would we still be able to evacuate England, if a reactor gets stroppy, post Brexit ?
AIUI we can all marry jamba's wife and get French passports. Or maybe I misunderstood his argument ...
Fast breeder reactors have been technically viable for years but are not economically viable as we have a lot of surplus plutonium. The view in the industry is that commercial fusion reactors are about 30 years away, and always have been (and maybe always will be).
Umm, the whole point of breeding is to generate and then burn plutonium, you don't actually [i]have[/i] to feed it with uranium. For instance the whole selling point of PRISM is to burn those very same stockpiles (or at least render them useless for weaponisation). Fusion IS actually coming along, I doubt they would be pouring several billion into building ITER if the international community thought otherwise.
Nuclear decommissioning safety is a joke (and is not costed in the already high price /MWh )
Shit point shitly made, one site doth not the entire industry represent. Also, Dounreay was a research site (that, like Sellafield presents some very 'unique*' challenges), you'll probably want to be looking at Magnox if it's commercial site costs you're after. Not that it makes a difference anyway, decommissioning IS costed.
* The Shaft and B30 spring to mind
Not that it makes a difference anyway, decommissioning IS costed.
Costed where? For the new ones, in the strike price? It wasn't for existing, and I bet if it is included in the new one strike price it's a massive underestimate. There was a great page on the NDA gov website about the estimated decom costs in billions for each UK reactor, sadly they've taken it down now. A friend who works in decommissioning nuclear sites says no one knows the true cost of decom until it's done, which is a job for life itself.
The number of deaths and illnesses due to accidents and the effects of permitted leakage and use of radioactive materials in conventional weapons etc. is high and probably impossible to accurately count, and this is without there having been any serious (in relative terms)incidents.
Source please. Also, nobody is talking about weapons, there's another thread for that.
Another not talked about issue is how vulnerable reactors,processing plants,mines, material in transportation and waste storage facilities are to deliberate attack, physical or cyber, also they are preferred targets in times of conflict.
Not particularly. At least not in my experience. Also, I assume you are talking about nuclear conflict since any idiot knows blowing up a reactor isn't good for anyone. Therefore, moot point.
As far as I know (IANANE), there is really no way to remove the material effectively from the enviroment or food chain.
Not like the fairy dust and unicorn tears emitted from mining waste eh?
Not sure how this can be mitigated, technology is unlikely to improve this.
Relay?
To ask about UK specific is somewhat shortsighted as when radioactive material gets out into the enviroment it travels and the damage it does is irreversable and can last for many generations.A nuclear incident anywhere is relevant .
Actually no, in this context it's not. We're talking about the UK nuclear industry.
http://euanmearns.com/a-trip-round-swansea-bay/
you do know this guy is a total nimby quack weirdo don't you? I wouldn't take anything on that site as remotely factual.
Costed where?
Sorry, off night shift. Not costed but funded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Liabilities_Fund
It was established when the AGR's were privatised, it's now up to the owners to add to the fund. The remaining sites were all publically owned.
A friend who works in decommissioning nuclear sites says no one knows the true cost of decom until it's done, which is a job for life itself.
Sadly all part and parcel of legacy crap.
Source please. Also, nobody is talking about weapons, there's another thread for that.
what you don't know everything/have google?
Not particularly. At least not in my experience. Also, I assume you are talking about nuclear conflict since any idiot knows blowing up a reactor isn't good for anyone. Therefore, moot point.
no I am not, and it is a real possibility. how is that moot?
Not like the fairy dust and unicorn tears emitted from mining waste eh?
yes burning fossil fuel is not good. how does this change anything?
Relay?
yes.
Actually no, in this context it's not. We're talking about the UK nuclear industry.
OK. but I said a nuclear incident, this is not border restricted.
Anyway I could be wrong but pretty sure the "nuclear industry" is not so localised and has a lot to do with large companies and investors than any UK goverments or other related organisations.
does this proposed one have something to do with China?
Tidal lagoons where for long periods of the day generation is zero as the lagoon refills.
The turbines work in both directions, so generating power as the lagoon fills and empties. The Swansea one is supposed to be able to generate for up to 14 hours a day, at predictable and regular times, and independent of sun or wind.
Tidal Lagoons? Where the cost of electricity is far higher than Hinkley Point Nuclear and four times higher than gas generated electricity.
I'm not sure comparing strike rates from Hinkley against other forms of more expensive generation has much meaning, it makes for exciting headlines etc, but in terms of representing overall cost to the consumer it doesn't take account of the overall quantity of energy the consumer has to pay for overall, just the cost of each unit.
If you consider each mwh as one unit, the consumer is going to pay for a massively higher number of units from Hinkley than say an offshore wind farm, or a tidal lagoon, as it is going to produce such a large amount of energy compared to the wind farm or lagoon. Strike rates for things like offshore wind will come down with time too, even that quack link says the lagoon prices will come down. With Hinkley you are paying a high strike rate for a comparitively massive quantity of units for a long time.
