View Full Version : Nuclear Power for Caithness
RagnarRocks
21-Oct-13, 08:02
Ok so now the govt has committed to 2 new nuclear power stations one in Somerset and one in Norwich. Does this mean that England will be having the benefit of more nuclear stations and cheaper fuel, whilst Scotland whether it be independent or no is still ploughing ahead with wind farms.Should Scotland have nuclear and should Dounreay be reopened
Bobinovich
21-Oct-13, 08:39
Ok so now the govt has committed to 2 new nuclear power stations one in Somerset and one in Norwich. Does this mean that England will be having the benefit of more nuclear stations and cheaper fuel, whilst Scotland whether it be independent or no is still ploughing ahead with wind farms.Should Scotland have nuclear and should Dounreay be reopened
Firstly you can pretty much assume that nuclear will not bring cheaper fuel to anyone - regardless of the cost of producing energy it NEVER seems to bring reductions. The generating & supply companies always seem to find something to blame the increases on (other than to increase their already vast profits for the benefits of their shareholders) so prices are just gonna continue to rise regardless.
Secondly Scottish independence does not guarantee that the SNP will be the party in power and therefore does not guarantee that Scotland will be forever anti-nuclear, however, even if Scotland does vote for independence and a pro-nuclear party takes control, I very much doubt they'd ever reopen Dounreay. Dounreay was an experimental site, not a generator, and it would make much more sense to open any new nuclear power plants where the bulk of the population is - i.e. in the south of Scotland thus limiting transmission losses (although pro-wind campaigners seem to feel it makes sense to litter the Highlands with turbines even though they suffer the very same losses :roll: *)
Edit: * However, having read that there are significant transmission line upgrades currently taking place to the north, maybe Dounreay could have an actual generating reactor built. I'm certain that, between operating, security & other personnel required, it would help offset jobs being lost at the site...far more, I would imagine, than any amount of turbines being built (figures from the latest nuclear announcements is about 25000 during construction & 900 permanent for the plant's 60 year lifespan).
outsidethebox
21-Oct-13, 08:57
Something I saw on the news over the past few days suggested that the new power stations will have a guaranteed price of £90 per MWH, compared to current wholesale price of £50 per MWH, so certainly not cheap electricity!
what is never mentioned is the cost of decommissioning the plant and the storage of the waste for 1,000's of years. How much does it cost to decommission wind turbines?
Remember the generating companies get all the profits but it is us the taxpayer who pays for the waste storage & commissioning.
Tubthumper
21-Oct-13, 12:08
Safe, clean and cheap. Apart from the accidents, contamination and huge expense involved.
Nuclear power would be 'too cheap to meter' if I remember correctly...
captain chaos
21-Oct-13, 12:23
Your statement is wrong Gerry4 in that if it is a nuclear Power station and not like Dounreay or Sellafield, then the generating company(owner) is responsible for decommissioning costs.
Dounreay and Sellafield were never designed as Power Stations, but as experimental reactors for future commercial builds.
Yes you and I are left with the cost of these places but not with the actual Power Stations.
Tubthumper I seem to remember almost the same said when the first windturbines were fitted , people would get free electricity it would be sooooo cheap.
I note all the comments on the subject but one little thing is missing and I can not wait to see anti wind farm group response as they always keep on about Wind Farm being subsidise now the Government has announced that they will do this on Power Stations so it seems the anti wind farm group will not be having happy Christmas this year as they do not agree with any power that has been subsidise
I note all the comments on the subject but one little thing is missing and I can not wait to see anti wind farm group response as they always keep on about Wind Farm being subsidise now the Government has announced that they will do this on Power Stations so it seems the anti wind farm group will not be having happy Christmas this year as they do not agree with any power that has been subsidise
And don't forget foreign, so all the vast profits will be leaving.
Ok so now the govt has committed to 2 new nuclear power stations one in Somerset and one in Norwich. Does this mean that England will be having the benefit of more nuclear stations and cheaper fuel, whilst Scotland whether it be independent or no is still ploughing ahead with wind farms.Should Scotland have nuclear and should Dounreay be reopened
Cheaper fuel?
What is the new guaranteed strike price of nuclear electricity compared to the average price?
If your real interest in energy is really the price then you'd be investing in more wind farms.
captain chaos
21-Oct-13, 21:39
Raghead quotes
Cheaper fuel?
What is the new guaranteed strike price of nuclear electricity compared to the average price?
If your real interest in energy is really the price then you'd be investing in more wind farms.
Really!! Wind is cheap, pull the other. If you include all the subsidies given to the producer you will come to the following costs
The average "strike" cost at present is around £52 per MWh, the new Nuclear plants are to be given £92 per MWh in 10 years time and with wind at todays price of £76 per Mwh never mind the inflation increases for the next 10 years, there aint going to be much difference in cost between the two ..... The most expensive generator at present is onshore wind power.
Oh and not forgetting they grab £180 per MWh from the grid to stop producing electric, where as the other's coal, gas, and nuclear have to pay the grid to stop producing
Raghead quotes
Really!! Wind is cheap, pull the other. If you include all the subsidies given to the producer you will come to the following costs
The average "strike" cost at present is around £52 per MWh, the new Nuclear plants are to be given £92 per MWh in 10 years time and with wind at todays price of £76 per Mwh never mind the inflation increases for the next 10 years, there aint going to be much difference in cost between the two ..... The most expensive generator at present is onshore wind power.
You spelt my username wrong.
Wind power is the one of the cheapest forms of energy available. Any proper study backs that up.
