New cracks in Hunterston reactor(bbc.com)
bbc.com
New cracks in Hunterston reactor
http://bbc.com/news/science-environment-29481481
4 comments
This type of problem with extending lifetime shows the problems that are coming from a two- decade plus halt in construction of new plants due to fearmongering by pressure groups. Even though plant construction has recommenced, it's not possible to catch up. So the pressure groups have actually engendered a situation where a safety problem is more likely. Eliminating the plants was never going to be possible, accelerated replacement with better designs would have been a better outcome.
Almost all large scale generating capacity in the UK is highly contentious; this is hardly unique to nuclear. What is needed is political will, which has been lacking.
Perhaps the reason that these kind of schemes are so problamatic is beacuse they are so massive and complicated. A basic understanding of human nature explains why a large nuclear station is a more risky project from almost any angle (cost, risk of incompetence/accidents, health and safety). I want power stations that are small enough to fail safely in any scenario, not just the ones that an engineer has imagined. I doubt that is possible with something this monolithic.
Perhaps the reason that these kind of schemes are so problamatic is beacuse they are so massive and complicated. A basic understanding of human nature explains why a large nuclear station is a more risky project from almost any angle (cost, risk of incompetence/accidents, health and safety). I want power stations that are small enough to fail safely in any scenario, not just the ones that an engineer has imagined. I doubt that is possible with something this monolithic.
"pressure groups"? Care to explain the term?
Any group that has spread non-factual anti-nuclear hysteria in order to oppose nuclear power generation and specifically the construction of new plants. The list is pretty extensive, really.
I feel that "anti-nuclear hysteria" is poor wording. New plants (even if they're much safer than existing ones) still produce waste. Long term storage is an unsolved problem. There is nothing hysteric about that. Oh and remember Fukushima? That plant is still not cleaned up and the cost go into the billions. Still hysteric to say no to new plants?
My stance is: don't build new nuclear infrastructure if it's not sure how to cope with its waste. Better: don't build new nuclear infrastructure at all.
My stance is: don't build new nuclear infrastructure if it's not sure how to cope with its waste. Better: don't build new nuclear infrastructure at all.
The waste 'problem' is minor compared to current generation which burns fuels and just releases it into the atmosphere. Long term waste storage sites are possible.
No current efficient power generation is either waste or accident free, although natural gas is probably the best if you have access to it. Coal mining kills many more people than nuclear ever has, and leaves holes all over the place. On a per-megawatt basis, nuclear is the safest generation type.
However, these are factual arguments which normal people can discuss and argue, which is fine.
What I am talking about is non-factual hysteria, of which many groups have produced volumes of, to the point where the average uninformed person will react badly to the mere mention of nuclear power. Popular culture is full of references to nuclear accidents or bombs leaving areas uninhabitable for 10,000 years or more, and most people are irrationally frightened of radiation in tiny quantities.
Nuclear power is an excellent power source for reliable, emissions free base load power. Instead of trying to shut down any research or funding, those that are concerned should be pressing for phasing out of old plants and replacement with newer, safer designs. And coming up with the best waste storage plans.
No current efficient power generation is either waste or accident free, although natural gas is probably the best if you have access to it. Coal mining kills many more people than nuclear ever has, and leaves holes all over the place. On a per-megawatt basis, nuclear is the safest generation type.
However, these are factual arguments which normal people can discuss and argue, which is fine.
What I am talking about is non-factual hysteria, of which many groups have produced volumes of, to the point where the average uninformed person will react badly to the mere mention of nuclear power. Popular culture is full of references to nuclear accidents or bombs leaving areas uninhabitable for 10,000 years or more, and most people are irrationally frightened of radiation in tiny quantities.
Nuclear power is an excellent power source for reliable, emissions free base load power. Instead of trying to shut down any research or funding, those that are concerned should be pressing for phasing out of old plants and replacement with newer, safer designs. And coming up with the best waste storage plans.
> What I am talking about is non-factual hysteria
Yet this non factual hysteria has essentially zero bearing on important power infrastructure.
But every time nuclear technology falls short in some way, its proponents come rushing online to blame the shortcomings on some anti nuclear cabal that has somehow infiltrated both society and media.
Personally I think the worst problems of nuclear power are those proponents. Without the constant straw men of this or that technology is much more bad perhaps there could be some constructive public debate, but we haven't seen that in my lifetime.