An index of the rate against how much energy the development will produce would provide a better indication of relative expense perhaps?
wait till every other car in the street is a subsidised electric car too......
[quote=mikewsmith ]Windscale was an experimental reactior built in the 50s copied from the yanks to produce plutonium for a bomb not power.
It was a deliberate trick question - I don't think Windscale has the slightest relevance to any current power station. I note that there isn't a single major accident at a UK power station on the wiki list linked to above, and it is reasonable to confine discussion to the UK, as we're discussing power generation in the UK, not anywhere else - an incident in a different country with different safety standards isn't terribly relevant when considering the risks of building a power station here.
[quote=DrJ ]I think the point with nuclear safety is the potential that if something goes wrong it goes really, really wrong.
Sure, and when you do risk assessment (I'm sure the nuclear industry does a lot of that) you consider magnitude of impact and likelihood of occurrence. The likelihood of occurrence is tiny. Looking at that list again, even the number of deaths caused by Chernobyl is dwarfed by the number of deaths associated with coal power. Let's be realistic about the actual dangers of stuff - a big bang at a nuclear power plant still wouldn't match the health impact of vehicle fumes either.
[quote=bigjim ]I'm not sure comparing strike rates from Hinkley against other forms of more expensive generation has much meaning, it makes for exciting headlines etc, but in terms of representing overall cost to the consumer it doesn't take account of the overall quantity of energy the consumer has to pay for overall, just the cost of each unit.
Well that's just silly. Build enough tidal lagoons to match the total output of Hinkley and how much would the total cost be? Of course the cost per unit is the correct measure.
Well that's just silly. Build enough tidal lagoons to match the total output of Hinkley and how much would the total cost be? Of course the cost per unit is the correct measure.
I think you need to read it again and think about it 😀
Build enough tidal lagoons to match the total output of Hinkley
Well that's just silly.
[quote=bigjim ]
Build enough tidal lagoons to match the total output of Hinkley
Well that's just silly.
Indeed!
what you don't know everything/have google?
The onus is on you to provide the evidence, you said it.
no I am not, and it is a real possibility. how is that moot?
I don't think you're grasping my point. Why would anyone target a nuclear facility when the fallout has the potential to affect their own territory? They wouldn't, the only reason to target one would be in an all out strategic nuclear attack.
yes burning fossil fuel is not good. how does this change anything?
Again, I was talking about mining/industrial waste including that related to renewables. Nuclear isn't that special in this regard (though is probably far better regulated).
Relay?yes.
No, like actual relays. Thousands of them. I'd like to see an EMP knock out our trip sequencing equipment.
OK. but I said a nuclear incident, this is not border restricted.Anyway I could be wrong but pretty sure the "nuclear industry" is not so localised and has a lot to do with large companies and investors than any UK goverments or other related organisations.
does this proposed one have something to do with China?
As aracer said we are talking about nuclear safety in relation to a station being built in the UK. Not France, China, North Korea or the moon.
I used to be a fan of nuclear when I was a kid. I grew up very much as one of the Tomorrows World generation and used to go to Sellafield on trips with my Dad and believed all their spiel about how safe and compact the waste was when they turned it into those little glassy blocks.
Then we had Fukushima and now the truth is out about how much of a mess they really are in at Sellafield with all the waste they are trying to deal with amongst failing structures and containment. So now I think we really don't have any right to using nuclear power (or weapons for that matter) and risk the damage that it can cause to the rest of the population of the planet (not just humans).
I think we should make every town/city/district responsible for generating as much of their own power locally. Cover every suitable roof in solar, also windows with transparent solar. Encourage wind turbines, biomass etc. Sort out the disappointment that is wave/tidal power at the moment.
As for storage - phase change thermal, batteries, hydro etc.
If Hinkley does go ahead though we will lose the unsightly power lines we can see from our new house and get some money from the national grid to use in our village for community projects. I' still rather it didn't.
The turbines work in both directions, so generating power as the lagoon fills and empties. The Swansea one is supposed to be able to generate for up to 14 hours a day,
Like I said. Doesn't generate for long periods of the day.
http://euanmearns.com/a-trip-round-swansea-bay/you do know this guy is a total nimby quack weirdo don't you? I wouldn't take anything on that site as remotely factual.
So which parts of his post are wrong then?
Like I said. Doesn't generate for long periods of the day.
That's why it's all about small and varied generation located preferably close to final use. Also things like CHP and clever use of waste heat.
What happens when there is a problem with your shiny new power station and it goes off line, or floods due a tsunami or gets blown up by an accident or terrorist attach? You lose a huge chunk of your available power.