You can even work out the cost of wind right now if you care to work that out but I suspect you don't want to prove yourself wrong publically on this forum.
The cost of wind and other renewables is dropping year on year. It has to, there is no fuel to buy. duh. By 2023, the cost of the overuns, the £14billion needed to build Hinkley will go up as it always does with these sort of things. It was £4 billion only 5 years ago.
The only reason why wind farm developers get money from ROCs is that there is a shortfall between what energy is produced and what the RO target current stands.
So if paying 'subsidies' to wind farm developers was your real concern in the energy market then you should be speaking up for more wind farms. But I suspect you won't.
Your statement is wrong Gerry4 in that if it is a nuclear Power station and not like Dounreay or Sellafield, then the generating company(owner) is responsible for decommissioning costs.
Dounreay and Sellafield were never designed as Power Stations, but as experimental reactors for future commercial builds.
Yes you and I are left with the cost of these places but not with the actual Power Stations.
I think we will have to disagree as I and sure that decommissioning costs are not the responsibility of the generators. http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/09/cost-decommissioning-nuclear-power-station
captain chaos
22-Oct-13, 18:51
Sorry Rheghead for the name change!!
If you dont belive me then here is the official point to download the Department for Energy and Climate change 2013 report on cost. These are the levalised costs so there can be no counterclaims.
As for working out the cost's and being shamed in public . let the report speak for itself.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70626000/jpg/_70626287_renewable_fuel_624_flat.jpg
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223940/DECC_Electricity_Generation_Costs_for_publication_-_24_07_13.pdf
Gerry4 also apologies. What i was meaning is that the new generation of stations that were announced the other day, must include putting aside so much per MWh to pay for the decommissioning in 20 or 30 years time.
Not all the old mix of reactors out there.
Hope this clears up a couple of points
ywindythesecond
22-Oct-13, 18:56
I note all the comments on the subject but one little thing is missing and I can not wait to see anti wind farm group response as they always keep on about Wind Farm being subsidise now the Government has announced that they will do this on Power Stations so it seems the anti wind farm group will not be having happy Christmas this year as they do not agree with any power that has been subsidise
Every day UK imports large volumes of French nuclear generated electricity because it is good value for money. We have no ongoing responsibility for French nuclear decommissioning or waste storage, so it is a reasonable assumption that the French are happy with the price they charge.
New nuclear in UK is going to be much more expensive, not because it is dearer to generate, but because a false market has been created by subsidy to renewables and the closing of conventional generation before any reliable substitute is in place. If you were EDF would you agree to take say 6p per unit of reliable electricity (which would give a reasonable return), when wind gets 10p for unreliable electricity?
The answer is no. We are in this ridiculous situation because the market has been distorted first of all by ROCs and then by FiTs.
Nuclear will not be subsidised. Nuclear has a market advantage. Nuclear just has a tight hold on our vulnerable parts and is squeezing hard!
Don't blame EDF. Blame successive Governments for failing to have viable energy policies and also blame yourself and those of your persuasion for wilful blindness to reality.
ywindythesecond
22-Oct-13, 19:01
You spelt my username wrong.
Wind power is the one of the cheapest forms of energy available. Any proper study backs that up.
You can even work out the cost of wind right now if you care to work that out but I suspect you don't want to prove yourself wrong publically on this forum.
The cost of wind and other renewables is dropping year on year. It has to, there is no fuel to buy. duh. By 2023, the cost of the overuns, the £14billion needed to build Hinkley will go up as it always does with these sort of things. It was £4 billion only 5 years ago.
You confuse, probably deliberately, the cost to the generator with the cost to the consumer, two very different things.
I think you are wrong
Magazine (http://www.permaculture.co.uk/back-issues)
Subscribe (http://www.permaculture.co.uk/Subscribe)
Advertise (http://www.permaculture.co.uk/advertise)
Classifieds (http://www.permaculture.co.uk/classifieds)
Courses (http://www.permaculture.co.uk/courses)
Shop (http://www.green-shopping.co.uk)
Why UK Government's Proposed £420 Billion Subsidy is Nuclear Madness Donnachadh McCarthy |
Tuesday, 22nd October 2013
UK Government have proposed a £420 billion (minimum) subsidy for a French/Chinese consortium to build 12 nuclear production plants. We publish former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats, Donnachadh McCarthy's letter giving 16 persuasive reasons why this is a both ecological and economic madness.
http://www.permaculture.co.uk/sites/default/files/images/P05_Meltdown_257955k.standard%20460x345.jpg
Former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats, Donnachadh McCarthy, has written directly to Lib Dem DECC Secretary of State Ed Davey
Dear Ed ,
I hope this finds you well?
Re: Nuclear assault on Poor, Workers and UK Economy
I could hardly sleep last night thinking about the enormity of the crime committed yesterday by you, George Osborne and Ed Miliband over your agreement to massively subsidise China and EDF to build poisonous nuclear plants in the UK.
The proposed £420 billion (minimum) subsidy for 12 nuclear poison-production plants, would have created huge employment in the UK's energy efficiency and renewables industries.
This nuclear subsidy will to go to foreign firms as we no longer have the technological capacity in this old 1950s dirty technology.
This figure does not include the massive free open-ended blank cheque for free insurance to the French/Chinese consortium nor the increase in subsidy if/when renewables fall below current grid-price.
Thus the decision was a direct attack on UK workers with thousands of jobs sent overseas.
Secondly the decision means millions of the UK poor who could have had their energy bills eliminated through energy efficiency and home and decentralised renewables will now be kept in fuel-poverty for another generation.
