IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Japan Earthquake
Topic Summary: Nuclear Power Criticality Analysis and Maximum Credibility Analysis
Created On: 13 March 2011 07:25 PM
Status: Read Only
Related E&T article: Fukushima - the facts
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 22 August 2013 09:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 854
Joined: 19 July 2002

"Making an analogy with failure mode effects, one could carry out analysis based on the number of casualties and the effects thereof. One cannot (realistically), do this with nuclear."

I fail to understand this statement. It is perfectly possible and already carried out. The amount of radioactive material in the core is known, what isotopes are present and what activity they have. You can choose various accident scenarios, eg emission of volatiles only (TMI), emission of volatiles and soluble isotopes (Japan), emission of a significant portion of the core (Chernobyl).

There are standard programs for calculating dispersion under various weather conditions (just the same as for chemical plants). From the isotopes and half-lives you can calculate a theoretical external or internal dose for various areas. These doses can then be used to calculate deaths, injuries and increased risk of cancer.

How is this any different to doing the same calculations for a chemical plant producing a toxic and cancer inducing substance?

"As a percentage of those working in the mines, diseases due to coal dust inhalation remained less than 10%."

Do you class an occupation producing 10% casualties as safe? Considering the number of people involved in coal mining that is a frightening number!

Best regards

Roger
 22 August 2013 08:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 18919
Joined: 23 March 2004

"As a percentage of those working in the mines, diseases due to coal dust inhalation remained less than 10%."


I would seriously dispute that - and perhaps more imprtantly what was the total "disease rate" - ie all of the lost time accidents leading to lots of life changing problems for colliers.

As a kid, I can recall plenty of old colliers gasping thier way up the library steps or on the way to the "workies" - and plenty more with a range of amputations, disfigurements, long term injuries like back problems VWF (HAVS) etc etc.

And that totally excludes health issues from burning the stuff

To say it was a safer industry than civilian nuclear power is a bit OTT in my experience - and any credible analysis actually backs that up

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 25 August 2013 10:25 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: dvaidr
BUT, it's not just about death! It's about severity of the consequence. If I was living in Japan and was unfortunate enough to be seriously debilitated for many years, e.g. doubly incontinent, blind, deaf, in constant pain I would consider this as possibly worse than dying.

I think you are correct to challenge on Nuclear power because it does have risk attached to it and we need to ensure we always pay full attention to properly managing the risk and on finding ways to reduce the risk, so far as is reasonably practicable.

You are also correct that someone somewhere made a decision Nuclear power was safe. However, if we have children we made a decision that we would bring x number of people into the world and who would certainly die and be exposed to lots of risks before that time. Yet the statistics told us it was 100% certain they would eventually die and along the way would be exposed to risks of accidents, illness, etc. However someone somewhere decided those risks were acceptable and that someone was us. So I quite understand how a group of people can evaluate Nuclear power and arrive at a decision that the risk is acceptable. Nuclear power is an acceptable risk, but of course there is risk.

Regards.
 27 August 2013 01:53 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 227
Joined: 07 May 2008

**Japan**

The highly radioactive water leaking from the wrecked Fukushima plant
is part of a problem that Japan will take decades to resolve and which
will blight many thousands of lives. The discovery at the plant of a
leak of radioactive caesium eight times more dangerous than the levels
immediately after the Fukushima accident in March 2011 has aroused
international concern that Japan is incapable of containing the
aftermath of the accident. A Chinese statement expressed shock at the
news and urged Japan to be more open about the problem. This prompted
Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority to upgrade the leak from a level
one incident, "an anomaly", to a level three: "a serious incident."
One almost forgotten reactor core meltdown that happened in 1957 gives
a clue to how long the Japanese problem may persist. This was a fire
in a reactor at Windscale in Cumbria in the UK - small by comparison
with both Chernobyl and Fukushima. It was one of the two reactors
producing plutonium for the British nuclear weapons programme. It
caught fire and part of the core melted. Fifty-six years later, the
reactor still has to be constantly monitored and guarded. Several
plans have been developed to dismantle the core and decommission it.
But all have been abandoned, because it is considered too dangerous to
tamper with. Although the UK's nuclear expertise is arguably as good
as Japan's, the problem remains unresolved.

Climate News Network 25th Aug 2013

http://www.climatenewsnetwork....acy-is-just-beginning/
 27 August 2013 09:58 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 854
Joined: 19 July 2002

All the usual good stuff and without real data.

"The discovery at the plant of a leak of radioactive caesium eight times more dangerous than the levels immediately after the Fukushima accident in March 2011"

8 times what? This article actually puts some numbers to the problem.