Yes, agreed, if you're talking about fast reactors in general, but it was a comment about breeders I was responding to. PRISM is a burner rather than a breeder.Umm, the whole point of breeding is to generate and then burn plutonium, you don't actually have to feed it with uranium. For instance the whole selling point of PRISM is to burn those very same stockpiles (or at least render them useless for weaponisation).
Fukushima Daiichi was a first generation BWR protected to the standards of the 1960s and subjected to a natural disaster that also killed about 16000 people. Apart from being a good reminder that resilience is important (not just for nuclear) it's irrelevant to the UK. The legacy waste at Sellafield is in containments that were also built to 1960s designs (or older); they are not 'failing', they just don't meet modern standards.Then we had Fukushima and now the truth is out about how much of a mess they really are in at Sellafield with all the waste they are trying to deal with amongst failing structures and containment.
Aye, breeder/burner config, again, just off night shifts so not firing on all channels.
I think we should make every town/city/district responsible for generating as much of their own power locally. Cover every suitable roof in solar, also windows with transparent solar. Encourage wind turbines, biomass etc. Sort out the disappointment that is wave/tidal power at the moment.
I disagree with your evaluation of nuclear based on old tech but totally agree with this point. We should be aiming to be as sustainable and diverse as possible.
The legacy waste at Sellafield is in containments that were also built to 1960s designs (or older); they are not 'failing', they just don't meet modern standards.
Are you sure about that? I think you will find that the containment solutions put in place decades ago are starting to fall apart so now they are having to try and re-home the waste into even more expensive containment.
Building a nuclear power station is pretty much a case of getting yourself a blank cheque from the country to cash in when the time comes to decommission it in future.
How many billions have we spent on building nuclear plants and how many times this will we have spent in decommissioning them? Unless we can honesty, 100%, say that you can build, operate, decommission and dispose of the waste without ANY incident or pollution/upprocessable waste at the end of it then we have no right to use it as far as I am concerned.
little bit more than not meeting modern standards:
Their own reports are scary enough as they are very much learning/fumbling as they go: http://www.sellafieldsites.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Technology-Development-and-Delivery-Summary-Review-2010_2011.pdf
We will NEVER know everything there is to know about nuclear, nor will we ever be able to deal with it properly. All we do is encase the waste for another generation, then re-encase it and so forth. That is not a solution, it is an expensive, risky and environmentally damaging process.
This pretty much sums up the nuclear industry to me:
[img] 
[/img]
Building a nuclear power station is pretty much a case of getting yourself a blank cheque from the country to cash in when the time comes to decommission it in future.
Given Hinkley C is the first private nuclear venture in this country I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Their own reports are scary enough as they are very much learning/fumbling as they go
Again, legacy issues. B30 has the 70's miners strike to thank for that (as a causal factor).
As for waste, the higher the tech the lower the waste, breeders have waste with a life of hundreds of years rather than thousands which makes it significantly more manageable.
Given Hinkley C is the first private nuclear venture in this country I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
because it's us that ends up paying for it in the end when the company gets in trouble in X years time when trying to decommission it. It's not a hard concept to grasp really is it?
I don't get why you keep saying it's just legacy issues. Odds are history will just repeat itself.
Look as asbestos. Years ago it was a wonder material and used everywhere they could. Then they realised it was dangerous and we are left with a long deadly legacy that will be impossible to ever completely clean up.
Then CNTs were invented and people started using them everywhere despite not knowing all the risks...humans never learn, never know all the answers and are not infallible so why should we be trusted with nuclear energy? For me it's a risk too far.
Thalidomide, MRSA, oil spills etc etc problems caused by humans doing something wrong and it will continue and fall on the generations after us to try and deal with it.
Given Hinkley C is the first [b]private[/b] nuclear venture
The "P" word has worked well for rail, the Royal Mail, banks etc to far hasn't it?
[quote=andyl ]Thalidomide, MRSA, oil spills etc etc problems caused by humans doing something wrong and it will continue and fall on the generations after us to try and deal with it.
Coal, internal combustion engines...
All things considered we have a fairly good idea what we're doing with nuclear now - there are plenty of other more dangerous things we do which people don't get so excited about (the use of some of which can be reduced by building nuclear power stations).
Coal, internal combustion engines...
Indeed.
All things considered we have a fairly good idea what we're doing with nuclear now -
I can't share your confidence in this. Plus you say "fairly" which is not good enough to me. Would you get on a plane if the airline was "fairly confident the wings would stay on", or they were "fairly sure the pilot was competent to fly" it or they were "fairly sure they had put enough fuel in for the flight"? The very fact we have to get a french company with money borrowed from China suggests to me that as well as being unable to financially afford it we can't afford to clean up any mess should it go wrong. do you think it will also come in on budget and on time?
Up until Fukishima I was a fan but now I just can't accept it is a viable route. Say what you want that that was an isolated case and to an old reactor and a freak event...it happened.