Nuclear (fission) power is very expensive 60s technology. Centralized big plants with lots of high pressure steam and exotic compounds. Billions have been spent on research for over 40 years, and the technology that is promising today is pretty much the same same as in the 80s. Breeder technology for example has time and time again been shown to be expensive and prone to failure.
The whole energy sector is full of these complicated problems. Fusion power seems just as far away as 30 years ago. Solar and wind has obvious scaling problems. Only hydro power and geothermal power is reliable and cheap enough but doesn't work everywhere.
Yet this non factual hysteria has essentially zero bearing on important power infrastructure.
But every time nuclear technology falls short in some way, its proponents come rushing online to blame the shortcomings on some anti nuclear cabal that has somehow infiltrated both society and media.
Personally I think the worst problems of nuclear power are those proponents. Without the constant straw men of this or that technology is much more bad perhaps there could be some constructive public debate, but we haven't seen that in my lifetime.
Nuclear (fission) power is very expensive 60s technology. Centralized big plants with lots of high pressure steam and exotic compounds. Billions have been spent on research for over 40 years, and the technology that is promising today is pretty much the same same as in the 80s. Breeder technology for example has time and time again been shown to be expensive and prone to failure.
The whole energy sector is full of these complicated problems. Fusion power seems just as far away as 30 years ago. Solar and wind has obvious scaling problems. Only hydro power and geothermal power is reliable and cheap enough but doesn't work everywhere.
How many people died due to Fukushima? How many have died ever from nuclear power? Compare that to coal. It's hysteria.
Coal plants, which would likely replace the nuke plants that don't get built, will output way more radiation then the waste you don't want to worry about.
Though the worst case scenario for a nuclear plant is considerably worse. I think comparisons to coal are unfair. Coal is terrible. Everything looks good compared to it.
I oppose coal plants as well. It's not only the waste I care, it's also that I care quite a lot that we, human mankind haven't been able to come up with a better solution yet to nuclear power. I also care, that our next generations have to deal with the waste. Have you seen the issues with the experimental storage waste sites in Germany?
So what should we build then, given that no alternatives are currently viable?
Perhaps we should build better software that helps to reduce power in electrical devices?
A decade back I remember every office in a building I worked in (in the UK), leaving their machines on pretty much 24hrs. The building manager suggested the idea of cutting electric between certain hours, and people protested.
Phone chargers, desktops, monitors were all on. Probably for 16 hours of each day when no one was there. Even when people were there the machines were barely busy.
Computers could have been suspended to ram or turned off. I still see this even in offices with modern PCs that can boot quickly and suspsend to ram with ease (used to be touch and go).
Could spare CPU cycles be farmed out?
I'm glad to see better power saving settings in newer CPUS, and operating systems. But this needs to be better. Some mobiles can hold a charge for a week even with voice calls. Other smartphones are getting charged daily, some with negligable use. Charging batteries takes more power than you get back out.
Lots of small energy efficiencies could really help. Stuff like giving screen savers the boot, having sensible power defaults in OSs etc.
A decade back I remember every office in a building I worked in (in the UK), leaving their machines on pretty much 24hrs. The building manager suggested the idea of cutting electric between certain hours, and people protested.
Phone chargers, desktops, monitors were all on. Probably for 16 hours of each day when no one was there. Even when people were there the machines were barely busy.
Computers could have been suspended to ram or turned off. I still see this even in offices with modern PCs that can boot quickly and suspsend to ram with ease (used to be touch and go).
Could spare CPU cycles be farmed out?
I'm glad to see better power saving settings in newer CPUS, and operating systems. But this needs to be better. Some mobiles can hold a charge for a week even with voice calls. Other smartphones are getting charged daily, some with negligable use. Charging batteries takes more power than you get back out.
Lots of small energy efficiencies could really help. Stuff like giving screen savers the boot, having sensible power defaults in OSs etc.
Really, that stuff is small potatoes. Look outside at night time and see how much power goes into lighting. Then heating/cooling, large scale manufacture.
It was fashionable a few years back to turn off your devices 'at the wall' so stop so-called 'vampire use' - which was TVs and other equipment on stand by. It sounded plausible - but in reality is just noise in the overall consumption picture, and is just window dressing to make people feel like they are doing something.
I'll agree that idling PCs and monitors should go into sleep mode like laptops do, but that stuff is not going to make the slightest dent in consumption anyway. Compare the power consumption of an electronic device with something like an iron or a stove or a clothes dryer and you'll see why. And that's before you start looking at heavy industry and large-scale building temperature control.