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...be-dumped-at-sea.html

Best estimates are that between 0.1 and 1 TBq per month of various isotopes, notably Cesium and Strontium are being released into the Pacific. The Pacific is estimated to contain 100 000 TBq of Cesium from bomb testing in the 1960s. At this rate it would take more than 8000 years to double the amount of cesium in the Pacific ocean. As the half-life of cesium 137 is 30 years there is no viable risk.

" Several plans have been developed to dismantle the core and decommission it. But all have been abandoned, because it is considered too dangerous to tamper with."

Simply not true. Accepted practice is to leave the core section of a reactor for a significant period of time (50 years+) to allow the shorter lived isotopes to decay to make dismantling easier. It is not planned to start work until 2017.

http://www.sellafieldsites.com...n/windscale/the-plan/

The safety case has been accepted.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/windscale.pdf

So another problem that does not exist.

Best regards

Roger
 27 August 2013 09:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: poo
The highly radioactive water leaking from the wrecked Fukushima plant is part of a problem that Japan will take decades to resolve and which will blight many thousands of lives.


http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/s...serial/19991312


In 2009 in Japan there were 9000 people killed in road traffic accidents. Every year vehicles are a blight on 1000's of lives, let's all stop driving and wrap ourselves in cotton wool and stay in doors.

Worldwide it was estimated at 1.2 million, yes that is correct 1.2 million! If that had been 10 people and down to a Nuclear Power station the scaremongers would be screaming at the top of their lungs.

Of course we require vehicles and so the risk is acceptable, but of course we should always continue to work on improving safety.

Regards.
 30 August 2013 03:55 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 227
Joined: 07 May 2008

We cannot live without vehicles. We can live without nuclear power.
You can get vehicle insurance because the insurance companies are happy to accept the risk. Not so easy to get insurance for nuclear power stations. They would charge a very high premium because of the risk of an accident. The Japanese Government is picking up the tab for Japanese nuclear industry. What does it cost to relocate 80,000 people for starters?
Mrs Thatcher undermined the nuclear power industry (unknowingly) when she started privatising our utilities. This began to expose the true cost of nuclear power.
We are having problems now just trying to build one new station at Hinckley Point. It's all about cost.
From what I have read the time required to decommission our existing nuclear power stations is estimated to be 70-90 years for each nuclear power station.
Each power station will need a team of several hundred workers.This number will tail off in the later decades. Taxpayers working in 2070 will be paying for nuclear power produced in 1970 because decommissioning will be ongoing. And some people still want to build more of them ! Perhaps they are joking?
Just a thought but how low carbon is it to have a team of several hundred people working on a power station for 70 - 90 years?
Come on,enough is enough. Nuclear power has proved itself to be too expensive.
 30 August 2013 07:08 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AndyTaylor

Posts: 162
Joined: 24 November 2002

Originally posted by: poo

1. We cannot live without vehicles. We can live without nuclear power.
2. We are having problems now just trying to build one new station at Hinckley Point. It's all about cost.
3. From what I have read the time required to decommission our existing nuclear power stations is estimated to be 70-90 years for each nuclear power station.
4. Each power station will need a team of several hundred workers.This number will tail off in the later decades.
5. Just a thought but how low carbon is it to have a team of several hundred people working on a power station for 70 - 90 years?
6. Come on,enough is enough. Nuclear power has proved itself to be too expensive.


1. How did we survive before the vehicles appeared, you are confusing convenience with necessity. Road use has been given as an example of the imbalance between people's attitudes towards nuclear power compare to other industries with very high death rates. I still do not see any sensible counter argument to the very high death rates (worldwide over half a million per year) for energy production from coal.

2. Cost is an issue, but if you applied the same restrictive safety levels to coal fired power stations as are applied to nuclear plants i.e. aim for zero deaths from emissions, then coal fired power stations would be uneconomic to build, the same applies to all other forms of energy production with a higher death rate than nuclear.

3. Yes, but why is that a big issue, it's costed, and the land isn't required for other purposes.

4. The large team tails off as the plant is shut down, not so different to shutting down a coal plant but over a much greater period.

5. This does not tally with your earlier statement, it is not several hundred people for 70-90 years.

6. It's expensive because its safety standards are targeted at a zero death rate, other forms of energy production or large scale industrial processes are not treated the same way.

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET
 30 August 2013 12:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 854
Joined: 19 July 2002

poo, you state "We can live without nuclear power". Can you justify this with referenced data?