Don't pick on my words, I'm English - yes I might suggest the pilot of a plane has a fairly good idea what he's doing and that I'm fairly confident the wings will stay on. I'm similarly confident about nuclear power.
It's been done by other, but Fukushima keeps coming up - remind me how many people were killed by the nuclear incident and how many by other causes? ISTM there are other things than having a nuclear power station there which cost rather more lives.
I don't get why you keep saying it's just legacy issues. Odds are history will just repeat itself.Look as asbestos. Years ago it was a wonder material and used everywhere they could. Then they realised it was dangerous and we are left with a long deadly legacy that will be impossible to ever completely clean up.
And then what? We learned from our mistakes and managed asbestos. As for clean up, just remember it came from somewhere and could just as easily be put back where it was found.
Anyway, in the cases of both nuclear and asbestos the harsh, shitty lessons of their infancies have been learned and they are both mature enough to be managed (or avoided) where applicable. Gone are the days where scientists would piss about with barely sub-critical plutonium spheres with scant regard for their own lives let alone anyone elses. In fact I bet more people have died or been injured on nuclear related construction sites than in nuclear related incidents, hence why the H&S executive was created to manage and legislate againt bad practices (of which the ONR is now a branch).
The "P" word has worked well for rail, the Royal Mail, banks etc to far hasn't it?
You miss my point, up until now the public purse has picked up decommissioning as all the assets were publically owned either by the UKAEA, BNFL or NDA. Private decommissioning hasn't yet taken place so it's completely disingenious to say anything about it.
It should also be noted that one AGR has already beeen decommissioned (the Sellafield prototype) so the principle is already better understood than that of the Magnox reactors which were constantly evolving through their construction period and as such all had to be approched differently. AGR's are all the same within the core and there are actually only two (or three*) distinct designs of pressure vessel.
*blame Dungeness, I'm allowing for it being different though I don't believe there is much seperating the APC reactor from the TNPG/NNC** types in principle.
**
APC - Atomic Power Construction - DNB
TNPG - The Nuclear Power Group - HNB & HPB
BNDC - British Nuclear Design & Construction - HAR & HYA
NNC - National Nuclear Corporation - HYB & TOR
Sorry but Fukushima is relevant, since its an example of engineers & accountants not designing out risk.
They knew there was a damn good chance of an Tatsumi yet choose not to fully protect the reactors with a full height sea wall.
How many similar risks have UK reactors chosen to ignore to save a few bob.
Chaos will find a way people ... Did no-one see Jurassic park
[quote=samunkim ]Sorry but Fukushima is relevant, since its an example of engineers & accountants not designing out risk.
Sure - and how many people did that actually kill? I'm just wondering whether not protecting the reactors was actually the worst thing that went wrong in that area if they knew there was a chance of a tsunami (did they? it seems odd that so many people died in that case).
[quote=samunkim ]How many similar risks have UK reactors chosen to ignore to save a few bob.
[s]Probably [/s] I'm fairly confident it's none.
Chaos will find a way people ... Did no-one see Jurassic park
Talking about Fukushima as an event that has passed is misleading.
It is still happening and it appears that nobody knows how to deal with it and it will continue 'happening' for many years.
nobody can really say what the effect of it will be in the long term.
nobody can even get close enough for long enough to have a good look at it nevermind 'put it back where it was found'.
The 'controlled release' of contaminated water into the enviroment is just another way of saying dump it in the Pacific.
This seems to be the best solution that current engineering can supply.
it is not even a solution, just a way of stopping the situation getting even worse.
this is the thing that makes nuclear powered electic stations so dangerous, and the more of it there is operating the more frequently accidents will happen.
at least they use public transport to move the waste around 😯
Remind me again how many people have been killed by it?
Are you really not aware of the fact that radiation does not kill people instantly but destroys your body slowly?
but in answer to how many (affected), all of us sooner or later.
Of course - the only people to die within the first 2 weeks at Chernobyl died in a helicopter crash...
Let's try this another way then - how many extra deaths are expected due to exposure to radiation?
you reckon people in the UK will die because of it? 😯
squirrelking - MemberAnyway, in the cases of both nuclear and asbestos the harsh, shitty lessons of their infancies have been learned and they are both mature enough to be managed (or avoided) where applicable
Uh, yeah. Flamanville 3- the same design of reactor as Hinckley C, also built by EDF- has already had problems with the secondary containment vessel's concrete cracking and steelwork not being made to spec, the coolant safety valves had enough faults to create a meltdown risk (an issue found by external regulators, never found or at least never reported by Areva), and afaik they've still not finished the investigation into the faulty steel of the reactor vessel.
Now that last one's of particular interest, because there's a strong suggestion that they've known that steel was faulty for almost the entire build, and yet didn't report it til last year. So you have all the usual suspects here- design issues, construction issues, a failure to detect critical systems failures by the builders, and [i]possibly[/i] willingness to conceal those they do find from regulators.
