IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: DECC-EDF makes yet another attempt to fund 3rd Generation Nuclear at any cost
Topic Summary: Jilted at the altar several times before, DECC-EDF is looking for partners bringing a large dowarie to the relationship.
Created On: 25 May 2013 12:04 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 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.
 25 May 2013 12:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

EDF has now leaked the fact that it has been negociating with energy investors from Qatar and Abu Dhabi, to help them fund new 3rd Generation Nuclear at any cost.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/...es/article3774858.ece

The question is for energy investors from the Middle East and Asia is...

Do you put your money in old nuclear technology based probabilistic safety, that needs to become ever more complex and expensive following each new accident, or do you put your money in to developing new nuclear technologies (like Molten Salt Reactors) that are intrinsically safe and capable of much more flexible power generation, that are ultimately better suited to solving the Middle East's future needs in terms of energy and de-salinated water?

Whatever DECC-EDF collectively promise in terms of being able to funnel British tax payer's and bill payer's money into investors bank accounts for years and years, no matter how complex, expensive and potentially unreliable or unsafe the technology is; they cannot bind future parliaments and they cannot stop the independent judiciary from passing judgment on the legality of the deal in terms of competition law and contract law etc.

So if the secret deal on offer from DECC-EDF appears to be corrupt and too good to be true (in terms of the amount and duration of the public subsidies on offer) then it probably is.

James Arathoon

(dowarie = original old french for dowry)

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 26 May 2013 12:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Interesting is it not that the head of DECC is a liberal politician, why is it that such a political party would run with anything which is 'corrupt'? I thought they were supposed to be the good guys, always talking the wishy washy fluffy touchy feely type waffle and yet now they are in power they are faced with the hard decisions and reality. Maybe if you were in power you would see the reality and have to take the same decisions as Ed Davey, you never know.

Regards.
 26 May 2013 02:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

The current policy on new nuclear came from Tony Blair's period in office. The policy has certainly been made corrupt because it has not changed whilst the world that surrounds it has.

In the UK we seem to be good at generating bone headed institutional momentum, where civil servants remain wedded to untenable ideas well beyond their sell by date; despite changes of circumstance or the quality of critical arguments against the proposals.

In the process civil servants gradually lose all ability to give honest and clear answers to clear and simple questions, or to explain clearly and concisely what they actually propose to do. The Energy Bill is now becoming an extreme case in point.

I have expounded an alternative way forward on new Nuclear, that will take 20-25 years to reach fruition (4th generation molten salt reactors).

I am fully aware that to push this policy through now would require a complete change of leadership at organisations like the NNL, NDA, DECC etc. and would mean withstanding extreme criticism from financially interested parties, lobby groups, various Lords, Dames and other members of the establishment.

The existing 3rd generation Nuclear technologies are not a practical solution to our future global energy needs: they are too expensive, there is too much waste, it takes far too long to build each reactor and there won't be enough uranium to go around without developing more and more costly and unproductive, low grade uranium deposits, etc.

In building new third generation reactors we will just end up wasting another 15-20 years not finding ways to better solve all these problems.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 27 May 2013 11:14 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: jarathoon
The current policy on new nuclear came from Tony Blair's period in office. The policy has certainly been made corrupt because it has not changed whilst the world that surrounds it has.

Have you ever noticed how people always refer to 'it's someone else's fault'. Ed Davey had long enough in opposition to decide if the policy was any good or not and also had plenty of time to think of how to restructure it. He has already had enough time in power to change it. I think you will find reasons for keeping it as it is, albeit we do not seem to know what those reasons are. I am not defending the policy by the way.
In the UK we seem to be good at generating bone headed institutional momentum, where civil servants remain wedded to untenable ideas well beyond their sell by date; despite changes of circumstance or the quality of critical arguments against the proposals.

That's because civil servants are not really held to account are they? The civil service is like a really big tanker in that it takes a long time to change direction, and even then it only happens if there is someone who wants to change direction and knows which direction to take. The trouble is that todays media latches onto any spoken error and blasts it 24/7 all over the world and then drags every expert out of the woodwork in order to tell everyone it's the end of the world as we know it, so we will get no proper debate and no honest comments from the politicians. Why would Ed Davey tell us what he really thinks, he would be blasted by the media and the point scoring opposition....neither are interested in the long term interests of society and instead they are both interested in short term gain.
In the process civil servants gradually lose all ability to give honest and clear answers to clear and simple questions, or to explain clearly and concisely what they actually propose to do. The Energy Bill is now becoming an extreme case in point.

