Nuclear Energy - A brief rant

[Muddypause]

I've just been reading a bit about the programme that is underway for decommissioning the UK's obsolete nuclear power stations. The one in Dounreay, in N. Scotland, started to be decommissioned last year. It's scheduled to take over 30 years to do the job (you think that's a long time - it was originally reckoned it would take 100 years), at a cost of £2,695 million (£¼ million a day). Already they've had their first serious spillage, which it is reported will take a year to clean up ("It has taken months to devise a hi-tech clean up solution because the operation was too hazardous for humans") and cost an extra £1 million.

In the 1950s, people were telling us that nuclear energy was clean, safe and going to be so cheap that it wouldn't be worth metering.

In no sense am I filled with confidence in a nuclear future.

[ina]

In the 1950s, people were telling us that nuclear energy was clean, safe and going to be so cheap that it wouldn't be worth metering.

Some people are still trying to tell us the same. I was rather amazed at the complacency with which somebody said on the radio not too long ago (can't remember who), that the waste disposal/cleanup problems with nuclear power will only really become urgent in a century or two, and by then technology will be so advanced that they will have found a solution... So no reason to stop building new plants now, is there!

Ina

[Tigerhair]

In the 1950s, people were telling us that nuclear energy was clean, safe and going to be so cheap that it wouldn't be worth metering.

Some people are still trying to tell us the same. I was rather amazed at the complacency with which somebody said on the radio not too long ago (can't remember who), that the waste disposal/cleanup problems with nuclear power will only really become urgent in a century or two, and by then technology will be so advanced that they will have found a solution... So no reason to stop building new plants now, is there!

Ina

Jeez, I HATE that "it won't be OUR problem" attitude - obviously doesn't have kids - however, that shouldn't be a requirement for forward thinking!!! ARGHHHH

[Magpie]

Yay for nuclear-free New Zealand!!

And I heard that wonderful quote again recently - "We didn't inherit the earth from our parents, we are borrowing it from our children."

[Shirley]

You might be interested in this site

http://www.corwm.org.uk/

[Wombat]

Yeah, we only have Lucas Heights, a small reserach reactor (I applied for a job there in my youth). There is starting to be a bit of debate here about power generation though .

Nev

[ina]

With all that sun you have, and no energy (or very little) needed for heating - surely there should be no reason at all why you need nuclear! And then there's wind - after all, there's plenty of empty space, too , so there shouldn't be too much opposition from residents. And wave energy...

Ina

[midgemagnet]

Greetings

Do you lot believe everything you read in the press? and then some !!

The reality is that Dounreay comprises of a number of small to large experimental reactors using quite novel techniques, the last of these was shut off in the early 1990's. There are also a number of old facilities which used to do fuel manufacture, reprocessing and more recently waste storage facilities.

Many of these were built at a time when "they just did", as well as they could, with little thought that one day someone would want to take them apart again.

Given all of that - yes it is damned expensive to take them apart safely, however the costs and time have come done dramatically 30-40% in the last few years - and most likely will come down more.

The timescales for decommissioning were generally driven by the amount of money government would provide coupled with the length of time the radioactive materials would take to decay. Gov't policy has changed - and it is now being done much quicker (which I think is the right thing to do). The waste issue adds to the timescale and still needs a solution...

There is no comparison between the cost and timescales for decommissioning a site like Dounreay against a modern PWR reactor - which is designed with decommissioning in mind. While its not news-worthy, about 24 reactors (mostly small research reactors) have been decommissioned in the UK back to pretty much greenfield sites - amazing work is being done at sites like Winfrith which will have gone completely in a couple of years.

The incident you refer to was a cementation plant dealing with solidification of intermediate level radioactive waste. If you actually read the investigation report - this incident was serious, as one of the (many) lines of defence was eroded - the work was being carried out in a fairly modern plant in a shielded cell designed to contain spillages. No-one was hurt, or received any dose of radiation or any material escaped to the environment. The loss was a plant loss with some erosion of safety. Restart will probably take until late on this year, the liquid waste has already been recovered and processed - a conservative decision was taken to upgrade the plant, re-commission the plant, re-train staff to ensure this really does not happen again - which I think is the right thing !

The real tragedy to me is the young girl who received a near fatal dose of radiation while receiving cancer treatment at a Glasgow hospital due to "human error". Very serious and very sad - I hope and pray she recovers.

As for a nuclear future - well read my comments on the previous nuclear power thread.

If you want to be "anti-nuke" then that's fine - but I thought you might want to base it on facts rather than selectivenews reports.....

As for me - I'm not an evil nuclear atom scientist. I work in Safety, Health and Environment, I take my job very seriously, I care about people and the environment - and I'm not on my own in that.

