5 ms·

This type of problem with extending lifetime shows the problems that are coming from a two- decade plus halt in construction of new plants due to fearmongering

by brc 12y ago

This type of problem with extending lifetime shows the problems that are coming from a two- decade plus halt in construction of new plants due to fearmongering by pressure groups. Even though plant construction has recommenced, it's not possible to catch up. So the pressure groups have actually engendered a situation where a safety problem is more likely. Eliminating the plants was never going to be possible, accelerated replacement with better designs would have been a better outcome.

spacefight 12y ago
"pressure groups"? Care to explain the term?
- brc 12y ago
  Any group that has spread non-factual anti-nuclear hysteria in order to oppose nuclear power generation and specifically the construction of new plants. The list is pretty extensive, really.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    There are plenty of farmers in the UK who had their livelihoods destroyed by Chernobyl (also a graphite-moderated design). Advocates of new nuclear cannot just dismiss concerns of catastrophic accidents as scaremongering, because the worst cases of accidents are extremely bad, even compared to chemical plants and coal related disasters. They also need to address the cost argument.
    - themartorana 12y ago
      Not that I have an answer to offer, but this is interesting to me. Coal and other fossil fuel power plants have caused slow, irreparable harm to the environment and human lives, but because of its slow and plodding nature, many consider it superior to nuclear. Nuclear disasters are much more furious in short periods of time, but I'm not sure that compressed in to a single number, that nuclear has been more harmful per-power-produced as fossil fuels. Maybe someone can properly refute or corroborate that statement. But it feels like an airliner going down. The size of the tragedy is great which puts irrational fear of flying in to people's heads, when it's about the safest mode of travel that exists.
      - reirob 12y ago
        Would be interesting to see a model to come up with such numbers. And it would as well be interesting how in such a model the nuclear waste is taken into account, especially the one that risks to pollute some day in the future. Such models might give us an idea of how many more nuclear catastrophes humanity can "afford". After Fukushima happened, I heard or read several times (without being able to quote, probably radio/TV) predictions that big nuclear accidents like Tshernobyl and Fukushima will get more frequent in the future, because (a) the reactors get older and (b) more reactors have been built in the mean time. I hope that future will prove these predictions wrong, but somehow I feel that hoping is not enough. And incidents like these where security limits are relaxed [0], don't really reassure. [0]: Quote from the article: "EDF was granted permission by the regulator in the summer to relax its graphite weight-loss limit at the Dungeness reactor in Kent from 6.2% to 8% after it came close to breaching the original safety margin."
      - anon1385 12y ago
        The deaths caused by nuclear power aren't anywhere near the same order of magnitude as the deaths caused by coal: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/12/china-coal-emissions-smog-deaths http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/12/china-coa... >Emissions from coal plants in China were responsible for a quarter of a million premature deaths in 2011 and are damaging the health of hundreds of thousands of Chinese children, according to a new study. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-... >Air pollution from Europe's 300 largest coal power stations causes 22,300 premature deaths a year and costs companies and governments billions of pounds in disease treatment and lost working days, says a major study of the health impacts of burning coal to generate electricity.
      - cameldrv 12y ago
        You might find this take on the question interesting: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es3051197 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es3051197 He shows that since the invention of nuclear power, it has saved 1.8 million lives relative to the obvious alternatives. Since its invention, nuclear power has killed about 5000 people. That makes it about 360x safer than deployed alternatives and yet, somehow nuclear is the technology that must justify itself on safety grounds.
    - thebooktocome 12y ago
      Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor in relatively the same way one can claim C++ has a garbage collector.
  - spacefight 12y ago
    I feel that "anti-nuclear hysteria" is poor wording. New plants (even if they're much safer than existing ones) still produce waste. Long term storage is an unsolved problem. There is nothing hysteric about that. Oh and remember Fukushima? That plant is still not cleaned up and the cost go into the billions. Still hysteric to say no to new plants? My stance is: don't build new nuclear infrastructure if it's not sure how to cope with its waste. Better: don't build new nuclear infrastructure at all.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      Coal plants, which would likely replace the nuke plants that don't get built, will output way more radiation then the waste you don't want to worry about.
      - spacefight 12y ago
        I oppose coal plants as well. It's not only the waste I care, it's also that I care quite a lot that we, human mankind haven't been able to come up with a better solution yet to nuclear power. I also care, that our next generations have to deal with the waste. Have you seen the issues with the experimental storage waste sites in Germany?
        ZoFreX 12y ago
        So what should we build then, given that no alternatives are currently viable?
        spacefight 12y ago
        Germany is at 30% renewable energy. The US at ~13.
        brc 12y ago
        That is nameplate capacity, not actual generation. Big difference.
7952 12y ago
Almost all large scale generating capacity in the UK is highly contentious; this is hardly unique to nuclear. What is needed is political will, which has been lacking. Perhaps the reason that these kind of schemes are so problamatic is beacuse they are so massive and complicated. A basic understanding of human nature explains why a large nuclear station is a more risky project from almost any angle (cost, risk of incompetence/accidents, health and safety). I want power stations that are small enough to fail safely in any scenario, not just the ones that an engineer has imagined. I doubt that is possible with something this monolithic.

