NUCLEAR POWER
see entry March 17th 2011 below
ITS
IS
CLAIMED
OF
NUCLEAR
POWER,
NOT
JUST
IN
THE
UK
BUT
EVERYWHERE IT HAS
BEEN INSTALLED, THAT THE FINAL COSTS ARE ALWAYS FAR MORE THAN THE
ESTIMATES AND THE ALTERNATIVES ARE ALWAYS CHEAPER.
FROM
THAT
IT
IS
DEDUCED
THAT
NUCLEAR
POWER
IS
NOT
NECESSARY,
AND
THAT NEW
NUCLEAR POWER GENERATORS SHOULD NOT BE BUILT TO REPLACE THE EXISTING
UK INSTALLATIONS AS THEY ARE SHUT DOWN.
UNTIL
MORE
PEOPLE
CAN
UNDERSTAND
THAT
THE
CONCLUSION
DOES
NOT
FOLLOW
FROM
THE
PREMISE, EVEN IF THE PREMISE REMAINS TRUE, WE SHALL PRESUMABLY HAVE TO
PUT UP WITH MORE ARGUMENT.
The serious argument about nuclear power is this: are we capable of
managing it safely with the new designs. It can be managed
safely, but are we up to the job? So far the French have proved they
have been reasonably competent with what they have used, presumably by
having well paid and well trained staff and good communication systems.
Most others have screwed it up in one way or another. Some of the
mistakes have been made because much has been experimental. In the
early days of aviation, quite a few aircraft crashed. Have we learned
enough now to avoid completely the
particular errors which can lead to catastrophic accidents? That means
not just one chance in a million but an arrangement that is not based
on that sort of calculation at all. We cannot rule out nuclear
accidents, but we need to rule out really serious ones like Chernobyl,
for foreseeable reasons,
completely. They can
be ruled out. There are such things as fail-safe
designs, and designs that simply do not pose a catastrophic risk. But
that is not to
say that a design claimed to be fail-safe necessarily is. A
fail-safe design may need to shut down completely and suddenly for a
very long time - that is not so good for a power supply which is
supposed to be there for the very purpose of last resort. If it depends
on a supply of water and standby electrical power, can we rely on that
supply? How long to we have
to look ahead? If we were to rely for centuries ahead on nuclear
power, that could put us in a very dangerous situation where a
scenario is created where we cannot abandon it yet cannot manage it.
The sensible way to look at nuclear fission power is as a necessary
technology for the next 50-75 years, given the state of the art at this
time, but only for part of the supply and only for countries who are
politically stable. We now believe that quite a few countries are
politically stable because they have open communications and are not
now driven by untestable political/theological/nationalistic
ideologies. It
remains to be seen how these same countries will retain political
stability should the lights go out. It therefore seems a good idea
to keep the lights on, if necessary by nuclear power as part of the
mix, while avoiding nuclear proliferation to unstable countries that do
not
need it.
JB 29/03/2006
MAY 17th 2006
The PM has pointed out that the data so far assembled has not revealed
a
sensible energy plan for the next 50 years without including nuclear
generated electricity at least to the level we have now. That is
probably true even without considering security of supply, just
considering regularity and the meeting of demand under all
circumstances. That may change by the time the full assessment in
finished but as things stand it does not look like it. The disposal
costs and security for new waste look manageable. The cost for legacy
waste has to be paid anyway, so that does not affect the decision
greatly.
JUNE 10th 2006
BRITAIN and FRANCE boost Nuclear Ties
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5062648.stm
I should bloody well hope so. Any failure of France and the UK to work
in very close cooperation on Nuclear energy would be an utter disaster.
If we work together, there is every chance of good designs and
management. We are interdependent in energy and transport, as we are in
many other areas.
JULY 14th 2006
Here's a good place to start: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456932/html/nn1page1.stm
.