I'm not seeing that the human factor's been designed or regulated or managed out. Again, you don't need to be anti-nuclear to think some of this is pretty worrying. Profit and politics and human nature are more dangerous than radiation...
(if you were less cynical than me, you might think that a project that runs massively overbudget and behind schedule should inherently undermine confidence in those in charge of it; ordinarily I'd agree but I think in this case the budget and schedule were probably a carefully designed fantasy in order to get the things built, rather than being acceidentally wrong. Just as they are for Hinckley.)
aracer - MemberLet's try this another way then - how many extra deaths are expected due to exposure to radiation?
Disingenous- a nuclear disaster doesn't just kill by radiation exposure, as you note yourself re Chernobyl. There's been 573 recorded disaster-related deaths relating to Fukushima where the disaster and evacuation directly contributed to aggravating a chronic disease. No reliable accounting of related suicides and mental illness from the upheval. And absolutely no way of knowing the impact that the reactor emergency response and evacuation had on the wider tsunami response. That's human cost only, the economic costs are staggering.
Actual predictions of radiation-related deaths are mostly smaller, ironically.
I tried for a sneaky edit but too late; when people say that nuclear's risks have been learned, fixed and designed out, I always remember Tepco's admission that they had cancelled plans to improve Fukushima's sea defences, because they weren't prepared to publically admit that Fukuskima's sea defences needed to be improved. I trust engineers but these are engineering decisions made by governments, lawyers, accountants and PR men.
If you can't even take the time to find the correct spelling for HINKLEY what are the chances of any of you other claims being correct. 🙄
Sorry but Fukushima is relevant, since its an example of engineers & accountants not designing out risk.
I'll say this very, very clearly.
FUKUSHIMA IS NOT, WAS NOT, AND MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER BE UNDER UK NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONTROL.
You want to know what we did after Fukushima? Build ****ing Thunderbirds, that's what. A few dozen Zetros and Unimog hookloaders and command vehicles, heavy plant equipment, a fleet of Land Rovers and basically enough equipment to make any disaster relief worker, military or civil, piss themselves with joy. On top of that we built a dyke all the way around Dungeness (on the well known North Sea Tsunami belt) and built up flood defences on all the other power stations appropriate to the local environment. As it is we were never lax enough to build anything in such stupid places as TEPCO but we decided to seimically strengthen everything (beyond the already robust improvements already made) anyway. The project managers were given IIRC £200m for the response equipment alone which will in all likelihood never be used in anger (except when it was bailing out Somerset). Here's the full details including plant stress test results:
https://www.edfenergy.com/content/edf-energy-response-fukushima-nuclear-accident
Beancounters eh?
If it's not already apparant I work in the industry, IIRC there are two others on here that I know of.
Dibbs - right spelling, wrong place 😉
Northwind - I need to read up on that, will get back.
Dibbs - MemberIf you can't even take the time to find the correct spelling for HINKLEY what are the chances of any of you other claims being correct.
As you didn't take the time to correctly spell "your", I am going to ignore your post.
. Don't pick on my words, I'm English.
Eh? You keep saying you are "fairly sure this" and "fairly sure that" so why shouldn't I pick up on it. Your whole argument is based on "fairly sures". Fairly sure is fine when dealing with some things but I draw a line at nuclear.
I simply do not trust humans with nuclear power any more, not government run and especially not private run and that's before it's foreign companies using foreign money as ultimately the bean counters will be calling the shots.
Are you really short sighted enough to think that the immediate deaths from Fukushima are all that matter? What about the lasting environmental damage and risk to animal life. This is not our planet yet we seem to think it's okay to destroy it just so people can have nice things and electricity to run them.
The wall at Fukushima was too low for the wave. Was this as they thought a wave was not going to be that high (they were " fairly sure it would be fine") or because someone said a bigger wall was too expensive?
Humans will not design the perfect nuclear power station
Humans will not build the perfect nuclear power station
Humans will not accurately predict everything that nature will throw at us during the life of that nuclear power station.
As for putting the waste back where it came from that would be fine but now how much concrete and steel is it encased in?
How much concrete does it take to build the power station?
If nuclear was the perfect solution that in 100 years time people will look back on and say was a wise choice then I would be a fan but I simply do not believe that to be the case. In 100 years people are going to look back on this and curse and how the greed for electricity took us down this road intead of investing in a proper low energy consumption and greener generation society.
aracer - MemberOf course - the only people to die within the first 2 weeks at Chernobyl died in a helicopter crash...
Let's try this another way then - how many extra deaths are expected due to exposure to radiation?
you reckon people in the UK will die because of it?