When David MacKay tried this in 'Sustainable Energy - without the hot air', he came to the conclusion that nuclear power was neccessary.

http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

Although many people don't like his conclusions I have not seen any serious challenges to his data.

Best regards

Roger
 30 August 2013 09:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: poo
Come on,enough is enough. Nuclear power has proved itself to be too expensive.

Then buy your energy from a non Nulcear source, it is your choice. How your government spends your tax is between you and your government, by all means speak to them, it's your choice.

Regards.
 02 September 2013 08:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 227
Joined: 07 May 2008

The cost of paying for the nuclear power we have used decades ago just goes in one direction.
Nuclear power, too expensive not to meter.







The Government is expected to take back control of the clean-up of
nuclear waste at Cumbria's Sellafield, following a string of failures
by a private sector consortium of US, French and British engineers.
Alarmed by spiralling budgets - £70bn and counting - and a series of
delays to crucial projects, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA) has quietly drafted in a team of consultants from the
accountants KPMG to review how Sellafield is run, The Independent on
Sunday can reveal. It is running through three options to sort out a
situation in which 12 of 14 major projects were behind schedule last
year, as well as last month's £700,000 fine for sending bags filled
with radioactive waste to a landfill site in Cumbria rather than a
specialist facility. The most eye-catching - and believed to be
favoured - choice, involves stripping the contract from Nuclear
Management Partners, a consortium made up of URS from California,
France's Areva and Amec, one of Britain's biggest listed companies.

Independent 28th July 2013

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...ear-plant-8735040.html
 02 September 2013 10:20 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

poo, let's say for example that I ask/pay you to do a job and your incompetence causes the costs to spiral then in reality the over cost is down to my incompetent management, for appointing someone who was incompetent, and your incompetence, and it is not down to the technology.

The government is run by civil servants and many of the senior ones have reasonably cosy jobs for life. If they make a mistake it is generally covered up because it reflects badly on the govement. Take note of the poor management of the UKBA by the lady who was then promoted to a job with HMRC. That is a large part of the civil service for you. Take note of what also happened with the recent train service contract, it was Mr Branson who had to point out their errors. What happened to the civil servants or the minister in charge? The guy in charge of the FSA before and during the financial crisis was given a Knighthood. In the government and civil service and at senior levels failure is rewarded or else covered up and that is why costs spiral.

You could of course argue that if we have such poor management then really we should not be managing something with the risks attached such as Nuclear Power and that would be a fair point. However, then in reality it is better to work on improving the management because we need good management in all areas of life and industry, if we are to survive. I have worked on large contracts/projects involving the 'state' and many are generally a licence to print money and that is the fault of the government and of those doing the job.

Regards.
 03 September 2013 12:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 227
Joined: 07 May 2008

Westonpa,you say it is not down to the techology. I say the technology has caused the problem. Producing electricity in nuclear power stations produces nuclear waste that has to managed for many hundreds of years. This has and will continue to cost the taxpayer a vast amount of money.
Nuclear power does not stand up on it's own. It always needs vast amounts of money from taxpayers to build them,to decommision them,(70-90 years) and then to manage the waste for an unknown time period. It is silly to keep doing it now that we have some idea of the true costs.
Several european countries have decided they can live without nuclear power. Many countries don't have nuclear rpower.
I live several months of the year in Australia and they don't have nuclear power. Electricity demand from the big power producers has been falling here because over one million properties now have a PV installation on their roof.
You can live without nuclear power.
 03 September 2013 12:54 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 227
Joined: 07 May 2008

When our " nuclear fleet ' of power stations finally "sinks" we (the taxpayers) will still have a massive amount of money to pay to decommission them and manage the waste. We must not sleepwalk into this situation again.
This is money that cannot be spent building new hospitals or new schools.
 03 September 2013 07:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 854
Joined: 19 July 2002

The other side of the 'cost of nuclear power' story.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...vermont-to-be-stupid/

The problem is as ever not technical or economic but political.

Other countries are finding it economicaly viable to build new nuclear power stations. Why does it not appear to be viable in the UK?

Best regards

Roger
 03 September 2013 07:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AndyTaylor

Posts: 162
Joined: 24 November 2002

Originally posted by: poo
Producing electricity in nuclear power stations produces nuclear waste that has to managed for many hundreds of years. This has and will continue to cost the taxpayer a vast amount of money.


Is that worse than this?

"Vermont Yankee has produced almost 200 billion kWhrs since it began operations. If this energy had been produced by coal or gas, over 50 million tons of carbon, sulfur and nitrogen would have been emitted into our atmosphere."