by brc 12y ago

spacefight 12y ago

"pressure groups"? Care to explain the term?

brc 12y ago
Any group that has spread non-factual anti-nuclear hysteria in order to oppose nuclear power generation and specifically the construction of new plants. The list is pretty extensive, really.
- pjc50 12y ago
  There are plenty of farmers in the UK who had their livelihoods destroyed by Chernobyl (also a graphite-moderated design). Advocates of new nuclear cannot just dismiss concerns of catastrophic accidents as scaremongering, because the worst cases of accidents are extremely bad, even compared to chemical plants and coal related disasters. They also need to address the cost argument.
  - themartorana 12y ago
    Not that I have an answer to offer, but this is interesting to me. Coal and other fossil fuel power plants have caused slow, irreparable harm to the environment and human lives, but because of its slow and plodding nature, many consider it superior to nuclear. Nuclear disasters are much more furious in short periods of time, but I'm not sure that compressed in to a single number, that nuclear has been more harmful per-power-produced as fossil fuels. Maybe someone can properly refute or corroborate that statement. But it feels like an airliner going down. The size of the tragedy is great which puts irrational fear of flying in to people's heads, when it's about the safest mode of travel that exists.
    - reirob 12y ago
      Would be interesting to see a model to come up with such numbers. And it would as well be interesting how in such a model the nuclear waste is taken into account, especially the one that risks to pollute some day in the future. Such models might give us an idea of how many more nuclear catastrophes humanity can "afford". After Fukushima happened, I heard or read several times (without being able to quote, probably radio/TV) predictions that big nuclear accidents like Tshernobyl and Fukushima will get more frequent in the future, because (a) the reactors get older and (b) more reactors have been built in the mean time. I hope that future will prove these predictions wrong, but somehow I feel that hoping is not enough. And incidents like these where security limits are relaxed [0], don't really reassure. [0]: Quote from the article: "EDF was granted permission by the regulator in the summer to relax its graphite weight-loss limit at the Dungeness reactor in Kent from 6.2% to 8% after it came close to breaching the original safety margin."
    - anon1385 12y ago
      The deaths caused by nuclear power aren't anywhere near the same order of magnitude as the deaths caused by coal: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/12/china-coal-emissions-smog-deaths http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/12/china-coa... >Emissions from coal plants in China were responsible for a quarter of a million premature deaths in 2011 and are damaging the health of hundreds of thousands of Chinese children, according to a new study. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-... >Air pollution from Europe's 300 largest coal power stations causes 22,300 premature deaths a year and costs companies and governments billions of pounds in disease treatment and lost working days, says a major study of the health impacts of burning coal to generate electricity.
    - cameldrv 12y ago
      You might find this take on the question interesting: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es3051197 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es3051197 He shows that since the invention of nuclear power, it has saved 1.8 million lives relative to the obvious alternatives. Since its invention, nuclear power has killed about 5000 people. That makes it about 360x safer than deployed alternatives and yet, somehow nuclear is the technology that must justify itself on safety grounds.
  - thebooktocome 12y ago
    Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor in relatively the same way one can claim C++ has a garbage collector.
- spacefight 12y ago
  I feel that "anti-nuclear hysteria" is poor wording. New plants (even if they're much safer than existing ones) still produce waste. Long term storage is an unsolved problem. There is nothing hysteric about that. Oh and remember Fukushima? That plant is still not cleaned up and the cost go into the billions. Still hysteric to say no to new plants? My stance is: don't build new nuclear infrastructure if it's not sure how to cope with its waste. Better: don't build new nuclear infrastructure at all.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    Coal plants, which would likely replace the nuke plants that don't get built, will output way more radiation then the waste you don't want to worry about.
    - spacefight 12y ago
      I oppose coal plants as well. It's not only the waste I care, it's also that I care quite a lot that we, human mankind haven't been able to come up with a better solution yet to nuclear power. I also care, that our next generations have to deal with the waste. Have you seen the issues with the experimental storage waste sites in Germany?
      - ZoFreX 12y ago
        So what should we build then, given that no alternatives are currently viable?
        spacefight 12y ago
        Germany is at 30% renewable energy. The US at ~13.
        brc 12y ago
        That is nameplate capacity, not actual generation. Big difference.

7952 12y ago

Almost all large scale generating capacity in the UK is highly contentious; this is hardly unique to nuclear. What is needed is political will, which has been lacking. Perhaps the reason that these kind of schemes are so problamatic is beacuse they are so massive and complicated. A basic understanding of human nature explains why a large nuclear station is a more risky project from almost any angle (cost, risk of incompetence/accidents, health and safety). I want power stations that are small enough to fail safely in any scenario, not just the ones that an engineer has imagined. I doubt that is possible with something this monolithic.