No doubt we are all aware 73.7% os published statistics are made up on the spot... maybe divide them in half or by 10 and see if they are more acceptable?
http://www.chernobyl-international.com/about-chernobyl/
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these figures of course but you can probably average them with other official reports and draw the conclusion that many people have been affected across Europe and will continue to be affected for many generations.
a few headlines
MELTDOWN
Only 3% of the reactor’s lethal material was expelled in the initial accident in 1986, leaving 97% within the unstable sarcophagus. It remains a “ticking time bomb”.
70% of the radiation fell onto the population of Belarus, affecting seven million people.
Scientists feared that a further explosion could occur, producing a force of three to five megatons, and exposing the whole of Europe to enormous radioactive contamination.
800,000 men, known as liquidators, risked their lives and exposed themselves to dangerous levels of radiation to contain the situation.
At least 40,000 of these men have died and a further 70,000 are disabled. Twenty percent of these deaths were suicides.
ENVIROMENT
99% of the land of Belarus was contaminated in 1986.
2,000 towns and villages were evacuated, and more than 400,000 people have been relocated from their homes since 1986. Decades later, another 70,000 are still waiting to evacuate.
Some of the contaminants infecting the soil and air, such as plutonium, have a half-life of 24,400 years.
The contamination of the land remains the biggest health threat as caesium 137 finds its way via the food chain into the human body. Professor Yuri Bandashevsky Prof. MD. PhD in Nuclear Medicine Specialist at the Ivankova Hospital in the Ukraine, states that there should be no caesium in the body or should there be no question of temporary or acceptable levels.
“Any dose is an over dose of caesium 137, there should be no question of acceptable levels in the body”, Professor Yuri Bandashevsky.
ECONOMY
The cost of the Chernobyl blast and its consequences is being carried by the survivors and will be handed down to their children for generations.
The Chernobyl disaster costs Belarus 20% of its annual national budget.
It is estimated that the fallout from the disaster will cost Belarus $235 billion.
The first phase in the battle to contain the damage done by the Chernobyl disaster is the construction of a new Chernobyl Sarcophagus. The structure that was built to secure reactor number 4 in the wake of the explosion – the unstable Chernobyl sarcophagus is perilously close to collapse. The new structure being built will secure the reactor for 100 years but the half-life of some of the most dangerous radioactive elements housed within the reactors core have life spans of up to 24,400 years.
Phase two of this plan is to decontaminate the 200 tons of radioactive material still rumbling inside the exploded reactor. The clean-up of the material has yet to begin and could take many years to come. The cost of the new sarcophagus and clean up is €1.5 billion so far.
I will not post video or pictures of living survivors, and those born long after the event are easy to find, I think I would rather die than suffer as these people are.
TL:DR
My opinion is the risk/reward balance here make nuclear energy a bit of a poor choice.
..unless you are into making a quick buck 😉
I'm sorry Andy, please don't take this as a slight on your character but you seem to be woefully ignorant on the subject of risk management. Every single one of those statements could apply to other things you are presumably happy to put faith in every day.
So, all the "anti nuclear" supporters, you'll be fine to be the first on the electricity rationing list when the rolling blackouts and un-expected blackouts (due to a sudden lack of wind or sun) occur in a few years time?
At that point, the few deaths and side effects from the nuclear disasters that occur will be out weighed in their millions by the lack of electricity.
HINT: Walk round you house, pretty much everything you need to survive on a day to day basis is powered by electricty (water, sewage, heating, lighting, refrigeration, cooking etc etc)
[quote=squirrelking ]I'm sorry Andy, please don't take this as a slight on your character but you seem to be woefully ignorant on the subject of risk management. Every single one of those statements could apply to other things you are presumably happy to put faith in every day.
Exactly. Not only did they not build a higher wall at Fukushima, they didn't do anything to prevent the [b]tens of thousands[/b] of deaths caused by the tsunami which were unrelated to Fukushima. Even if we include the deaths NW mentions, it's still only running at 3-4% of the total human cost of the tsunami - ISTM that by focussing on that the point is being missed somewhat.
[quote=andyl ]In 100 years people are going to look back on this and curse and how the greed for electricity took us down this road intead of investing in a proper low energy consumption and greener generation society.
Ah, so we're back to building lots of tidal lagoons to replace the output of a nuclear power station? The real current alternative is to increase our atmospheric CO2 levels - presumably in 100 years they won't curse us for that?
I am not "anti-nuke" as such, just would like to see less dangerous solutions to support the cushy and wasteful lifestyle the lucky few in developed countries who are above the poverty line have become accustomed to.
So, all the "anti nuclear" supporters, you'll be fine to be the first on the electricity rationing list when the rolling blackouts and un-expected blackouts (due to a sudden lack of wind or sun) occur in a few years time?
honestly would not care too much, would adapt somehow, and I value the cheap energy that I have acess to, in fact my energy supplier has visited several times to check my meter as the consumption is too low they say 🙂
At that point, the few deaths and side effects from the nuclear disasters that occur will be out weighed in their millions by the lack of electricity.
if we truly are concerned with the well being of the human race maybe we should help those without water/food/clothing/shelter/ and a way to support themselves with dignity before worrying about our ever increasing need for electricity and the possibility of having to turn out the porch lights in the near future?