Originally posted by: poo

I live several months of the year in Australia and they don't have nuclear power. Electricity demand from the big power producers has been falling here because over one million properties now have a PV installation on their roof.


Not exactly the answer for the UK though is it?

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET

Edited: 03 September 2013 at 07:53 AM by AndyTaylor
 03 September 2013 09:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: poo
Westonpa,you say it is not down to the techology. I say the technology has caused the problem.

It is human management of the technology which is the cause of the problem and poor human management will cause problems wherever it applied in life. It is improving management which we need to work on.
Producing electricity in nuclear power stations produces nuclear waste that has to managed for many hundreds of years.

Every day we humans make decisions which have consequences which will need to be managed for the entire time humans exist, that is life. However, we do not know if, for example, in 10 years time there will be an invention which then solves the nucleal waste issue. Look at diseases and illnesses and issues which decades/centruries ago were major problems but have since been solved by new inventions. We humans exist to solve problems and at some stage the Nuclear Waste issue will be resolved, it is just a matter of time.
This has and will continue to cost the taxpayer a vast amount of money.

As I said before we democractically elect a government to make decisions on where tax will be spent, if you have an issue with it speak with your MP/government.
Nuclear power does not stand up on it's own. It always needs vast amounts of money from taxpayers to build them,to decommision them,(70-90 years) and then to manage the waste for an unknown time period. It is silly to keep doing it now that we have some idea of the true costs.

Vast amounts of tax payers money are spent on lots of things. I think the toxic waste(s) caused by the financial institutions was/is the bigger issue and the sums there are staggering. Nulcear Power generates a lot of wealth for the UK and it is a technology which can still be improved further and put to good use.
Several european countries have decided they can live without nuclear power. Many countries don't have nuclear rpower.

Let's take Germany for example, they are still importing Nuclear Power from France and the Czech Republic. Just so you know, in case you forgot, those plants produce waste and if they blow up they are right next door to Germany. Now also I believe Germany has upped coal production, great for the environment. If Germany wants to rely on wind and solar it's no issue at all with me because when the wind stops or its a cloudy few days and their industry then shuts down, and their lights go out and their German way of life stops, then the German people will lynch their government and start again. Some countries are small and/or else do not need Nuclear Power and that is fair enough, in the UK we will do what is best for us, thanks.
I live several months of the year in Australia and they don't have nuclear power. Electricity demand from the big power producers has been falling here because over one million properties now have a PV installation on their roof.

Oh and the same time Australia has been exporting high volumes of coal http://www.theage.com.au/comme...al-20130808-2rklo.html

Seems you forgot about that.

You can live without nuclear power.
You can live as you want, that is your choice, how we live in the UK is up to us, thanks. When you travel to/from Australia I would guess your journey adds some CO2 to the environment. You can live without that journey you know.

Regards.

Edited: 03 September 2013 at 09:45 AM by westonpa
 03 September 2013 08:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jimmcconnach

Posts: 109
Joined: 10 July 2002

There is a natural tendency to regard the Nuclear Waste Fuel problem as a negative.
In fact there is enough waste fuel at existing LWR, BWR & CANDU Reactor sites throughout the world to meet emission free Global energy requirements for generations as the fuel for Integral Fast Breeder Reactors (IFRs). Research on IFRs has been stalled for years because of the current abundant supply of natural uranium, but this will not last forever. The waste fuel from IFRs has a much lower reactivity level and is much more easily managed. Jim McConnach

-------------------------
Jim McConnach
Past TPSB Rep on Council
Past Member, PTCN Exec Team & MN Exec Team
 04 September 2013 02:52 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 227
Joined: 07 May 2008

This is the forward to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013.
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013 is all about facts and figures,no hype.



Foreword ?

By Peter A. Bradford [*]

Nuclear power requires obedience, not transparency. The gap between nuclear rhetoric and nuclear reality has been a fundamental impediment to wise energy policy decisions for half a century now. For various reasons in many nations, the nuclear industry cannot tell the truth about its progress, its promise or its perils. Its backers in government and in academia do no better.

Rhetorical excess from opponents of nuclear power contributes to the fog, but proponents have by far the heavier artillery. During the rise and fall of the bubble formerly known as "the nuclear renaissance" in the U.S. many of their tools have been on full display.

Academic and governmental studies a decade ago understated the likely cost of new reactors and overstated their potential contribution to fighting climate change. By 2006 a few U.S. state legislatures had been enticed to expose utility customers to all the risks of building new reactors. Industry-sponsored conferences persuaded businesses and newspapers of an imminent jobs bonanza, ignoring job losses resulting from high electric rates and passing up cheaper, more labor intensive alternatives. These local groups added to the pressure on Congress for more subsidies.