Yesterday's announcement of the tearing up of the Lib Dem and Tory manifesto promises, and the coalition agreement for no subsidies to nuclear was accompanied by no basic cost/benefit analysis.
Where is the comparison for jobs created, carbon saved, fuel poverty eliminated and UK jobs created by investing £420 billion in nuclear poison creation v energy efficiency/regulation/renewables?!
Any responsible political party not in the pockets of their in-house party nuclear-lobbyists, would carry out such an independent analysis and publish it for scrutiny.
But the sorry fact is we have no such party of government - as all 3 parties are infected with internal bought nuclear lobbyists.
The list of other reasons why yesterday should be marked as a black day for the UK and its people is overwhelming:
* Nowhere to store the nuclear poisons
* Nuclear poisons will have to be stored "safely" for generations to come
* Over 90% of DECC (The Department of Energy and Climate Change) budget already consumed with storing / dealing with already produced nuclear poisons, with costs escalating every year, with no end in sight to this inflation.
* 1 in 100 nuclear plants have disastrously failed
* the nuclear plants proposed is a new unproven design
* the nuclear plants proposed are already years behind in Finland and France
* the nuclear plants proposed are already billions over budget in Finland and France
* Safe reliable existing alternative technologies already exist
* France, Germany and Italy all have rejected this 1950s technology and are pursuing renewables and energy efficiency instead thus creating thousands of jobs for their citizens
* Nuclear plays an irresponsible catastrophic Russian Roulette with our nation. A Fukushima catastrophe in Somerset would cause permanent evacuation of large areas of the county
* A Fukushima in Somerset would destroy offshore fishing industry of UK, Ireland and Scotland
* Nuclear power stations are a national existential terrorist security risk - the costs of making them safe from a Jumbo Jet suicide mission is enormous
* Many of the nuclear power stations are being built on low-lying coastal land that cannot be protected without huge costs to future generations, from the sea levels now inexorably rising due to the climate crisis
* The Glinsk renewable energy storage project in Ireland has the capacity of 2 nuclear power stations without any of the over-whelming risks and disadvantages above
* Every day of the week in my work as an eco-auditor, I encounter colossal waste of energy, from pointless daylight lighting to energy systems on in offices 24/7 to innumerable empty fridges to air-conditioned stores with wide open doors.
I am in no doubt you are building nuclear power stations to provide energy to be criminally wasted.
The list goes on and on. This is one of the largest ever criminal attacks on the UK state and the UK public by The Prostitute State.
Could I implore you to re-think this disastrous nightmarish decision and respect the promise to oppose nuclear white-elephants that you made each time you stood for election?
Yours sincerely
Donnachadh McCarthy FRSA
Donnachadh says: Please engage with your local MPs or those whom you know on this hugely important issue. Please feel free to use the letter I sent to Ed Davey as a basis if you wish.
RagnarRocks
22-Oct-13, 19:55
Lots of naysayers for nuclear power but I note most of it is on price not safety, once again we've gone from being a world leader in this technology to just a poor cousin buying from elsewhere.
ywindythesecond
22-Oct-13, 20:32
I think you are wrong
I picked out this:
"* The Glinsk renewable energy storage project in Ireland has the capacity of 2 nuclear power stations without any of the over-whelming risks and disadvantages above".
Apart from the fact that Glinsk has not yet been built, it will be a 6GWH 1200MW plant. http://www.organicpower.ie/pdf/glinsk/T1S5O3-slides.pdf
That means that it can provide 1200MW for 5 hours, and then it needs to wait till the wind picks up and refills it, and, as it is a "renewable energy storage project" it presumably only needs to be used when there is a shortage of renewable energy so it might be some time before it gets back up to speed. Meantime, the lights wont go off because we still have to have fossil or nuclear generation.
Being able to match the output of 2 nuclear power stations for 5 hours is not the same as having "the capacity of 2 nuclear power stations". That is the quality of Mr McCarthy's argument.
Sorry Rheghead for the name change!!
If you dont belive me then here is the official point to download the Department for Energy and Climate change 2013 report on cost. These are the levalised costs so there can be no counterclaims.
As for working out the cost's and being shamed in public . let the report speak for itself.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70626000/jpg/_70626287_renewable_fuel_624_flat.jpg
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223940/DECC_Electricity_Generation_Costs_for_publication_-_24_07_13.pdf
Gerry4 also apologies. What i was meaning is that the new generation of stations that were announced the other day, must include putting aside so much per MWh to pay for the decommissioning in 20 or 30 years time.
Not all the old mix of reactors out there.
Hope this clears up a couple of points
Oh the irony. You think you are settling some confusion and then you compare the current 'costs' with nuclear costs in 2023. You give no credit for the continuing reductions in costs of renewable energy over that time gap.
You confuse, probably deliberately, the cost to the generator with the cost to the consumer, two very different things.
If the cost of renewable energy was your real concern and you acknowledge that the cost of ROCs goes to nothing when there is no gap between production and targets then you should be encouraging wind.
When do I get my apology?
neilsermk1
22-Oct-13, 22:59
Ok so now the govt has committed to 2 new nuclear power stations one in Somerset and one in Norwich. Does this mean that England will be having the benefit of more nuclear stations and cheaper fuel, whilst Scotland whether it be independent or no is still ploughing ahead with wind farms.Should Scotland have nuclear and should Dounreay be reopenedyes it should but it wont because Salmond is an idiot
captain chaos
23-Oct-13, 09:24
Rheghead quotes
Oh the irony. You think you are settling some confusion and then you compare the current 'costs' with nuclear costs in 2023. You give no credit for the continuing reductions in costs of renewable energy over that time gap.