Why give an honest answer?
I have expounded an alternative way forward on new Nuclear, that will take 20-25 years to reach fruition (4th generation molten salt reactors). I am fully aware that to push this policy through now would require a complete change of leadership at organisations like the NNL, NDA, DECC etc. and would mean withstanding extreme criticism from financially interested parties, lobby groups, various Lords, Dames and other members of the establishment.

Yes but you need to get re elected every 4 - 5 years.
The existing 3rd generation Nuclear technologies are not a practical solution to our future global energy needs: they are too expensive, there is too much waste, it takes far too long to build each reactor and there won't be enough uranium to go around without developing more and more costly and unproductive, low grade uranium deposits, etc. In building new third generation reactors we will just end up wasting another 15-20 years not finding ways to better solve all these problems.

It would however seem that others disagree.

Regards.
 28 May 2013 05:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19592
Joined: 23 March 2004

Not enough uranium to go round ?

Known recoverable resources top 5.5million tonnes worldwide

Frances' uranium consumption (as an example of a european country generating about 80% of its electricity from 60 reactors) is about 10,000 tonnes per year - it has about 25 years worth stockpiled, and has fast reactor research programmes.

We'll run out of global coal before we run out of uranium

regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 28 May 2013 07:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: OMS

Not enough uranium to go round ?

Known recoverable resources top 5.5million tonnes worldwide

Frances' uranium consumption (as an example of a european country generating about 80% of its electricity from 60 reactors) is about 10,000 tonnes per year - it has about 25 years worth stockpiled, and has fast reactor research programmes.

We'll run out of global coal before we run out of uranium



World usage of uranium is of the order of 60,000 tonnes per year, you need to double that to achieve between 18 to 25% of electricity supplies worldwide in future (depending on electricity demand growth).

At 120,000 tonnes per year worldwide. 5.5million tonnes lasts around 45 years which is less than expected economic lifetime of a single plant (60 years).

There may be more than 5.5 million tonnes of ecomonically extractable ores, or there may be less, this is just an estimate. The resources, energy and time needed to extract the ores will quickly excalate as we move onto the lower quality ores.

New 3rd generation at scale has to be predicated on lots of new MOX plants (extracting plutonium from spent fuel), uranium fast breeders being developed and lots of vast underground repositories to store the vast quantities of high level waste.

We've started down this route before I seem to remember, and we haven't opened one underground repository yet (there is one currently under contruction in Finland).

Things are not as clear cut as you suggest. As I see it, just vainly repeating the same mistakes again without properly exploring other options seems like a good definition of madness to me.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 30 May 2013 04:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 865
Joined: 19 July 2002

James,

"I have expounded an alternative way forward on new Nuclear, that will take 20-25 years to reach fruition (4th generation molten salt reactors)."

Although certainly a possible way forward there is a lot of technology still to be resolved. 20-25 years is, in my view, very optimistic. Fuel processing and waste will still be a problem and you will still have to get the designs through all the regulatory and 'Green' (nothing nuclear ever) barriers. A higher burn up will mean less fuel to be reprocessed but there will still be the same amount of fission products.

"Regardless of reactor type, you get approximately 1 ton of fission products for each GWe-yr of energy. Most of the activity for the first couple of centuries is due to Cs-137 & Sr-90."

http://health.phys.iit.edu/arc.../2013-May/038363.html

The existing 3rd generation reactors still remain the most viable option. There is sufficient operating experience to know how to avoid/mitigate the major risks and at last there is some sense appearing in the calculation of these risks.

" The impact of the Chernobyl nuclear accident has been seriously overestimated, while unfounded statements presented as scientific facts have been used to strangle the nuclear industry, according to Russian researchers"

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-r...ernobyl-accident.html

"The existing 3rd generation Nuclear technologies are not a practical solution to our future global energy needs: they are too expensive, there is too much waste, it takes far too long to build each reactor"

Have you looked at why they are too expensive and take too long to build? I think you will find that both are related to regulatory delays and the stalling tactics used by the anti-nuclear groups. 4th generation reactors will have exactly the same problems unless the frameworks are changed. If the frameworks are changed then the 3rd generation plants will be significantly more competitive.

