6 ms·

Cracks in nuclear reactor could lead to the evacuation of Edinburgh and Glasgow

richardhod 7y ago
Unreliable source. This is one of those stupid articles which takes a very very unlikely worst case scenario and paints it as news. The earth could get hit by an asteroid tomorrow, Shock! Horror!. You should know better than this
rishabhsagar 7y ago
The title seems to imply an active disaster is underway. I was relieved to find out out that the reactor is currently switched off and to be decommissioned in 2023. A case is being made to switch it back on as some people (with a stake in the matter) believe that the risk is too low to justify a switch off. WTF are these people even thinking. Smallest risk with such disastrous outcome is scary as shit.
- curiousgal 7y ago
  If the safety margin is 10mm-19mm and the crack is 2.9mm wide, I'd say the risk is non-existent.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - oliveshell 7y ago
    This may well be the case during normal operation. It seems the worry, however, is that seismic activity etc. could lead to a steam explosion and release of radioactive gases if the plant failed to shut down. (I’m not a nuclear engineer and the article doesn’t make the assessed risks 100% clear, though.)
  - rishabhsagar 7y ago
    I don’t have domain knowledge, so to me intuitively it feels like the risk of this crack quickly widening is real. Experts also seem to have called out risks due to factors such as quakes, steam escape etc.
  - OnlyOneCannolo 7y ago
    That's not risk. That's likelihood. The article admits that the likelihood is low, but the severity could be high. Risk is a combination of severity and likelihood. The nuclear industry has an entire discipline (PRA) dedicated specifically to risk assessment [1]. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-informed/pra.html https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-informed/pra.h...
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    They have already exceeded the safety margin specified in the design, that is why it is shut down. They want to change the safety margin of the design to start it up again.
- anilakar 7y ago
  I've never understood why trade unions, who are supposed to represent the masses, often support environmentally disastrous enterprises.
  - kelp 7y ago
    I suspect trade unions are most concerned with the short to medium term interests of their current members. And less so with the interest of the greater public. In this case they likely want a pay check for their members. This is just my opinion and I’m completely speculating.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    Trade unions were not created to represent the masses, however some of them took this up, with varying levels of success depending on the inherent conflicts of their trade versus the needs of the masses, as a side job. They are supposed to represent the workers in a particular trade for pay and working conditions. Often what the masses would prefer is just less work to do and that is not in a trade unions interest to really help with. I have had discussions about increasing productivity in UK factories by integrating CNC processes so that you can have more machines per operator. I was told flat that it was a non-starter as it was one machine per operator and if I did anything different I would be opposed at every turn.
philshem 7y ago
> The two reactors at Hunterston B nuclear power plant near Ardrossan are 43 years old - the oldest in Europe. AFAIK, Beznau 1 in Switzerland is the oldest operating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors
perlgeek 7y ago
> The reactors have been closed since October 2018 as a result, but owners EDF Energy are currently making a case for turning them back on, with help from trade union GMB. So, there is a chance for disaster if the reactors are activated again, not from continued non-operation.
perfunctory 7y ago
> The reactors have been closed since October 2018 as a result, but owners EDF Energy are currently making a case for turning them back on, with help from trade union GMB. I find it tragic that workers (the members of the union) have to weigh between safety on the one hand and their livelihoods (lost income) on the other. These things should be independent from each other.
mannykannot 7y ago
This is a somewhat scaremongering article, as it lacks a plausible scenario in which a meltdown would both occur and breach the containment. There is, apparently, a valid concern over control rods jamming, but there are two independent backup safety mechanisms: nitrogen injection and the release of boron beads into the core (both absorb neutrons.)[1] The plan, apparently, is to install 'super-articulated' control rods to mitigate the jamming risk. [1] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/barry2/docs/nks-rak2-96-tr-c2.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/barry2/docs/nks... p.21
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  Do you drive recklessly and avoid getting your brake pads replaced because "it's OK, I've got two independent backup safety mechanisms: seatbelts and airbags"? Backup safety mechanisms are not intended to allow you to operate the primary mechanism in a known unsafe state, they have a calculated reduction in failure likelihood based on the primary mechanism being in a working state, and those calculations go out the window if the primary mechanism is faulty.
  - javagram 7y ago
    But if they are planning to install a different type of control rod that won’t be jammed, isn’t that more like taking your car to the mechanic and getting the brake pads replaced and then feeling safe to drive it again?
laydn 7y ago
You build a reactor and specify its lifetime, then push the reactor past its design lifetime, then you find way too many cracks in your reactor and you want to run it for 4 more years by asking for an increase in the $number_of_allowed_cracks? What could possibly go wrong?
- anilakar 7y ago
  You increase the limit and notice it works just as well as before. Then you'll increase the limit again, and again, and again... This is called "normalization of deviance", and it's what caused the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger. There is a large number of great articles about the phenomenon.
  - stmfreak 7y ago
    Exploration of the failure envelope is a human instinct.
- benj111 7y ago
  Well design lifetime is only really relevant at the design stage. I would hope they're proceeding on how the the reactor is now, regardless how how long it was designed to last. I don't per se have a problem with them changing safety limits, if we know more about how things behave, it seems sensible. I suppose the question is still, is it safe? Regardless of number of cracks, the design life time, or the actual age.
JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Linkbait? This is a theoretical possibility, not a current event.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  The cracks are a current event as is the pressure to restart the reactor by allowing changes to the original design's safety parameters. As for the potential scenario referred to in the headline, I think that is labelled clearly as a theoretical possibility by the use of the words 'could lead'. The original headline 'Cracks found in nuclear reactor that could lead to the full evacuation of Edinburgh and Glasgow' is better, but too long for HN, so I edited as best I could. Was not meaning to make it more linkbatey, but is very hard when deleting words from a headline to make it fit.
javagram 7y ago
The authorities quoted in the article are an “independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment,” and a “Reader in Energy Policy”. While I am sure they are experts in their respective fields, is either actually an expert on nuclear engineering qualified to judge whether these cracks actually are dangerous? BTW if the reactor is truly dangerous it should be shut down, but we need to keep in mind every reactor being shut down means more fossil fuels being burned and destroying our entire planet’s environment.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Neither of those sound like industry experts.
- oldjokes 7y ago
  One does not follow from the other. Many countries are vastly reducing carbon while not investing in nuclear at all. We're already at the point where the carbon impact of energy production is negligible in many areas, there are much bigger fish to fry if you're truly concerned about carbon.
  - tarsinge 7y ago
    Wasn’t aware of that, do you have some links?
  - javagram 7y ago
    > Many countries are vastly reducing carbon while not investing in nuclear at all In this case we are talking about shutting down a plant that could potentially run for 4-5 more years without decommissioning. I suspect the difference will be made up by coal/gas. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/02/01/germany-struggling-to-reduce-emissions-will-phase-out-coal-within-20-years/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/02/01/germany-... “Coal, the most emissions-intensive fossil fuel, now provides more than 42% of Germany’s power according to the International Energy Agency – a proportion that has been growing since the nuclear decision. The result is that Germany’s carbon emissions have been growing, while their neighbors’ has been declining.”
bwghughes-fth 7y ago
Oh look. Industry asking for a half of the safety measure in order to continue to make money. Accurate or not - we’ve seen this pattern of behaviour and it’s results time and time again. 737-Max anyone?