I'm sorry if I dont get your sense of humour, I have not tried to confuse and cannot give credit for something that is not true. All I have given are government figures, if you wish too whine at someone, please take it up with the government!
I can only give you figures that have been published and the "Strike cost" of Onshore wind has been set for the next 5 year and you are sadly deluded to think the cost goes down by leaps and bounds. It has been set at £100MWh for the next 5 years so taking us to 2018.
Tubthumper
23-Oct-13, 17:53
Nuclear power is dodgy though. Don't think we really need it.
Nuclear power is dodgy though. Don't think we really need it.
A stunning piece of analysis. :lol:
weezer 316
23-Oct-13, 19:08
Honest to god. Nuclear = bad. Wind = very bad. Coal = Bad.
Alright for you lot in the utopia of Iceland.
RagnarRocks
23-Oct-13, 20:17
Thank god we didn't have this idiocy at the beginning of the industrial revolution........good god man you want steam and coal !!! And don't forget to put a man walking with a flag in front of that contraption just in case someone's head flys off !! Of course nuclear power has not advanced one iota since Hiroshima and is inherently dangerous because well because its nuclear init guv and that make bombs out of so it must be dangerous !!! Sigh ahh well
sgmcgregor
23-Oct-13, 22:16
Secondly Scottish independence does not guarantee that the SNP will be the party in power and therefore does not guarantee that Scotland will be forever anti-nuclear.....
Hello all,
Should Scotland vote for independence one of the things the SNP wanted to do was write a "Constitution" for the newly indpendent country. Is that correct, or have I been listening to the wrong propaganda?
Anyway, should the above statement be correct, I'm sure that one of the constitutional laws desired would be "no to nuclear" if left to the SNP. And, if that is the case, I vote "No!" to independence. Now, the SNP would have to consult on constitutional matters, so we could always have a democratic vote on "Yes to Nuclear; or, No to Nuclear", and what other items should be in the framework for an independent Scotland.
Anyway, I would welcome input on the subject and references on what I can read - I want to know arguments on all sides. I am supposed to vote "Yes" or "No" next year, but I seem to be having a helluva job finding information on either vote.
Please help!!
Steven
Tubthumper
23-Oct-13, 22:39
Thank god we didn't have this idiocy at the beginning of the industrial revolution........good god man you want steam and coal !!! And don't forget to put a man walking with a flag in front of that contraption just in case somheone's head flys off !! Of course nuclear power has not advanced one iota since Hiroshima and is inherently dangerous because well because its nuclear init guv and that make bombs out of so it must be dangerous !!! Sigh ahh well Blowing up every 20 years or so sounds pretty dodgy to me. It costs an awful lot as well
Blowing up every 20 years or so sounds pretty dodgy to me. It costs an awful lot as well
Actually, if you counted up all the reactors that have undergone either a total or partial meltdown since the dawn of the nuclear age then we have been witness to one going kerboom every 5 years.
Tubthumper
25-Oct-13, 22:45
Actually, if you counted up all the reactors that have undergone either a total or partial meltdown since the dawn of the nuclear age then we have been witness to one going kerboom every 5 years. Why are we still bothering with it?
ywindythesecond
26-Oct-13, 00:54
Actually, if you counted up all the reactors that have undergone either a total or partial meltdown since the dawn of the nuclear age then we have been witness to one going kerboom every 5 years.
So say 1950 to 2010, 60 years, 12 total or partial meltdowns. How many proven deaths from "total or partial meltdown"? It would be helpful if you listed the events.
So say 1950 to 2010, 60 years, 12 total or partial meltdowns. How many proven deaths from "total or partial meltdown"? It would be helpful if you listed the events. I am not sure if you mean this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13047267
ywindythesecond
26-Oct-13, 22:03
I am not sure if you mean this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13047267
Thanks Scout that is very useful. I have summarised the newspaper report as follows:
Name
Date
Cause
Outcome
Deaths/Injuries
Comment
Mayak or Kyshtym nuclear complex (Soviet Union):
29 September 1957
Cooling system explosion
Radiation release. Thousands exposed to radiation
Not reported
Nuclear incident
Windscale nuclear reactor (UK):
7 October 1957
Reactor fire
Sale of milk banned for one month
None
Nuclear incident
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USA):
3 January 1961
Steam explosion
Facility destroyed
Three
Pre start, not nuclear
Three Mile Island power plant, Pennsylvania (US):
29 March 1979
Cooling malfunction
“first there was a release of radioactive water, then radioactive gas was detected on the perimeter”
No deaths or injuries were reported
Seen as US worst nuclear incident
Chernobyl power plant (Soviet Union):
26 April 1986
Reactor explosion during an experiment
Widespread release of radiation
Two die in explosion, sixty-eight die soon after from radiation exposure, thousands of deaths predicted
World’s worst nuclear incident (excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki)
Severesk, formerly Tomsk-7 (Russia):
6 April 1993
A tank explodes.
Over 120km2 contaminated and permanently uninhabitable
None reported
Nuclear incident
Tokaimura nuclear fuel processing facility (Japan):
30 September 1999
Workers break safety regulations and set off a nuclear reaction.
Uncontrolled nuclear reaction
Two workers die, forty others exposed to high levels of radiation.
Hundreds of residents evacuated but allowed home after two days.
Incredibly stupid operator error.
Nuclear incident.
Mihama power plant (Japan):
9 August 2004
Not absolutely clear but accident appears to be related to steam systems rather than nuclear.