[quote=iffoverload ]I am not "anti-nuke" as such, just would like to see less dangerous solutions
You did read the list posted above of the deaths/GWh? So I presume you're after something not on that list...
if we truly are concerned with the well being of the human race maybe we should help those without water/food/clothing/shelter/ and a way to support themselves with dignity before worrying about our ever increasing need for electricity and the possibility of having to turn out the porch lights in the near future?
Yeah what about them? You do realise this isn't about porch lights, lots of stuff you rely on not in your home also relies on electricity. Though we get into silly arguments here - reducing consumption was done upthread - I'm hugely in favour, but it won't solve the immediate energy problem even if it was all done tomorrow.
deaths/GWh?
sorry I'm off for a ride 🙂
With all the alledged problems peeps on here have with tradesmen and so called proffesional designers and arcitects, giving a blank cheque to a load of foreigners to design a brand new type of power station, on a site next to a highly dangerous existing structure, that is still required to work supplying energy, somebody is going to have many sleepless nights, and a huge bank balance to pay for it all failures and things going boom in the night.
A highly dangerous existing structure. Really? What do you know that we don't?
As for foreign designed and built, are we just pretending that the Westinghouse PWR on the Suffolk coast hasn't existed or operated safely for the past two decades?
And yes, comparing an architect churning out house extensions or garage mechanics with a highly regulated, overseen and legislated industry is totally valid.
Unless we can honesty, 100%, say that you can build, operate, decommission and dispose of the waste without ANY incident or pollution/upprocessable waste at the end of it then we have no right to use it as far as I am concerned.
That's not a test we set for any other energy generation (or probably any other human activity). In fact, we KNOW as an absolute fact that digging up stuff, transporting stuff and burning stuff causes deaths.
squirrelking - Member
I'm sorry Andy, please don't take this as a slight on your character but you seem to be woefully ignorant on the subject of risk management. Every single one of those statements could apply to other things you are presumably happy to put faith in every day.
You've presented nothing to support that statement nor have you demonstrated any knowledge in risk management yourself. You'll be telling me next that project managers are infallible and venture capitalists are honest...
There isn't a risk that we will be left with nuclear waste or use god knows how much concrete in the construction it is a fact. We still do not have a permanent solution for the safe disposal of nuclear waste - fact.
A few quotes from the news today were EDF are having cold feet over whether they can deliver (yes, they are now seeing that the RISK of this ruining them is very real):
"The prize for EDF with Hinckley Point is a guarantee to provide electricity for decades at [b]three times the current price[/b]."
"To make matters worse, EDF's recent track record in delivering big projects is [b]poor[/b]. Reactor construction in France, Finland and China have run [b]over time and massively over budget[/b]."
"The dangers to the company's financial integrity are great enough to prompt EDF's chief financial officer to [b]resign[/b] in protest,"
" EDF Energy estimates its new Hinkley Point plant in the UK will cost $24bn, with the European Union putting the figure at closer to $36bn." that's 50% over budget!
All the warning signs are there for this to run over budget and over time. Do you really want nuclear to be built under those circumstances?
Exactly. Not only did they not build a higher wall at Fukushima, they didn't do anything to prevent the tens of thousands of deaths caused by the tsunami which were unrelated to Fukushima. Even if we include the deaths NW mentions, it's still only running at 3-4% of the total human cost of the tsunami - ISTM that by focussing on that the point is being missed somewhat.
The tsunami was a natural disaster and lots of people died in that area as a direct result of that. its very sad but it happened and that is that. I have never suggested we should have protected those people from that.
But the global picture is radioactive pollution that has spread all over the world due to the containment failure. I am talking the about the impact on other life on this planet, not just humans, that have no say in what we do and just suffers the consequences.
Will we never know the true cost of that on animals, plants and humans? I doubt it and it will keep on causing damage for decades. If we have no way to accurately predict damage, fix it or mitigate against it then common sense, not bullshit man made risk assessment, says we should not do something.
Risks of brown outs and black outs - well that is our fault for over populating and being too reliant on energy obtained by short sightedly and ignorantly destroying the planet.
I don't need to present anything, you have done well enough at demonstrating your own ignorance. The fact is you cannot eliminate any risk, only manage it. Financially this is governed by the law of diminishing returns as much as any other scenario.
I'm not sure what EDFs finances have to go with this in terms of safety.
Interesting stuff. I'm not expert enough in Nuke energy to really comment. I did once go on a school physics trip to Hinkley though and thought it was a cool place 😀 . Also the radiation detectors we were given said we weren't going to die. I'm still here decades later.
and I bet you 20 scottish pence
Surely 20 Scottish Euro cents by 2025? 😛
... If we have no way to accurately predict damage, fix it or mitigate against it then common sense, not bullshit man made risk assessment, says we should not do something...