It was fashionable a few years back to turn off your devices 'at the wall' so stop so-called 'vampire use' - which was TVs and other equipment on stand by. It sounded plausible - but in reality is just noise in the overall consumption picture, and is just window dressing to make people feel like they are doing something.
I'll agree that idling PCs and monitors should go into sleep mode like laptops do, but that stuff is not going to make the slightest dent in consumption anyway. Compare the power consumption of an electronic device with something like an iron or a stove or a clothes dryer and you'll see why. And that's before you start looking at heavy industry and large-scale building temperature control.
Large wattage items aren't on for that long in my experience. We could get our electric use right down and probably run it on solar during the summer months, save for the fridge/freezer, fan in the bathroom, the kettle and hair dryer.
Even with our paltry electric use we are still getting high bills (UK)! Expense is the biggest incentive for us to get our electric use down.
If server farms have become a bigger polluter than the aviation industry, I see that as a challenge. Use the hardware as efficiently as possible. Caching layers could hugely reduce CPU use. Perhaps we could measure an app's power consumption aswell as bandwidth use?
Even with our paltry electric use we are still getting high bills (UK)! Expense is the biggest incentive for us to get our electric use down.
If server farms have become a bigger polluter than the aviation industry, I see that as a challenge. Use the hardware as efficiently as possible. Caching layers could hugely reduce CPU use. Perhaps we could measure an app's power consumption aswell as bandwidth use?
Germany is at 30% renewable energy. The US at ~13.
That is nameplate capacity, not actual generation. Big difference.
Either my calculation is wrong, or...
Check the report from Fraunhofer, i.e. slide 85. http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files...
Produced in August 2014:
Renewable: 12.8 TWh
Rest: 25.8 TWh
Total: 38.6 TWh
% produced renewable: 33% I left the pumped storage in "Rest" as I have no idea what engery was used to pump.
Check the report from Fraunhofer, i.e. slide 85. http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files...
Produced in August 2014:
Renewable: 12.8 TWh
Rest: 25.8 TWh
Total: 38.6 TWh
% produced renewable: 33% I left the pumped storage in "Rest" as I have no idea what engery was used to pump.
How about this then: take all the immense acreage of land we'd need to use for wind/solar, put a nuclear power plant and storage facility in the middle of it, and then turn all the earmarked land into a no-trespassing national park.
We'll produce just as much energy, we'll be efficient about it, and we'll have a ton of wildlife and preserved habitat.
Because to actually power the country with renewable resources will require a TON of space.
We'll produce just as much energy, we'll be efficient about it, and we'll have a ton of wildlife and preserved habitat.
Because to actually power the country with renewable resources will require a TON of space.
I am interested in references to these claims.
Here's one from Scientific American:
In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r...
In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r...
A good place to find this sort of info is "Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air", http://www.withouthotair.com/
Page 168 mentions the fact that coal ash contains uranium, and that people living near coal power stations are exposed to more radiation than those living near nuclear power stations.
Page 168 mentions the fact that coal ash contains uranium, and that people living near coal power stations are exposed to more radiation than those living near nuclear power stations.
There are plenty of farmers in the UK who had their livelihoods destroyed by Chernobyl (also a graphite-moderated design).
Advocates of new nuclear cannot just dismiss concerns of catastrophic accidents as scaremongering, because the worst cases of accidents are extremely bad, even compared to chemical plants and coal related disasters. They also need to address the cost argument.
Advocates of new nuclear cannot just dismiss concerns of catastrophic accidents as scaremongering, because the worst cases of accidents are extremely bad, even compared to chemical plants and coal related disasters. They also need to address the cost argument.
Not that I have an answer to offer, but this is interesting to me. Coal and other fossil fuel power plants have caused slow, irreparable harm to the environment and human lives, but because of its slow and plodding nature, many consider it superior to nuclear.
Nuclear disasters are much more furious in short periods of time, but I'm not sure that compressed in to a single number, that nuclear has been more harmful per-power-produced as fossil fuels. Maybe someone can properly refute or corroborate that statement.
But it feels like an airliner going down. The size of the tragedy is great which puts irrational fear of flying in to people's heads, when it's about the safest mode of travel that exists.
Nuclear disasters are much more furious in short periods of time, but I'm not sure that compressed in to a single number, that nuclear has been more harmful per-power-produced as fossil fuels. Maybe someone can properly refute or corroborate that statement.
But it feels like an airliner going down. The size of the tragedy is great which puts irrational fear of flying in to people's heads, when it's about the safest mode of travel that exists.