"New 3rd generation at scale has to be predicated on lots of new MOX plants (extracting plutonium from spent fuel), uranium fast breeders being developed and lots of vast underground repositories to store the vast quantities of high level waste.
We've started down this route before I seem to remember, and we haven't opened one underground repository yet (there is one currently under construction in Finland)."

There is a bit of an inconsistency between "lots of vast underground repositories" and after decades of nuclear power production "we haven't opened one underground repository yet".
Spent nuclear fuel is not nice stuff, but there is not very much of it and it is currently being stored on the surface in metal casks. No one is actually running out of storage space, but it would be easier to look after if it was gathered in one place underground.

Why hasn't anyone built a repository yet? Once again ridiculous (below background) dose limits and anti-nuclear political lobbying.

Best regards
Roger
 31 May 2013 12:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Roger,

There seem to me four options:

1) Legacy nuclear - no new nuclear stations with nuclear experts trained up to operate existing nuclear stations and civil waste management. (Current situation)

2) Legacy nuclear + Third generation new build multi-vendor multi-product
(DECC's favoured path) + new Sellafield MOX plant

3) Legacy Nuclear + Third generation new build single-vendor single product + new Sellafield MOX plant

4) Legacy Nuclear + 4th Generation development, plus eventual revamp of existing civil waste management (molten salt thorium reactor + molten salt waste burning reactors) + (long fuel cycle passively safe small modular reactors)

There are many reasons why third generation and fourth generation nuclear programmes cannot co-exist in the UK. At the heart of all this, there is a important change of ethos and intellectual approach going on.

I personally think we need nuclear technologies and energy generation techniques that all countries can choose to use, once they sign up to an internationally agreed regulatory framework and inspection regimes.

If we build a new MOX plant for spent solid fuel reprocessing (which will include plutonium separation), then we must be willing to let other countries build MOX plants, within an agreed international regulatory framework as well.

If we are going to say to countries like Pakistan, India, Iran etc; we can generate our energy in this way but you can't, then that's hypocritical and unsustainable. I don't think such an energy policy can form the basis of a stable and peaceful global future (especially bearing in mind that all these countries contain large youthful populations with access to the internet and all dreaming of a better future for themselves and their societies).

Anti-nuclear people will tend to go with option 1. I am going with option 4. The government seems to want 2 now and 4 later; without hardly lifting a finger in the direction of 4 later.

In my opinion 2 or 3 now + 4 later, just doesn't work from a political or systems engineering point of view anyway; especially given that the ethos of the people who want to progress with fourth generation liquid fuelled reactors is completely different to those currently leading 3rd generation programmes.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 02 June 2013 01:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



poo

Posts: 230
Joined: 07 May 2008

**Nuclear Subsidy**

There is no case for subsidising nuclear power. Existing subsidies
should be withdrawn and no new ones should be introduced. These are
the conclusions of a submission to the parliamentary Environmental
Audit Committee by Energy Fair, a think-tank that has conducted
detailed research on the economics of nuclear power. Nuclear power is
already heavily subsidised and the Government is proposing to
introduce new ones. But withdrawal of just one of those subsidies-the
cap on liabilities for nuclear disasters-would raise the price of
nuclear electricity to at least £200 per MWh, much more than the
unsubsidised cost of offshore wind power at about £140 per MWh.

PR Newswire 31st May 2013
 02 June 2013 02:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

existing 3rd generation designs proposed for the UK: EPR, AP1000 and ABWR are all commercially uninsurable.

As an order of magnitude estimate, there is around a 1 in 8000 chance per year of a major nuclear accident happening somewhere in the world.

The situation does not look like improving:

1. The average age of plants is increasing

2. South Korea has detected sub-standard and unsafe counterfit parts being used during maintenance of their existing nuclear reactors and support systems. China, America and Europe may or may not be having problems in this regard, we do not know.

3. Existing nuclear plant owners (especially in North America and Canada) cannot currently compete with energy generated from shale gas and so some smaller plants are under economic pressure to cut costs or close.