No radiation leak.
Five die. Seven others injured by steam or hot water.
Not nuclear.
Fukushima Daiichi power plant (Japan):
11 March 2011
A powerful tsunami generated by a magnitude-9.0 earthquake out at sea slams into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, damaging four of six reactors at the site.
A series of fires are set off, after cooling systems fail. Venting hydrogen gas from the reactors causes explosions, forcing engineers to use seawater in an effort to cool overheating reactor cores.
Originally classified as INES Level 5, the severity was raised to INES Level 7 on 12 April 2011 when a new estimate suggested higher levels of radiation than previously thought had leaked from the plant.
Despite the classification, the incident is said to be much less severe than Chernobyl, and officials insist there is only a minimal risk to public health.
Cause was a tsunami following an earthquake.
Macoule nuclear site (France),
12 September 2011
Explosion in a furnace.
No radiation leaks nor damage to the plant are detected.
One person is killed and four are injured - one with serious burns.
Not clear if a nuclear incident
What this demonstrates is not how dangerous nuclear is, but how safe it is. Chernobyl was clearly a disastrous incident but direct deaths were relatively few. Probably no-one can tell how many other deaths were directly attributable to Chernobyl, and I am sure that there were very many. I worked in St Petersburg in the mid 90's and a labourer on the construction project I was on was a "Hero of Chernobyl". He was one of the many who in the immediate aftermath ran out on elevated runways to throw sandbags or similar into the reactor to try to stem the fires. Eight or nine years later the man was a wreck through vodka, not radiation.
Examination of the above paints a different picture from "a total or partial meltdown ...............going kerboom every 5 years." As posted by Reggy who should know better considering where he works.
RagnarRocks
27-Oct-13, 07:41
See that's what I like strip away all the rhetoric and the CND stuff from the 70s and 80s and what you have is a reliable fairly safe source of power that doesn't pollute the same as conventional power stations much as I'd love wind farms and renewables I don't see them providing the amount of power we require for this country as it is we are buying cheap French nuclear power.
Thanks Scout that is very useful. I have summarised the newspaper report as follows:
Name
Date
Cause
Outcome
Deaths/Injuries
Comment
Mayak or Kyshtym nuclear complex (Soviet Union):
29 September 1957
Cooling system explosion
Radiation release. Thousands exposed to radiation
Not reported
Nuclear incident
Windscale nuclear reactor (UK):
7 October 1957
Reactor fire
Sale of milk banned for one month
None
Nuclear incident
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (USA):
3 January 1961
Steam explosion
Facility destroyed
Three
Pre start, not nuclear
Three Mile Island power plant, Pennsylvania (US):
29 March 1979
Cooling malfunction
“first there was a release of radioactive water, then radioactive gas was detected on the perimeter”
No deaths or injuries were reported
Seen as US worst nuclear incident
Chernobyl power plant (Soviet Union):
26 April 1986
Reactor explosion during an experiment
Widespread release of radiation
Two die in explosion, sixty-eight die soon after from radiation exposure, thousands of deaths predicted
World’s worst nuclear incident (excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki)
Severesk, formerly Tomsk-7 (Russia):
6 April 1993
A tank explodes.
Over 120km2 contaminated and permanently uninhabitable
None reported
Nuclear incident
Tokaimura nuclear fuel processing facility (Japan):
30 September 1999
Workers break safety regulations and set off a nuclear reaction.
Uncontrolled nuclear reaction
Two workers die, forty others exposed to high levels of radiation.
Hundreds of residents evacuated but allowed home after two days.
Incredibly stupid operator error.
Nuclear incident.
Mihama power plant (Japan):
9 August 2004
Not absolutely clear but accident appears to be related to steam systems rather than nuclear.
No radiation leak.
Five die. Seven others injured by steam or hot water.
Not nuclear.
Fukushima Daiichi power plant (Japan):
11 March 2011
A powerful tsunami generated by a magnitude-9.0 earthquake out at sea slams into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, damaging four of six reactors at the site.
A series of fires are set off, after cooling systems fail. Venting hydrogen gas from the reactors causes explosions, forcing engineers to use seawater in an effort to cool overheating reactor cores.
Originally classified as INES Level 5, the severity was raised to INES Level 7 on 12 April 2011 when a new estimate suggested higher levels of radiation than previously thought had leaked from the plant.
Despite the classification, the incident is said to be much less severe than Chernobyl, and officials insist there is only a minimal risk to public health.
Cause was a tsunami following an earthquake.
Macoule nuclear site (France),
12 September 2011
Explosion in a furnace.
No radiation leaks nor damage to the plant are detected.
One person is killed and four are injured - one with serious burns.
Not clear if a nuclear incident
What this demonstrates is not how dangerous nuclear is, but how safe it is. Chernobyl was clearly a disastrous incident but direct deaths were relatively few. Probably no-one can tell how many other deaths were directly attributable to Chernobyl, and I am sure that there were very many. I worked in St Petersburg in the mid 90's and a labourer on the construction project I was on was a "Hero of Chernobyl". He was one of the many who in the immediate aftermath ran out on elevated runways to throw sandbags or similar into the reactor to try to stem the fires. Eight or nine years later the man was a wreck through vodka, not radiation.
Examination of the above paints a different picture from "a total or partial meltdown ...............going kerboom every 5 years." As posted by Reggy who should know better considering where he works.