The deaths caused by nuclear power aren't anywhere near the same order of magnitude as the deaths caused by coal:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/12/china-coa...
>Emissions from coal plants in China were responsible for a quarter of a million premature deaths in 2011 and are damaging the health of hundreds of thousands of Chinese children, according to a new study.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-...
>Air pollution from Europe's 300 largest coal power stations causes 22,300 premature deaths a year and costs companies and governments billions of pounds in disease treatment and lost working days, says a major study of the health impacts of burning coal to generate electricity.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/12/china-coa...
>Emissions from coal plants in China were responsible for a quarter of a million premature deaths in 2011 and are damaging the health of hundreds of thousands of Chinese children, according to a new study.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-...
>Air pollution from Europe's 300 largest coal power stations causes 22,300 premature deaths a year and costs companies and governments billions of pounds in disease treatment and lost working days, says a major study of the health impacts of burning coal to generate electricity.
You might find this take on the question interesting:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es3051197
He shows that since the invention of nuclear power, it has saved 1.8 million lives relative to the obvious alternatives. Since its invention, nuclear power has killed about 5000 people. That makes it about 360x safer than deployed alternatives and yet, somehow nuclear is the technology that must justify itself on safety grounds.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es3051197
He shows that since the invention of nuclear power, it has saved 1.8 million lives relative to the obvious alternatives. Since its invention, nuclear power has killed about 5000 people. That makes it about 360x safer than deployed alternatives and yet, somehow nuclear is the technology that must justify itself on safety grounds.
Would be interesting to see a model to come up with such numbers. And it would as well be interesting how in such a model the nuclear waste is taken into account, especially the one that risks to pollute some day in the future. Such models might give us an idea of how many more nuclear catastrophes humanity can "afford".
After Fukushima happened, I heard or read several times (without being able to quote, probably radio/TV) predictions that big nuclear accidents like Tshernobyl and Fukushima will get more frequent in the future, because (a) the reactors get older and (b) more reactors have been built in the mean time.
I hope that future will prove these predictions wrong, but somehow I feel that hoping is not enough. And incidents like these where security limits are relaxed [0], don't really reassure.
[0]: Quote from the article:
"EDF was granted permission by the regulator in the summer to relax its graphite weight-loss limit at the Dungeness reactor in Kent from 6.2% to 8% after it came close to breaching the original safety margin."
After Fukushima happened, I heard or read several times (without being able to quote, probably radio/TV) predictions that big nuclear accidents like Tshernobyl and Fukushima will get more frequent in the future, because (a) the reactors get older and (b) more reactors have been built in the mean time.
I hope that future will prove these predictions wrong, but somehow I feel that hoping is not enough. And incidents like these where security limits are relaxed [0], don't really reassure.
[0]: Quote from the article:
"EDF was granted permission by the regulator in the summer to relax its graphite weight-loss limit at the Dungeness reactor in Kent from 6.2% to 8% after it came close to breaching the original safety margin."
Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor in relatively the same way one can claim C++ has a garbage collector.
Everyone seems to talk about the safety of nuclear power but to me the costs are as big a problem. If it was affordable to build new plants these long term problems would be less important.
I mean, has a nuclear power plant ever been built on budget? In my state the only nuclear plant was finished years late and 2 billion over the original 1 billion budget.
Now they are trying to build another with a 6 billion budget. How much over will that one go? The prediction is that it will be producing power in 15-20 years. That's so long from now and meanwhile power users will be charged interest on the loans to build this thing.
They are predicting a 30% increase in power demand in the next 20 years, so maybe it is the best option...
I mean, has a nuclear power plant ever been built on budget? In my state the only nuclear plant was finished years late and 2 billion over the original 1 billion budget.
Now they are trying to build another with a 6 billion budget. How much over will that one go? The prediction is that it will be producing power in 15-20 years. That's so long from now and meanwhile power users will be charged interest on the loans to build this thing.
They are predicting a 30% increase in power demand in the next 20 years, so maybe it is the best option...
Another cost that you don't mention is the cost of waste disposal. As far as I am informed no single country has yet found a safe, clean and cost-effective solution for nuclear waste disposal (correct me if I'm wrong here).
If that is true this means that the cost estimation of all the reactors that we have until now are false and until now we do not even know what it will cost us in the future to "clean up the mess".
If that is true this means that the cost estimation of all the reactors that we have until now are false and until now we do not even know what it will cost us in the future to "clean up the mess".
No single country has yet found a safe, clean and cost-effective solution for coal waste disposal either.