MARCH 13th 2011
It is nearly 5 years since I have felt any need to add to this file, as
the acceptance of the ideas set out above appears to have progressed
steadily. However, the recent events in Japan where an earthquake
resulted in a failure of the electricity supply to one or more nuclear
power stations, and the backup electrical supply also failed, has
produced the first surprise I have had in a lifetime.
I did not expect Japan's nuclear plants to be vulnerable to such
events. I am forced to acknowledge that I had made some assumptions
that
were unwarranted. I was not surprised by Chernobyl, or the tragic
consequences cause by gamma radiation and, far worse and longer
lasting, the radioactive material emitting alpha particles that spread
over the area and in some cases were carried far abroad. But I had
assumed that the plants in Japan were designed to shut down and remove
criticality from their cores immediately in the event of a catastrophic
combination of events. I assumed they would go 'safe' if a
bunker-busting bombs fell on them, if an earthquake removed all
electrical and water supply, through some fail-safe electromechanical
process with the accent on the mechanical and alternative manual
options.
It seems that nothing of the sort was in place and the simple failure
of a standby electrical generator has led to a dangerous situation, the
emission of radio-active material, and the possible meltdown of the
core and explosions that must be resisted by the casing of the whole
system.
Sorry as I am for the Japanese, thank goodness this has happened. We
need nuclear power but not if we can't even cope with situations we
actually EXPECT to happen! Anyone who thinks this was not expected
should read http://revelstoke.org.uk/earthquake.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12723092
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12724953
MARCH 14th 2011
There is a meltdown alert, but this is not another Chernobyl. All the
reactors are shuit down, the problem is with coooling used fuel, it
appears, and here again I am seriously disappointed in the lack of
prevision, in a known earthquake zone, of systems to make sure
emergency energy and water was not set up in spades.
On the bright side, this experience will in the end be reassuring in
that even when everything possible goes pear-shaped, and it has at
every stage, nothing in the shaoe of a global or even regional hazard
will have happened though all these reactors are probably buggered for
ever.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12733393
MARCH
15th
2011
It should be pointed out these nuclear plants were designed in the
1960s. It appears that the standby generator was placed too near the
sea level, allowing for only a 6 metre tsunami on the grounds that
there had never been a higher one recorded. I must say this reliance on
past experience has really got to be dumped when to comes to the design
of nuclear facilities. We are talking about the FUTURE, guys! Nothing
stays the same in Nature, and we are moving faster than Nature and even
driving it to change. HELLO___!
Now
it
must
also be said that many improvements have been made to the
safety and fail-safe methods in newer reactors.
Meantime we should salute the efforts of the Japanese, people and
government, do handle the problem on hand. They will win through. In
spite of the latest news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12740843
Readers should bear in mind this sobering
truth: the problems the Japanese face right now could not have been
avoided by not building nuclear power stations. The propblem for Japan
today is a shortage of electrical power. This can bring the nation to
its knees, not the radiation risks or even deaths. Death is not
the problem, as I keep trying to explain all over this web site. Life
is the problem of we cannot handle it, and right now we are not doing
well at all. There are too many of us, needing too much energy of all
kinds, and incapable of controlling our behaviour. We are told by
horrified reporters that the death tool from Chernobyl might evenlually
be 4,000 - shock horror. Sorry, but
your point is? The are billions too many of us on this planet.
MARCH 17th 2011
The elephant in the room when it comes
to the Japanese problems is this. how is it possible that a safety
shutdown system that was ACTIVE, that is to say required an active
energetic input to carry out important stages of shut-down and cooling
of the shut down core, relied on a single diesel electric backup?
As it happens this was knocked out by
a tsunami marginally higher than allowed for, but it could have been
knocked out by anything including sabotage or mechanical failure. There
was total dependence on this system once an earthquake had caused the
shut-down, One safety standards had been improved in later designs,
with passive safety procedures replacing the active ones in later
plants, a doubling up of this backup system and a greater protection
from all damage by tsunamis or even crashing aircraft should have been
put in place. I suppose responsibility was lost between the IAEA, The
plant owners, the manufacturers and the government!
nnnn