4. Lots of experienced nuclear engineers that started working in the industry before the Chernobyl disaster era will be retiring over the next decade or two and a lot of tacit knowledge and experience will disappear out of the industry with them. This may be reflected in an increase in accident rates as new engineers fresh out of college find themselves in situations they haven't experienced before and make mistakes.

James Arathoon



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 02 June 2013 07:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: jarathoon
As an order of magnitude estimate, there is around a 1 in 8000 chance per year of a major nuclear accident happening somewhere in the world.

There is a 100% certainty that every person on Earth will die at some time in the future, shall we ban birth? The biggest cause of death is human against human.....try to maintain a reasonable perspective.
1. The average age of plants is increasing

Stating the obvious.
2. South Korea has detected sub-standard and unsafe counterfit parts being used during maintenance of their existing nuclear reactors and support systems. China, America and Europe may or may not be having problems in this regard, we do not know.

If they have detected the error then their audit/maintenance systems are working well and they can make the neccessary corrections.
3. Existing nuclear plant owners (especially in North America and Canada) cannot currently compete with energy generated from shale gas and so some smaller plants are under economic pressure to cut costs or close.

And yet you were arguing against the governments agreeing minimum prices in other posts, what do you actually want?
4. Lots of experienced nuclear engineers that started working in the industry before the Chernobyl disaster era will be retiring over the next decade or two and a lot of tacit knowledge and experience will disappear out of the industry with them. This may be reflected in an increase in accident rates as new engineers fresh out of college find themselves in situations they haven't experienced before and make mistakes.

On the other hand if the retiring engineers are any good and have done their job correctly then there will not be any increase in accident rates for the reasons you state. And do remember that even the retiring engineers were new at one time.

Regards.
 02 June 2013 08:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

"And yet you were arguing against the governments agreeing minimum prices in other posts, what do you actually want?"


I do not want subsidies to help roll out mainstream and mature energy technologies, and I don't want subsidies to prematurely accelerate the rollout of immature technologies.

I want nuclear technologies that are intrinsically and passively safe. Such molten salt technologies should not be subsidised to achieve mainstream roll-out.

Nuclear stations should close down straight away if it is not economic or safe to maintain and run them.

My point was that in difficult economics times the Nuclear power station operators may be tempted to skimp on preventative maintenance and that could lead to any increase in nuclear accidents and critical equipment failures.

If you want to be an accountant about it: the set accidents that causes financial loss to the operator is largest and contains the smaller set of accident scenarios that cause environmental damage and health damage.

Investors care about all accidents no matter how small because of their bottom line impact on the viability of the plant.

"On the other hand if the retiring engineers are any good and have done their job correctly then there will not be any increase in accident rates for the reasons you state. And do remember that even the retiring engineers were new at one time."


The age profile of engineers is not even. The Nuclear Industry basically stopped recruiting engineers after the Chernobyl disaster. There has some pick-up in recruitment recently. We will soon face the transition from a relatively experience engineering workforce to a relatively inexperienced work force. If I was a executive manager in the Nuclear Industry I would be very worried about this, especially in terms of maintaining knowledge of the sort of thought processes needed to handle rare events or situations. I expect there will be a lot of semi-retired nuclear consultants kept on the payroll for the time being, to help mentor and give younger engineers a sounding board in the problem solving process.

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 03 June 2013 08:06 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AndyTaylor

Posts: 164
Joined: 24 November 2002

Originally posted by: jarathoonNuclear stations should close down straight away if it is not economic or safe to maintain and run them.


Then for safety sake we should also put an end to this lot?

The two lists below are from here; Deaths per twh by energy source

(Sorry about the loss of formatting)

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED

Coal - world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal - China 278
Coal - USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)


The 10 most dangerous jobs
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5 [also, solar power related]
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25


And should we also?

. stop transporting dangerous chemicals and fuels through populated areas
. Demolish all buildings not meeting construction safety standards or which are overcrowded
. Ban air flights round the world
. Ban road transport
. Lots of other activities that have killed more people than nuclear ever has or will.

Even if you add Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the equation nuclear is still safer than any of those other energy producing methods. I have yet to see on these forums any credible argument which proposes that nuclear energy is even close to being as dangerous as any other large scale energy production methods.