But these are the worst accidents that has happen not reporting fires leaks with radiations happens few times every month. Japan would not really say if there has been any deaths since accident it is on their best interest not to holding Olympics I am sure if you asked the people who live there feeling sick every day you would get a different view to your one To Russian one still no one lives in that area so I am really surprised you have said his shows it is safe.
ywindythesecond
27-Oct-13, 09:59
But these are the worst accidents that has happen not reporting fires leaks with radiations happens few times every month. Japan would not really say if there has been any deaths since accident it is on their best interest not to holding Olympics I am sure if you asked the people who live there feeling sick every day you would get a different view to your one To Russian one still no one lives in that area so I am really surprised you have said his shows it is safe.
The incident at Severesk was obviously very severe, and so was Chernobyl. Fukushima was not a nuclear incident, it was an accident that happened to a nuclear plant caused by massive natural forces and although there was leakage of nuclear material it was not a nuclear disaster because the plant was designed even forty years ago to withstand such an event.
The fact is that statistically, nuclear is the safest form of electricity generation but it gets a bad name from the hype surrounding it. For example, our very own John o'Groat Journal which should know better always refers to the Low Level Waste Store at Dounreay as a "dump". It is not a "dump", it is an engineered storage facility. The waste pits were dumps, but that is historic and things have moved on, and in any case even though the pits were dumps I am not aware of anyone coming to harm from them.
I am sure there are frequent radiation leaks Scout but the fact is that these are contained by design and no harm is done. One of the things I didn't know was that America's Three Mile Island event which is frequently thrown up as a reason not to have nuclear resulted only in "radiation being detected at the site boundary". It could have been a major disaster, but the safety measures in place even then contained it. Modern nuclear safety measures are far more rigorous.
For me the scariest event was Japanese workers mixing radioactive material in a bucket. This was clearly unplanned, but I bet all over the world there will be measures in place to ensure that it can't happen again. Even then following an uncontrolled and uncontained nuclear reaction local residents were allowed back into their homes after two days.
You refer to "the people who live there feeling sick every day" (Fukushima). Do you know that the people living there feel sick every day?
The incident at Severesk was obviously very severe, and so was Chernobyl. Fukushima was not a nuclear incident, it was an accident that happened to a nuclear plant caused by massive natural forces and although there was leakage of nuclear material it was not a nuclear disaster because the plant was designed even forty years ago to withstand such an event.
The fact is that statistically, nuclear is the safest form of electricity generation but it gets a bad name from the hype surrounding it. For example, our very own John o'Groat Journal which should know better always refers to the Low Level Waste Store at Dounreay as a "dump". It is not a "dump", it is an engineered storage facility. The waste pits were dumps, but that is historic and things have moved on, and in any case even though the pits were dumps I am not aware of anyone coming to harm from them.
I am sure there are frequent radiation leaks Scout but the fact is that these are contained by design and no harm is done. One of the things I didn't know was that America's Three Mile Island event which is frequently thrown up as a reason not to have nuclear resulted only in "radiation being detected at the site boundary". It could have been a major disaster, but the safety measures in place even then contained it. Modern nuclear safety measures are far more rigorous.
For me the scariest event was Japanese workers mixing radioactive material in a bucket. This was clearly unplanned, but I bet all over the world there will be measures in place to ensure that it can't happen again. Even then following an uncontrolled and uncontained nuclear reaction local residents were allowed back into their homes after two days.
You refer to "the people who live there feeling sick every day" (Fukushima). Do you know that the people living there feel sick every day? Again you say it is safe however I note you have not mention too much about the Russian site No one has gone back there even today still not safe. Yes I have good friend who comes from Japan and his family is very ill from this of course you can not say anything as in Japan the Government controls what you say and think tuff luck if your family falls ill Does it really matter how the accident happened. When it comes to Wind Farm etc only small problem appears and you want the industry to shut down.
radiohead
27-Oct-13, 10:50
If the "world" doesn not want nuclear, renewables, coal, gas etc as power generation, the it is hydro power only and we will have to use only the electricity that is necessary for our health and welfare.
The table previously shows 13 deaths, 104 people have been killed in the total installation process of windfarms worldwide. QED nuclear is safer......
Tubthumper
27-Oct-13, 11:55
The incident at Severesk was obviously very severe, and so was Chernobyl. Fukushima was not a nuclear incident, it was an accident that happened to a nuclear plant caused by massive natural forces and although there was leakage of nuclear material it was not a nuclear disaster because the plant was designed even forty years ago to withstand such an event.
The fact is that statistically, nuclear is the safest form of electricity generation but it gets a bad name from the hype surrounding it. For example, our very own John o'Groat Journal which should know better always refers to the Low Level Waste Store at Dounreay as a "dump". It is not a "dump", it is an engineered storage facility. The waste pits were dumps, but that is historic and things have moved on, and in any case even though the pits were dumps I am not aware of anyone coming to harm from them.
I am sure there are frequent radiation leaks Scout but the fact is that these are contained by design and no harm is done. One of the things I didn't know was that America's Three Mile Island event which is frequently thrown up as a reason not to have nuclear resulted only in "radiation being detected at the site boundary". It could have been a major disaster, but the safety measures in place even then contained it. Modern nuclear safety measures are far more rigorous.
For me the scariest event was Japanese workers mixing radioactive material in a bucket. This was clearly unplanned, but I bet all over the world there will be measures in place to ensure that it can't happen again. Even then following an uncontrolled and uncontained nuclear reaction local residents were allowed back into their homes after two days.
You refer to "the people who live there feeling sick every day" (Fukushima). Do you know that the people living there feel sick every day?