Like burning fossil fuels?
Having Concerns over the safety of nuclear power is a reasonable position, but dismissing modern reactors because of the failures of past designs is stretching reason to breaking point.
(We didn't stop air travel because The DeHavilland Comet wasn't quite up to scratch)
I think we're all forgetting that all life on earth relies on a huge fusion reactor 93 million miles away, and it will eventually destroy the planet.
The criticism of EDF is unfair, the same managerial challenges occur on any mega project, particularly when it's not a repetition of a previous design.
Lots of the problems have been due to supply chain failures again which are not unique to the nuclear industry.
Comparing safety record from county to country is misguided as the safety cultures are very different
I think we're all forgetting that all life on earth relies on a huge fusion reactor 93 million miles away, and it will eventually destroy the planet.
Well that's quite a long way into the future and we have a requirement for large scale generation of electricity which requires renewal of infrastructure round about now.
Its not entirely been plain sailing for conventional power generation recently:
[img] 
[/img]
;-(
3 dead.....
but thats to do with the thing falling down when closed down and not a new build being built by foreigners, using money from a company being bailed out by its government and using more cash from a chinese company on the cheap, using a process not many of us dont want to produce energy.
[quote=Dibbs ]I think we're all forgetting that all life on earth relies on a huge fusion reactor 93 million miles away
Sadly the electricity conversion efficiency isn't very good.
[quote=project ]but thats to do with the thing falling down when closed down
Fair enough - can we ignore decommissioning then?
Of course not. It's one standard for nuclear power, and another for everything else.
Like we just ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who've died as a result of collapsing dams.
And the millions more who are at risk...
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35690616 ]it's ok, it's renewable energy, so it's perfectly safe...[/url]
Project - you've said that again but it is still as irrelevant as the first time you said it. You still haven't explained in what way Hinkley B is "highly dangerous" either.
Suggesting foreigners can't design and build stuff is insulting, what makes UK engineers above flaws? Anyway there are plenty of UK engineering firms involved.
If there have been problems with concrete and steel on other builds and picked up prior to operation then that isn't a failure. Putting something into service without detecting and correcting those problems would be a failure.
[quote=ahwiles ]Of course not. It's one standard for nuclear power, and another for everything else.
I'm wondering whether helmets and hi-viz should be compulsory for nuclear power stations 😈
Justifying the difficulties and issues of using nuclear technology by saying things like "well losts of people die from *[i]insert something[/i]*" is a bit silly.
also the likelihood is high that the *inserted fithy/lethal item* has also been created by the same types and groups of interested parties,investors etc. which makes me wonder why they should be trusted at all?
Their track record is pretty poor so far... they have made huge profits but enormous waste and pollution and we appear to accept this as OK.
The only real interest the energy companies have is making sure the demand is constant and increasing along with profits and that no viable alternatives beyond their control are developed.
how many deformed children/GWh was that again BTW?
[img] 
[/img]
Won't somebody think of the children?
Yeah, we know about Chernobyl - and we know why that happened there and why it wouldn't happen here (squirrelking can cover that one better than me, I'm just an interested amateur). Though the nuclear danger figures are already including that (if you like you can count each deformed child as a death - nuclear will still be the safest on the list).
Of course it's not silly to compare the dangers of nuclear technology with the dangers of other methods of power generation. Because if we're going to generate the electricity, then surely it's better to choose the method which will result in less people being killed. If we don't build nuclear then we'll have to build something else which looking at that list, for the same generation capacity will result in more deaths. You seem to be taking the position of just ignoring all the deaths from other things - because nuclear dangerous.
I'm not sure the energy companies control the demand - though I'm impressed at you posting on STW without electricity.
aracer - MemberWon't somebody think of the children?
not sure what you intended to say with this statement... anyway.
why that happened there and why it wouldn't happen here
Yes it was [b]human error[/b] that the [b]system failed[/b] to stop.
Are you saying that he is the only human capable of making an error or that current systems are able to [b]override human input[/b] and will [u]never[/u] fail under[u] any[/u] circumstances?
Maybe this is so and I would be happy to hear this is the case.
Unfortunately the energy industries track record (as I mentioned previously) is not perfect and I see no good reason to give them benefit of the doubt in this case.
yes it is silly, because if we are going to generate electricity would it not be better to aim for 0 casualties and 0 consequences rather than use the current energy system as the benchmark which is one of the biggest problems that the world faces, the cause of everything from wars to enviromental pollution and lots more besides?
I am not taking the position of ignoring the human costs of other things, they are just as unacceptable.
I'm impressed at you posting on STW without electricity.
again I am not sure what you are trying to say here, it just comes across as a pointless childish name calling type comment that reflects badly on you.