As for costs, well I have said before a number of times now that much of the increased cost of nuclear is related to the unbalanced hysteria and hype that has led to ridiculous safety requirements not applied to other energy production methods, particularly coal which is known to cause the early deaths of hundreds of thousands each year worldwide. Why is that rarely mentioned in the news yet a single death attributable to nuclear energy will make headlines for days and weeks?

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET
 03 June 2013 10:25 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Andy,

You seem to be upset with the established position of the nuclear regulator all the time.

If you want to write to the regulator (or the political masters) to suggest we cut the complexity and cost of existing 3rd generation nuclear power designs, by say getting rid of all the redundant backup systems, the rarely used safety systems and containment systems, then that's up to you.

Even though I suspect that you never have done this, and never will, you continue to let off steam on this in my direction and this baffles me.

In my professional engineering opinion (and as someone who has worked on control systems in regards to highly exothermic and explosively dangerous reactions in the chemical industry) we can only cut the cost and complexity of nuclear power stations, and not lead to an increase in the incidence of uncontrollable accidents which release radioactivity to the environment, when we change to intrinsically and passively safe designs (at atmospheric pressure) with causally complete fail safe control regimes (not the current probabilistic safety regimes).

For me there is very little room for engineering debate here.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 03 June 2013 12:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 865
Joined: 19 July 2002

James,

I tend towards the 2 now and 4 later viewpoint for 2 reasons:

1)The lead times for the 4th generation systems are too long. By the time a commercial licensable product exists and can be built in multi GW quantities (2030-35?) we will be totally reliant on fossil fuels.

2) We need to build up our nuclear fuel reprocessing skills and facilities to be able to support the 4th generation plants. The appropriate fissile isotopes of U or Pu are needed to start off Thorium systems and subsequent reprocessing of the fuel and fission products is still required.

I'm not sure that the anti-proliferation argument is valid. Plutonium from a conventional 3rd generation reactor with a reasonably high burn up is no good for making weapons due to the isotopic balance. If a country wanted to make weapons grade plutonium building something like the old Sellafield piles would be the simplest and cheapest option.

There is an opposite, probably more realistic, economic argument. Fuel manufacturing and reprocessing plants do not scale down very well. For smaller countries it would make economic sense to buy these services from another country that had already made the investment. As there will be several such facilities it should be a reasonably competitive market.

"existing 3rd generation designs proposed for the UK: EPR, AP1000 and ABWR are all commercially uninsurable"

This is because of completely unrealistic risk models. Similar problems will apply to 4th generation reactors and their fuel processing facilities. Intrinsic safety will be very hard to prove to hysteria driven anti-nuclear groups. The key to this is to remove the LNT theory (it's just that a theory) and the concept of collective dose and have a realistic risk based assessment.

Best regards

Roger
 03 June 2013 01:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AndyTaylor

Posts: 164
Joined: 24 November 2002

Originally posted by: jarathoon1. You seem to be upset with the established position of the nuclear regulator all the time.

2. Even though I suspect that you never have done this, and never will, you continue to let off steam on this in my direction and this baffles me.

3. For me there is very little room for engineering debate here.


1. Not upset at all, you are pointing at the cost of nuclear power, and I am pointing out where a lot of that cost has come from, I doubt very much that regulations will relax any time soon because the hysteria in relation to nuclear power generation and anything radioactive is still very high.

2. Only because you repeat suggestions that nuclear power plants are a significant killer, and seem to ignore the fact that other forms of power generation are far worse. I'm not letting off steam, just feel that if you want to repeatedly state that nuclear power (and waste products etc) are so dangerous then I feel the need to repeatedly correct you.

3. You could debate the points I have made, and perhaps even find failings in the data in that web link I posted above. Take just one point perhaps, why is burning coal allowed to cause the early deaths of up to 500,000 per year?

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET
 03 June 2013 02:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Roger,

option 2 now and option 4 later looks reasonable at first sight.

- lets ignore the economic costs and the need for subsidies for a second.
- lets ignore the fact that EDF has no capital and has extensive work to undertake to maintain (and perhaps life extend) its existing fleet of nuclear reactors in France.
- lets ignore the fact the EPR new builds in Europe are well behind schedule and transparency on reasons for all this is low.

- Lets assume that a 1.6GW Nuclear reactor power station can be built in 10 years.
- Lets assume that on average a new 1.6GW Nuclear Reactor can come on line every 3 years after this.
- Lets assume that because we can build 4th generation 3 times quicker and that we can roll out 3 times the power generation capacity per year compared with third generation.