I'd imagine the people that USED to live near the plant feel pretty sick every day based on the fact that they can't (and probably won't ever) go home. That was a nuclear accident because TEPCO neglected to spend money enacting the recommendations which would have prevented the loss of coolant accident viz. providing backup supplies which would survive tsunami. Properly engineered? Aye right! And how about the properly engineered water storage facilities that are presently dribbling?
What you tell us is that while wind turbines present a never-ending threat of death & mutilation, nuclear power is in all cases properly-engineered, properly managed and benign in every instance?
I suspected you were bonkers a while back, around the time of the 'two bottles/legal action' post. Now I know for sure.
ps Do the words 'stochastic' and 'deterministic' mean anything to you in the context of radioactivity and the human corpus? Or the subtle distinctions between 'radiation' and 'radioactive contamination'? 'Criticality'?
Tubthumper
27-Oct-13, 12:15
yes it should but it wont because Salmond is an idiot
Is that the best you can put up? I think he might be bang on the money. I'd rather my grandkids were not exposed to the physical and economic risks presented by nuclear power, and I'd rather the Trident Billions were spent on cancer research, hospitals and heating for the elderly.
As for nuclear power in Caithness - notwithstanding the 'remote from users' issue, the preceding generations didn't exactly make a flawless case that we could be relied on to manage the technology properly (mind you the same could be said for every other community entrusted with the keys to the atom.)
ywindythesecond
27-Oct-13, 19:24
I'd imagine the people that USED to live near the plant feel pretty sick every day based on the fact that they can't (and probably won't ever) go home. That was a nuclear accident because TEPCO neglected to spend money enacting the recommendations which would have prevented the loss of coolant accident viz. providing backup supplies which would survive tsunami. Properly engineered? Aye right! And how about the properly engineered water storage facilities that are presently dribbling?
What you tell us is that while wind turbines present a never-ending threat of death & mutilation, nuclear power is in all cases properly-engineered, properly managed and benign in every instance?
I suspected you were bonkers a while back, around the time of the 'two bottles/legal action' post. Now I know for sure.
ps Do the words 'stochastic' and 'deterministic' mean anything to you in the context of radioactivity and the human corpus? Or the subtle distinctions between 'radiation' and 'radioactive contamination'? 'Criticality'?
Right Tubs, you are attributing a number of things to me that I did not say.
Regarding sick people at Fukushima, I am not aware of what Scout obviously intended to be recognised as radiation sickness surrounding Fukushima, although I can accept what you describe which is "pissed-off" sickness.
My reference to "engineered" was to the Dounreay Low Level Waste Store being reduced in standing by being called a "dump" by the Groat. I made no such comment on Fukushima.
I have never told anyone that wind turbines present "a never-ending threat of death & mutilation", although there are places where they should never be put, school playgrounds for example.
I have never said that "nuclear power is in all cases properly-engineered, properly managed and benign in every instance".
As for being bonkers perhaps I am, but I am not bonkers enough to judge a person on statements which I have attributed to him rather than on what he actually said.
And what I actually said was "The fact is that statistically, nuclear is the safest form of electricity generation" and it was said in response to Reggy's rather overstated "Actually, if you counted up all the reactors that have undergone either a total or partial meltdown since the dawn of the nuclear age then we have been witness to one going kerboom every 5 years."
Is nuclear statistically the safest form of electricity generation or is it not?
ps I once understood the difference between stochastic and deterministic but I have forgotten. I don't think the difference between radiation and radioactive contamination is very subtle, and criticality is what went wrong at Tokaimura. But I don't need to know these things because I never speak of them unless asked.
What do you know of the price of cheese and what relevance does either of these subjects have to do with my posts?
ywindythesecond
27-Oct-13, 19:39
Again you say it is safe however I note you have not mention too much about the Russian site No one has gone back there even today still not safe. Yes I have good friend who comes from Japan and his family is very ill from this of course you can not say anything as in Japan the Government controls what you say and think tuff luck if your family falls ill Does it really matter how the accident happened. When it comes to Wind Farm etc only small problem appears and you want the industry to shut down.
I said "The fact is that statistically, nuclear is the safest form of electricity generation" . Nothing is totally safe. Nuclear generation is statistically the safest.
I understand that flying is statistically the safest way to travel, but there are frequent fatal air accidents.
Is there any reason why anyone should, if safety is your first concern, not pick the statistically safest option?
And yes I want the wind industry shut down but because it is the biggest scam the world has ever seen, not on safety grounds.
Is nuclear statistically the safest form of electricity generation or is it not?
It probably is according to the statistics of high numbers, ie when comparing deaths to energy generation.
But, if health and safety was your real concern then you should campaign against the most unsafe forms of energy generation, wouldn't you? :roll:
It probably is according to the statistics of high numbers, ie when comparing deaths to energy generation.
But, if health and safety was your real concern then you should campaign against the most unsafe forms of energy generation, wouldn't you? :roll: My own view this is very miss leading with statistics Yes the number who are killed at the time of the accident is small however the long term problem with people being exposed to radiation and die later on are not included. When accidents happen at power station people who work there are monitored but when they leave monitoring stops. I say if this was really safe why do they not have it in London or all the city's around UK They have Wind Turbines in London I have seen them myself.
My own view this is very miss leading with statistics Yes the number who are killed at the time of the accident is small however the long term problem with people being exposed to radiation and die later on are not included. When accidents happen at power station people who work there are monitored but when they leave monitoring stops. I say if this was really safe why do they not have it in London or all the city's around UK They have Wind Turbines in London I have seen them myself.
Yes they are included, nuclear is still safe according to that statistic.
