4 ms·

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 the

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.”
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >I suspect the difference will be made up by coal/gas. Well, it doesn't seem that it is being offset by coal, given that while it has been offline, the UK has also had the longest run of not burning coal for power since industrialisation. Hunterston is a 1 GW power station and while it has been offline the UK has installed 2 GW in new capacity of offshore wind, if you are looking for what is making up the difference, perhaps start there.
    - javagram 7y ago
      Was the offshore wind only installed because the nuclear plant was taken offline? I’d assume the wind generation capability would have been installed anyway... According to https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/may/25/the-power-switch-tracking-britains-record-coal-free-run https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/... “Although a significant share of coal-powered energy has been replaced by renewable sources such as solar and wind power, the largest power source in Britain remains natural gas, a carbon-emitting fossil fuel.”
- s21n 7y ago
  Yes, you can still reduce carbon footprint if you're not investing in nuclear. You can invest in renewables, energy efficiency, or reduce emissions in other industries. But closing working nuclear reactors always leads to higher emissions. You can replace nuclear with renewables, but that means these new renewables would otherwise replace more fossil fuels.
fergie 7y ago
The reactor has been shut down. The company that runs the facility wants to turn it on again despite it being deemed unsafe.
- javagram 7y ago
  According to the article, experts in nuclear engineering (working for the company) have modeled the state of the reactor and determined it is safe to restart. The anti-nuclear quotes in the article don’t appear to be from people qualified to judge the analysis of the cracks, which is why I mentioned it. Can’t they find an independent expert like a professor who specializes in nuclear reactor design, rather than someone who studies “energy policy”?
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >Cracks in the core of a Scottish nuclear reactor could signal that most of Britain’s ageing plants will not be able to supply the country with much needed power for as long as predicted. >Nuclear reactors generate just over 20 percent of Britain’s electricity and even before EDF Energy said last week it would need to shut down one of two reactors at the Hunterston B plant, almost half of that capacity was scheduled to go offline by 2025. >“These reactors are over 40 years old. This is a generic defect which cannot be fixed so it would not surprise me if the older plants would all need to close within the next few years,” said John Large, an independent nuclear engineering consultant. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclear-edf-analysis/cracks-in-british-nuclear-reactor-ring-power-alarm-bells-idUKKBN1IA2P0 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclear-edf-analys... He was the consulting engineer on the raising of the Kursk submarine - https://www.theengineer.co.uk/british-led-team-gains-access-to-secrets-of-sunken-kursk/ https://www.theengineer.co.uk/british-led-team-gains-access-... Here's his obituary, he died recently. John Large, nuclear scientist who oversaw the raising of the Russian ‘Kursk’ submarine from the seabed – obituary - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2018/12/06/john-large-nuclear-scientist-oversaw-raising-russian-kursk-submarine/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2018/12/06/john-large...
    - javagram 7y ago

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.”
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >I suspect the difference will be made up by coal/gas. Well, it doesn't seem that it is being offset by coal, given that while it has been offline, the UK has also had the longest run of not burning coal for power since industrialisation. Hunterston is a 1 GW power station and while it has been offline the UK has installed 2 GW in new capacity of offshore wind, if you are looking for what is making up the difference, perhaps start there.
  - javagram 7y ago
    Was the offshore wind only installed because the nuclear plant was taken offline? I’d assume the wind generation capability would have been installed anyway... According to https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/may/25/the-power-switch-tracking-britains-record-coal-free-run https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/... “Although a significant share of coal-powered energy has been replaced by renewable sources such as solar and wind power, the largest power source in Britain remains natural gas, a carbon-emitting fossil fuel.”
s21n 7y ago
Yes, you can still reduce carbon footprint if you're not investing in nuclear. You can invest in renewables, energy efficiency, or reduce emissions in other industries. But closing working nuclear reactors always leads to higher emissions. You can replace nuclear with renewables, but that means these new renewables would otherwise replace more fossil fuels.

fergie 7y ago

The reactor has been shut down. The company that runs the facility wants to turn it on again despite it being deemed unsafe.

javagram 7y ago
According to the article, experts in nuclear engineering (working for the company) have modeled the state of the reactor and determined it is safe to restart. The anti-nuclear quotes in the article don’t appear to be from people qualified to judge the analysis of the cracks, which is why I mentioned it. Can’t they find an independent expert like a professor who specializes in nuclear reactor design, rather than someone who studies “energy policy”?
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >Cracks in the core of a Scottish nuclear reactor could signal that most of Britain’s ageing plants will not be able to supply the country with much needed power for as long as predicted. >Nuclear reactors generate just over 20 percent of Britain’s electricity and even before EDF Energy said last week it would need to shut down one of two reactors at the Hunterston B plant, almost half of that capacity was scheduled to go offline by 2025. >“These reactors are over 40 years old. This is a generic defect which cannot be fixed so it would not surprise me if the older plants would all need to close within the next few years,” said John Large, an independent nuclear engineering consultant. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclear-edf-analysis/cracks-in-british-nuclear-reactor-ring-power-alarm-bells-idUKKBN1IA2P0 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclear-edf-analys... He was the consulting engineer on the raising of the Kursk submarine - https://www.theengineer.co.uk/british-led-team-gains-access-to-secrets-of-sunken-kursk/ https://www.theengineer.co.uk/british-led-team-gains-access-... Here's his obituary, he died recently. John Large, nuclear scientist who oversaw the raising of the Russian ‘Kursk’ submarine from the seabed – obituary - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2018/12/06/john-large-nuclear-scientist-oversaw-raising-russian-kursk-submarine/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2018/12/06/john-large...
  - javagram 7y ago