I grow veg, am a fan of localised renewable energy and now sat here with a sleeping Jack Russell terrier on my lap, better take her out for that walk I promised her before I go to bed...maybe I'll get round to looking at those fruit and veg threads tomorrow..

Mick

[Muddypause]

Do you lot believe everything you read in the press? and then some !!
[..]
If you want to be "anti-nuke" then that's fine - but I thought you might want to base it on facts rather than selectivenews reports.....

Hi Mick, nice to see you back again.

Presumptive of you. I based my comments on an analysis provided by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, not the press. This report gave a breakdown of all the procedures, time scales and costs involved. As it was a large .pdf file, I didn't link to it, but the news report about the spillage that was on the BBC website reflected accurately what was in the NDA's own document. It seems to agree with your own comments on the matter, too.

Incidentally, the Authority's current assessment on the work at Winfrith estimates it will not be completed until 2018; in a couple of years they expect to have reached the next 'milestone' of the project, with a further ten years extensive work to be done after that.

I hear people saying that modern plants don't bear comparison to the old stuff, but you must remember that some of us have been listening to "clean, safe and cheap" for 40 or 50 years, and it has proved to be wrong on every count and at every stage. Yet the nuclear industry, along with wind farms, and gas/oil imports are set to become major political pawns over the coming years. It's not only the fat cats at Shell and BP who are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of record profits.

[Wombat]

Ina,

Yes we are starting to develop wind farms but I am not sure if there are any commercial solar concerns, solar being still about 10AUD per watt.

Mick and Stew,

Thanks guys, it is through these sorts of discussions that the rest of us learn things.

PS, I am an OHS&E Manager too Mick!

Nev

[midgemagnet]

Hi Nev & Stew

Well the NDA website is mostly true

Apologies for being presumptive.

There area number of stages to decommissioning, the end point is either delicensing completely or just a store of some sort. I was at Winfrith last week -and yes - within two years - most of the nasties will have gone and 95% of the hazard will have gone - I do think (know!) Winfrith will be done way before 2018. I expect the next plan will reflect that. I would say 2010-2012.

I don't doubt the costs and timescales for recovery from the incident at dounreay - it is a mess but it is as I said above and most of the waste has now been recovered.

And yes - some of the quotes about nuclear power from yesteryear belong in the bin - nuclear power ain't cheap. Safe? well er..yes modern plants are safe, some of the UK's older nuclear stations have been generating for nearly 40 years with no major problems. Waste is an issue however.

I'm sure big business is eyeing up new build and I know decommissioning - I am worried about the governments propensity contractorise the industry and its fascination with all things American (US companies are circling the UK industry like sharks). That will lead to problems as it has in other industries......

I hope I can be a fat enough cat to pay my mortgage off and grow veg for a living by then...

Mick

[Muddypause]

I've just been looking at the Energy Savings Trust website (a government quango of sorts) and see that they have just produced a report about microgeneration (.pdf file) on a domestic scale. I've been saying for a while now (including on this forum) that there is scope for widespread use of domestic sized wind generators. I've not got round to doing any calculations yet, but if half the houses in the country had a bicycle wheel-sized wind turbine on their chimneys (elegantly juxtaposed next to the satalite dish), and maybe a couple of solar heat panels on the roof as well, then a significant contribution could be made to the nation's energy demands. With a decent grant scheme to support installation it could be made to work well.

I saw the government figures for domestic energy consumption recently. What is surprising is that although we seem to be on an ever upward spiral of consuming energy hungry goods, and living in more houses, our overall domestic energy consumption has only risen by a fairly small proportion over the past 20 years. I would hazard a guess that this may be largely due to efficiency savings (double glazing, insulation, more efficient boilers, tighter building regulations on new build, etc.). If this is true, then it may not take much incentive (eg. rising prices) to keep our energy demands constant, and with a bit of application, like microgeneration, it may even be possible to reduce them.

[Wombat]

I am also a firm believer in decentralised microgeneration, Stew, having practiced it at varying degrees over 20 odd years, but I think more is needed than just price pressure. There has to be readily available information, instruction and training as well as someone (the gov't? I don't think so!) out there selling the idea to the people.

I don't now about your lot, but it is difficult to get our lot of their big fat bums and actually DO something about it. By the time they know that there is a problem it will be too late. To use the power grid you don't need to know anything but how to plug in a powerplug. To generate your own you need to know stuff!

Well that's my two bobs worth anyway

Nev

[Martin]

One hijacked plane - kaboom! - nuclear is a SILLY idea!
Greenpeace sum it up rather well with their little video http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... ns/nuclear

[Fisticuffs]

Ever seen the videos of them running a freight train (that weighs god knows how many 100s of tonnes) into a reactor core wall?.... and the train vapourises and leaves barley a scratch on the wall?

Now try the same with a plane that might as well be made of tinfoil.