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