3rd Generation 4th Generation Difference
2014-2024 1.6GW 2021-2024 0GW -1.6GW
2017-2027 3.2GW 2024-2027 0GW -3.2GW
2020-2030 4.8GW 2027-2030 0GW -4.8GW
2023-2033 6.4GW 2030-2033 0GW -6.4GW
2026-2036 8.0GW 2033-2036 1.6GW -6.4GW
2029-2039 9.6GW 2036-2039 4.8GW -4.8GW
2032-2042 11.2GW 2039-2042 9.6GW -1.6GW
2035-2045 12.8GW 2042-2045 14.4GW +1.6GW
2038-2048 14.4GW 2045-2048 19.2GW +4.8GW
2041-2051 16GW 2048-2051 24GW +8GW
2044-2054 16GW 2051-2054 28.8GW +12.8GW

This means that I have a maximum of a 6.4GW deficit in low carbon power generation according to my plans (starting 4th generation development now) with this peak deficit occuring between 2030 and 2040.

By the early 2040's my strategy is starting to pay off and is producing more power than your 3rd generation programme.

James Arathoon



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 03 June 2013 02:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: AndyTaylor

Originally posted by: jarathoon1. You seem to be upset with the established position of the nuclear regulator all the time.



2. Even though I suspect that you never have done this, and never will, you continue to let off steam on this in my direction and this baffles me.



3. For me there is very little room for engineering debate here.




1. Not upset at all, you are pointing at the cost of nuclear power, and I am pointing out where a lot of that cost has come from, I doubt very much that regulations will relax any time soon because the hysteria in relation to nuclear power generation and anything radioactive is still very high.



2. Only because you repeat suggestions that nuclear power plants are a significant killer, and seem to ignore the fact that other forms of power generation are far worse. I'm not letting off steam, just feel that if you want to repeatedly state that nuclear power (and waste products etc) are so dangerous then I feel the need to repeatedly correct you.



3. You could debate the points I have made, and perhaps even find failings in the data in that web link I posted above. Take just one point perhaps, why is burning coal allowed to cause the early deaths of up to 500,000 per year?


- Plant reliability and safety is more than just about the number of people killed per year (you are the one referring to this measure of safety, all the time, not me). Look at the HSE website and the Health and Safety at work Act.

- I do not personally know how to rate the removal of a thyroid due to radiation induced cancer in childhood, requiring life long drug treatment, vs coal pollution reducing someone's life by a few days, months or years.

- I think we should take chemical and particulate pollution seriously and take action to reduce it.

- nuclear fission waste is also chemical waste, with chemical effects in the environment. Again since I am not an expert on the health effects of nuclear fission and decay products, once they are released into the environment, I have to refer you back to the ONR and the HSE and what they advise (whether you consider it hysterical or not).

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 03 June 2013 05:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AndyTaylor

Posts: 164
Joined: 24 November 2002

Thanks James, please don't think I'm picking on you, we've had this debate several times now in the forums and as I have said, I am a little dismayed when I read statements like 'nuclear plants are dangerous / unsafe and should be shut down' without any strong justification, when people will happily sit in their car behind a hazardous chemical tanker headed for a chemical plant, and without the publicity of the Olympics half the population of the UK would not have a clue about Bhopal. I simply find the whole argument regarding nuclear safety and dangers unjustified and unbalanced.

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET
 03 June 2013 10:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

James,

With respect your arguments are all over the place, maybe this maybe that and with virtually no evidence to back it up. It's the type of waffle which the Liberal party kept chucking out until such time as they actually got into power and then actually had to run the country. Then all of a sudden as if by magic they took a dose of reality and started making the very decisions you now disagree with, with regards to energy. Either back up your claims of safety issues or avoid scaremongering. The UK Nuclear industry is well regulated and well inspected and thus far there have been no significant increase in deaths caused by nuclear accidents which even come close to the deaths caused by other parts of industry. Even the so called disaster in Japan has turned into a damp squid.

http://www.trust.org/item/20130531115831-b0cvg

Yet we had all the scaremongering by the UN, BBC, WHO in the early days.

Regards.
Statistics

See Also:



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