But what about Chernobyl ?
The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous. Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
The trouble with assessing safety of energy generation on the basis of 'Deaths per TWh' is that it is pretty simplistic and brutal. There is no indication of the economic and social disruption that follows an accident.
e.g. What was the social cost of treating thousands of children for thyroid cancer for instance? The cost of evacuating vast swathes of Japan Prefecture following Fukushima incident?(sp)
The statistics say more about capable Russian medical practices and Japanese emergency measures than it does about nuclear safety.
ywindythesecond
28-Oct-13, 11:33
The trouble with assessing safety of energy generation on the basis of 'Deaths per TWh' is that it is pretty simplistic and brutal. There is no indication of the economic and social disruption that follows an accident.
e.g. What was the social cost of treating thousands of children for thyroid cancer for instance? The cost of evacuating vast swathes of Japan Prefecture following Fukushima incident?(sp)
The statistics say more about capable Russian medical practices and Japanese emergency measures than it does about nuclear safety.
You are making good points Reggy but surely you meant "treating thousands of children for the prevention of thyroid cancer"? I understand from my Dounreay induction that that is the taking of an iodine tablet but that might just be the first stage of a more complex process.
You are making good points Reggy but surely you meant "treating thousands of children for the prevention of thyroid cancer"? I understand from my Dounreay induction that that is the taking of an iodine tablet but that might just be the first stage of a more complex process.
No, that is not what it says on that link, 4000 treated cases of thyroid cancer. It must have been terribly worrying for the parents.
There have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered.
We all know that wind turbines shut down in severe winds but nuclear reactors also shut down putting great strain on back up generation which is very low this year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10409160/Dungeness-nuclear-power-station-shuts-down-following-hurricane-strength-winds.html
RagnarRocks
29-Oct-13, 18:28
Slight misrepresentation there Rheg,one reactor shutting down safely due to wind damage isn't reactors and shows that the equipment is functioning correctly and it is due back up shortly I'm sure if an oil or gas fired station had wind damage it would shut down just the same, so it has little to do with the fuel used more the damage caused by the storm
Slight misrepresentation there Rheg,one reactor shutting down safely due to wind damage isn't reactors and shows that the equipment is functioning correctly and it is due back up shortly I'm sure if an oil or gas fired station had wind damage it would shut down just the same, so it has little to do with the fuel used more the damage caused by the storm
Swap nuclear for wind. No difference.
RagnarRocks
29-Oct-13, 20:38
I bet over the coming few years wind turbines toppling over in high winds will become the norm
Tubthumper
29-Oct-13, 22:47
I bet over the coming few years wind turbines toppling over in high winds will become the norm Just as long as its not nuke stations falling over in high tides.
neilsermk1
01-Nov-13, 13:45
Is that the best you can put up? I think he might be bang on the money. I'd rather my grandkids were not exposed to the physical and economic risks presented by nuclear power, and I'd rather the Trident Billions were spent on cancer research, hospitals and heating for the elderly.
As for nuclear power in Caithness - notwithstanding the 'remote from users' issue, the preceding generations didn't exactly make a flawless case that we could be relied on to manage the technology properly (mind you the same could be said for every other community entrusted with the keys to the atom.)
No it isn't the best but when views are so polarised whats the point in reasoned arguement there will never be a meeting of minds.
Nuclear power is the future for base load electrical supply for the near to medium term future.
p.s. what does trident have to do with nuclear power generation
weezer 316
01-Nov-13, 14:51
Personally, I would rather half the money allocated to new fission reactors went to putting solar panels on peoples roofs, and the other half went towards nuclear fusion research.
Wishful thinking I know.
ywindythesecond
03-Nov-13, 01:31
Personally, I would rather half the money allocated to new fission reactors went to putting solar panels on peoples roofs, and the other half went towards nuclear fusion research.
Wishful thinking I know.
Solar panels on roofs is a good idea, but nobody would do if they had to pay for it themselves.
weezer 316
04-Nov-13, 16:32
Think you hit the nail on the head windy. No one want to pay for nothing. We want power, dont want to pay for it. Same with NHS, schools, etc etc
I think they should mandate all new builds to have solar panels.
Think you hit the nail on the head windy. No one want to pay for nothing. We want power, dont want to pay for it. Same with NHS, schools, etc etc
I think they should mandate all new builds to have solar panels.
The cost would be insignificant in a new build and would upgrade the thermal efficiency rating leading to future savings in council tax as well as lecky. No brainer.
Personally I would have thought there would be a grant of some sort available for anyone prepared to go off grid but.. no.
Personally I would have thought there would be a grant of some sort available for anyone prepared to go off grid but.. no.
Energy companies cannot claim credit for off grid solar energy arrays, that is why they give feed-in tariffs for on-grid systems, and besides, you need about 40w of mains lecky 24/7 to keep the invertor running. So for the ordinary person-on-the-street to do it all him/herself, there are plenty of financial and practical obstacles to get off-grid electricity. This may be why there are no grants, there is no incentive.
RagnarRocks
04-Nov-13, 19:48
I have no problem with each house having solar panels infact I'm surprised no one has invented a solar panel that's like a roof tile and can be linked up so the whole roof is a big panel . It wouldn't serve the whole houses power needs but could surely supply a lot then you need less nuclear stations :0)
They have been on the market for some time
RagnarRocks
04-Nov-13, 20:57
So they have and look much better than the ones you see stuck on roofs all around, question would be are they cost effective. I shall have to look into this more
considerably more expensive than the normal PV tile
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.