Unreliable source. This is one of those stupid articles which takes a very very unlikely worst case scenario and paints it as news. The earth could get hit by an asteroid tomorrow, Shock! Horror!. You should know better than this

rishabhsagar 7y ago

The title seems to imply an active disaster is underway. I was relieved to find out out that the reactor is currently switched off and to be decommissioned in 2023. A case is being made to switch it back on as some people (with a stake in the matter) believe that the risk is too low to justify a switch off. WTF are these people even thinking. Smallest risk with such disastrous outcome is scary as shit.

curiousgal 7y ago
If the safety margin is 10mm-19mm and the crack is 2.9mm wide, I'd say the risk is non-existent.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- oliveshell 7y ago
  This may well be the case during normal operation. It seems the worry, however, is that seismic activity etc. could lead to a steam explosion and release of radioactive gases if the plant failed to shut down. (I’m not a nuclear engineer and the article doesn’t make the assessed risks 100% clear, though.)
- rishabhsagar 7y ago
  I don’t have domain knowledge, so to me intuitively it feels like the risk of this crack quickly widening is real. Experts also seem to have called out risks due to factors such as quakes, steam escape etc.
- OnlyOneCannolo 7y ago
  That's not risk. That's likelihood. The article admits that the likelihood is low, but the severity could be high. Risk is a combination of severity and likelihood. The nuclear industry has an entire discipline (PRA) dedicated specifically to risk assessment [1]. [1] https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-informed/pra.html https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-informed/pra.h...
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  They have already exceeded the safety margin specified in the design, that is why it is shut down. They want to change the safety margin of the design to start it up again.
anilakar 7y ago
I've never understood why trade unions, who are supposed to represent the masses, often support environmentally disastrous enterprises.
- kelp 7y ago
  I suspect trade unions are most concerned with the short to medium term interests of their current members. And less so with the interest of the greater public. In this case they likely want a pay check for their members. This is just my opinion and I’m completely speculating.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  Trade unions were not created to represent the masses, however some of them took this up, with varying levels of success depending on the inherent conflicts of their trade versus the needs of the masses, as a side job. They are supposed to represent the workers in a particular trade for pay and working conditions. Often what the masses would prefer is just less work to do and that is not in a trade unions interest to really help with. I have had discussions about increasing productivity in UK factories by integrating CNC processes so that you can have more machines per operator. I was told flat that it was a non-starter as it was one machine per operator and if I did anything different I would be opposed at every turn.