If you are going to get into the externalities of nuclear power, then you have to do the same for other technologies.
If you are going to get into the externalities of nuclear power, then you have to do the same for other technologies.
I'm interested to hear the critiques of Synrock as one method of addressing this problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
Nearly ever country with nuclear power (except the US) processes the 'waste' since only a small portion of it is actual waste. Most of it is U-238 (harmless). Some is useful - plutonium, and isotopes that are used in medicine. Only a tiny amount is harmful and unusable radioactive material that needs to be contained and buried.
You can thank the Carter administration for this blunder.
You can thank the Carter administration for this blunder.
Because it's not really a pressing problem. Spent nuclear waste can sit in a swimming pool of water for any amount of time without endangering anyone. And water is so good at shielding radiation that you can even swim in such a pool. After few years the waste is moved to outside casks which are also not a danger to anyone. The only real problem is protecting those places from terrorists and such. But then again we have burnt coal ash sitting in huge piles outside under clear sky, and I would argue they pollute a lot more than a spent nuclear fuel cask does.
For me this looks like pressing enough: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/legacy-danger-old...
I hope that I am just hysterical and there is some solution planned since long time, and maybe there is totally no danger at all and we can continue for long time enjoying sea products from the channel.
I hope that I am just hysterical and there is some solution planned since long time, and maybe there is totally no danger at all and we can continue for long time enjoying sea products from the channel.
But absolutely no one is dumping nuclear waste into the sea at the moment. It's something that has been done decades ago, so why would it be stopping us from using nuclear power nowadays?
Don't get me wrong - we've done huge damage to the environment by dumping our waste into seas, lakes and just general carelessness. But using that as an argument to stop using nuclear power now is.....illogical?
Building is not even the most expensive part. Once a nuclear power plant reaches it's end of life each little piece is radioactive and needs to be disposed of with specialised tools. It takes decades to deconstruct a power plant.
The people who try to sell nuclear energy as cheap often forget to factor in that cost.
The people who try to sell nuclear energy as cheap often forget to factor in that cost.
TL;DR; The cracks were expected and are well within the safety margin.
> The tubular graphite bricks, each about a metre high, moderate nuclear reactions and are essential to safe operation. However, they cannot be replaced.
Can anyone comment on why they can't be replaced?
> The tubular graphite bricks, each about a metre high, moderate nuclear reactions and are essential to safe operation. However, they cannot be replaced.
Can anyone comment on why they can't be replaced?
Re "well within the safety margin":
> EDF was granted permission by the regulator in the summer to relax its graphite weight-loss limit at the Dungeness reactor in Kent from 6.2% to 8% after it came close to breaching the original safety margin.
> Hinkley-B and Hunterston-B are also getting close to their higher 15% limits, too.
> EDF was granted permission by the regulator in the summer to relax its graphite weight-loss limit at the Dungeness reactor in Kent from 6.2% to 8% after it came close to breaching the original safety margin.
> Hinkley-B and Hunterston-B are also getting close to their higher 15% limits, too.
You'd have to disassemble the entire core and rebuild it with new bricks. Kind of like replacing the bricks in a brick house.
More information: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport...
More information: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport...
Except you can replace bricks in a brick house individually...
I think it is because the rods are inside the sealed reactor core, it's all radioactive. There's no way of opening them up in a way that would allow replacement of the rods.
Not every discussion about nuclear power has to be just about safety. I don't think anyone is seriously sugesting that these stations are dangerous. And most of us lack the expertise to have an opinion on the technicalities of the particular issue anyway.
This does demonstrate an interesting aspect of large nuclear stations. Technical issues can remove large amounts of capacity from a grid. And as stations age the long term wear and tear make outages less predictable.
This does demonstrate an interesting aspect of large nuclear stations. Technical issues can remove large amounts of capacity from a grid. And as stations age the long term wear and tear make outages less predictable.
[deleted]
Sounds similar to what caused the shutdown of some nuclear reactors in Belgium earlier this year and late last year. As a result we're facing power shortages in the coming winter.
Only very superficially similar. The microscopic cracks in the Belgian reactors are in the steel pressure vessel, and are probably a manufacturing defect.
What's puzzling is that the manufacturer in the Netherlands supplied pressure vessels of the same model to other countries (including 10 to the U.S.), and that the different testing procedures in those countries haven't turned up any problems.
What's puzzling is that the manufacturer in the Netherlands supplied pressure vessels of the same model to other countries (including 10 to the U.S.), and that the different testing procedures in those countries haven't turned up any problems.