France and Japan were held out as examples of countries that had avoided the timidity and overregulation that had stalled nuclear construction in the U.S. Indeed, it was argued, these nations had even solved the waste problem through their commitment to reprocessing spent fuel.

At times inconsistent tales were told simultaneously. Thus the U.S. Congress was told that the new licensing process and the new generic designs were so untried and environmental opposition so formidable that loan guarantees were needed to lay the risks off on taxpayers. At the same time Wall Street and state legislatures were assured that these new features had chloroformed public opposition and otherwise laid to rest the terrifying industry ghosts embodied by the nine figure dollar losses at Shoreham, Seabrook, WPPSS, and Midland, sites that resonate in U.S. nuclear folklore like Civil War battlefield names.

The renaissance story line was hard to resist. By early 2009, applications for 31 new reactors were pending at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The promises came garnished with tales of remorseful changes of heart from oft-obscure nuclear converts. With few exceptions, the news media - especially television with its thirst for the short and the simple - fell for the renaissance story line.

It is all in ruins now. The 31 proposed reactors are down to four actually being built and a few others lingering on in search of a license, which is good for 20 years. Those four are hopelessly uneconomic but proceed because their state legislatures have committed to finish them as long as a dollar remains to be taken from any electric customer's pocket. Operating reactors are being closed as uneconomic for the first time in fifteen years.

Still the band plays on. President Obama recently touted new reactors as part of his "all of the above" policy on climate change. But is "all of the above" really a policy? Do we build palaces to avert housing shortages? Don't we instead prioritize, based on the best information available? U.S. secretaries of energy enthuse that the four new reactors will be completed "on time and on budget", never mind that they are already behind and over and that "on budget" will mean "well above the cost of creating equivalent low carbon energy more sensibly".

As always in the face of failure, the industry puts forth new designs as a basis for new promises, now touting small modular reactors with the same fervor that it touted large partially modular reactors a decade ago. Congress finds a few hundred million to preserve these dreams even as its cutbacks shatter so many others.

A new movie, Pandora's Promise (no filmmaker familiar with nuclear history would include "promise" in a title intended to be pronuclear [1]), recently screened at Sundance.

Featuring the same old converts and straw men, it opened in theaters a few weeks ago to tiny audiences and generally unenthusiastic reviews, especially from reviewers knowledgeable about nuclear power [2].

In the astonishing persistence of the global appetite for false nuclear promises lies the critical importance of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report.

The Report sets forth in painstaking detail the actual experience and achievements of nuclear energy around the world. It is based for the most part on generally accepted data distinctively graphed for clearer understanding. Where the authors introduce judgment, they explain what they have done and why. The Report has a track record stretching back years. It is much better than the embarrassing exuberances of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Nuclear Association or the pronouncements of most national governments. If more journalists would use it for reference, their readers would be spared much of the foolishness that they must now consume.

Most of the myths on which the purported nuclear renaissance rested founder on the rocks of the information presented here.

Is new nuclear power cheaper than alternative ways of meeting energy needs? Of course not. What about low carbon "baseload" alternatives? See page 73ff. Can a country grow its economy by building nuclear reactors? What don't you understand about the employment consequences of imposing rate shock on industrial and commercial customers? Are the consequences of the Fukushima meltowns really being overstated by antinuclear activists? Maybe, but see the chapter on the status of Fukushima.

In short, the nuclear renaissance - whatever it may be called throughout the world - has always consisted entirely of the number of reactors whose excess costs governments were prepared to make mandatory for either customers or taxpayers. Investor capital cannot be conscripted. Investors of the sort that nuclear power must attract study risks carefully. They know the information in this report, and so should everyone else with responsibility for energy decisions that allocate nuclear risk.
 04 September 2013 05:52 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jimmcconnach

Posts: 109
Joined: 10 July 2002

The report is available at: http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/

The CANDU Reactors in Ontario are supplying emission free energy meeting over 50% of the provincial electricity energy needs and have enabled the shut down of all Coal fueled power stations in the province. The refurbished Bruce Nuclear Power Development, now a Private Corporation, is the largest Nuclear station in the world, is a major success story, and is not mentioned in the World Report.
See :http://www.brucepower.com/ and http://www.brucepower.com/supply-mix/

The World Report may be based on facts and figures, but it appears they are selective facts and figures!

-------------------------
Jim McConnach
Past TPSB Rep on Council
Past Member, PTCN Exec Team & MN Exec Team
IET » Energy » Japan Earthquake

<< 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.