philshem 7y ago

> The two reactors at Hunterston B nuclear power plant near Ardrossan are 43 years old - the oldest in Europe. AFAIK, Beznau 1 in Switzerland is the oldest operating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

perlgeek 7y ago

> The reactors have been closed since October 2018 as a result, but owners EDF Energy are currently making a case for turning them back on, with help from trade union GMB. So, there is a chance for disaster if the reactors are activated again, not from continued non-operation.

perfunctory 7y ago

> The reactors have been closed since October 2018 as a result, but owners EDF Energy are currently making a case for turning them back on, with help from trade union GMB. I find it tragic that workers (the members of the union) have to weigh between safety on the one hand and their livelihoods (lost income) on the other. These things should be independent from each other.

mannykannot 7y ago

This is a somewhat scaremongering article, as it lacks a plausible scenario in which a meltdown would both occur and breach the containment. There is, apparently, a valid concern over control rods jamming, but there are two independent backup safety mechanisms: nitrogen injection and the release of boron beads into the core (both absorb neutrons.)[1] The plan, apparently, is to install 'super-articulated' control rods to mitigate the jamming risk. [1] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/barry2/docs/nks-rak2-96-tr-c2.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/barry2/docs/nks... p.21

Analemma_ 7y ago
Do you drive recklessly and avoid getting your brake pads replaced because "it's OK, I've got two independent backup safety mechanisms: seatbelts and airbags"? Backup safety mechanisms are not intended to allow you to operate the primary mechanism in a known unsafe state, they have a calculated reduction in failure likelihood based on the primary mechanism being in a working state, and those calculations go out the window if the primary mechanism is faulty.
- javagram 7y ago
  But if they are planning to install a different type of control rod that won’t be jammed, isn’t that more like taking your car to the mechanic and getting the brake pads replaced and then feeling safe to drive it again?

laydn 7y ago

You build a reactor and specify its lifetime, then push the reactor past its design lifetime, then you find way too many cracks in your reactor and you want to run it for 4 more years by asking for an increase in the $number_of_allowed_cracks? What could possibly go wrong?

anilakar 7y ago
You increase the limit and notice it works just as well as before. Then you'll increase the limit again, and again, and again... This is called "normalization of deviance", and it's what caused the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger. There is a large number of great articles about the phenomenon.
- stmfreak 7y ago
  Exploration of the failure envelope is a human instinct.
benj111 7y ago
Well design lifetime is only really relevant at the design stage. I would hope they're proceeding on how the the reactor is now, regardless how how long it was designed to last. I don't per se have a problem with them changing safety limits, if we know more about how things behave, it seems sensible. I suppose the question is still, is it safe? Regardless of number of cracks, the design life time, or the actual age.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Linkbait? This is a theoretical possibility, not a current event.

inflatableDodo 7y ago
The cracks are a current event as is the pressure to restart the reactor by allowing changes to the original design's safety parameters. As for the potential scenario referred to in the headline, I think that is labelled clearly as a theoretical possibility by the use of the words 'could lead'. The original headline 'Cracks found in nuclear reactor that could lead to the full evacuation of Edinburgh and Glasgow' is better, but too long for HN, so I edited as best I could. Was not meaning to make it more linkbatey, but is very hard when deleting words from a headline to make it fit.

javagram 7y ago

The authorities quoted in the article are an “independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment,” and a “Reader in Energy Policy”. While I am sure they are experts in their respective fields, is either actually an expert on nuclear engineering qualified to judge whether these cracks actually are dangerous? BTW if the reactor is truly dangerous it should be shut down, but we need to keep in mind every reactor being shut down means more fossil fuels being burned and destroying our entire planet’s environment.

rayiner 7y ago
Neither of those sound like industry experts.
oldjokes 7y ago
One does not follow from the other. Many countries are vastly reducing carbon while not investing in nuclear at all. We're already at the point where the carbon impact of energy production is negligible in many areas, there are much bigger fish to fry if you're truly concerned about carbon.
- tarsinge 7y ago
  Wasn’t aware of that, do you have some links?
- javagram 7y ago
  > Many countries are vastly reducing carbon while not investing in nuclear at all In this case we are talking about shutting down a plant that could potentially run for 4-5 more years without decommissioning. I suspect the difference will be made up by coal/gas. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/02/01/germany-struggling-to-reduce-emissions-will-phase-out-coal-within-20-years/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/02/01/germany-... “Coal, the most emissions-intensive fossil fuel, now provides more than 42% of Germany’s power according to the International Energy Agency – a proportion that has been growing since the nuclear decision. The result is that Germany’s carbon emissions have been growing, while their neighbors’ has been declining.”

bwghughes-fth 7y ago

Oh look. Industry asking for a half of the safety measure in order to continue to make money. Accurate or not - we’ve seen this pattern of behaviour and it’s results time and time again. 737-Max anyone?