McKay and the All-Electric Scenarios - and why the world should phase out nuclear
dave andrews
David,
On Monday 25 Jul 2011, David....@ec.europa.eu wrote:
> Gordon - this is interesting stuff - ok to forward it verbatim to Claverton?
>
By all means.
But I would be even more pleased if you would bring it to the attention of your 'day-job' colleagues. The context in which it was developed is at:
http://www.energypolicy.co.uk/nuclear.htm> And wrt Fuchsia - the obvious question with one guy killing 86, and
> blowing up a government building, apparently acting alone....how can
> we be sure to prevent a similar scenario in a nuclear facility?
>
You simply illustrate another of the myriads of chains of events that could lead to a maximum radioactive release - with utterly horrific consequences.
The 9/11 terrorists killed thousands of innocent people with a few airliners.
I reckon that one person could wreck the control building of almost any of the 400-odd nuclear plants with a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, with a very good chance of causing a meltdown and major radioactive release.
So target say 10 nuclear plants just to be sure !
The logical point is that any estimate of the Probability is an underestimate, but by an amount that is not only unknown but unknowable, so must be taken as
1 - i.e. inevitable. Sorry to keep repeating this, but it tells us that no amount of engineering or procedural modification can ever make it zero !
Almost all nuclear regulations refer to 'As low as reasonably possible'
(ALARP). E.g.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1205741917946Page 38.
But this is simply not good enough ! There is absolutely no way of ensuring that the harm is limited to those who may think they stand to benefit.
In any case,
a) have we/they been told that the 'price' of nuclear is lingering painful injury and premature death for up to millions ?
It is all there in the Reactor Safety Studies and the CRAC-2 Study - almost all of which are freely available on the web, see my references 1 to 10.
I say the price 'is' because it happened at Chernobyl and - according to some estimates - also at Fukushima. See my Table 3 and supporting references
But how many have even heard of them ?
If not, why not ?
What has the UK Government done to bring this to our attention ?
Do they even know it themselves ?
Remember, ignorance of the (physical) laws is no excuse !
Any _competent_ engineer knows that any prolonged loss of cooling in a nuclear power plant leads _inevitably_ to meltdown. After that and - for all Light Water Reactors - the explosion of the hydrogen produced by the Zircalloy cladding, the size of the radioactive release is purely a matter of chance.
(See
http://www.largeassociates.com/3201%20IAEA%20Mission%20Statement/R3201-A1%20Final.pdfand
http://www.largeassociates.com/3195%20Fukushima/R3200-Summary.pdf).b) who are we/they to accept this Faustian bargain on behalf of all lifeforms and all generations, present and future ?
So we must shut down all nuclear fuel and power plants and put all the radioactive material in long-term, geological storage before it kills and injures any more of us !
Best regards,
Gordon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gordon [
mailto:gor...@energypolicy.co.uk]> Sent: 25 July 2011 14:43
> To: William Orchard
> Cc: d.ol...@energyadvisoryassociates.co.uk; Liz Reason; Andrew
> Simmonds; Robert Lowe; Andrew Warren
> Subject: Re: McKay and the All-Electric Scenarios - and why the world
> should phase out nuclear
>
> William,
>
> On Sunday 24 Jul 2011, William Orchard wrote:
> > Gordon,
> > There are risks and returns with everything.
> > I share your view that there is a great difficulty in making Nuclear
> > economic and safe and my own greatest concern is all associated with
>
> the
>
> > forced cooling of reactors.
>
> I fear that you have not understood 'The Case Against Nuclear Power',
> as set out in my paper:
>
http://www.energypolicy.co.uk/TheCaseAgainstNuclearPower.pdf>
> 1) The Consequences are so completely unacceptable as to be prohibitive.
> Just do the 'thought experiment'. The fallout from a maximum release
> would render the land uninhabitable for ever (in human timescales).
> This possibility cannot be denied. The 'source term' is there in the
> reactor
> - and
> even more (typically) in the spent fuel pool. If transferred to the
> land, then uninhabitability is one of the consequences.
>
> Also, most countries that could use central power plants of 1 to 2 x
> 1.5 GWe have high population densities. If the fallout comes, there
> are only two
>
> possibilities for the millions living there - either stay and die,
> remembering that this would overwhelm any health service, or relocate
> - but where ? And what then happens to all the social and material
> capital - homes, workplaces, agriculture and indigenous food
> production ?
>
> 2) Moreover, the Probability of even the maximum release must be taken
> as 1 - i.e. inevitable. No other value is supportable either logically
> or in the light of experience.
>
> Just ask yourself why full insurance is unobtainable for any nuclear
> facility !
>
> 3) Furthermore, uranium is depletable, and the resource will be
> energetically exhausted within decades. This means that it would reach
> the 'point of futility', where the energy cost of the fuel exceeded
> the energy produced by the fuel. For a correct accounting, the former
> must include the energy costs of decommissioning and long-term
> storage.
>
> Conversely solar, wind and biomass are available everywhere that is
> habitable, and wind power is also available offshore. The wind
> resource accessible to today's wind turbines is about 96 TWe annual
> average - about 10 times the world total final energy demand. And the
> scope for energy saving is huge.
>
> > However given that the UK is going to build nuclear
>
> I'm sorry you think so, but it is not a given. There are only three
> companies who have shown any interest in building new nuclear in the
> UK. Both E.ON and RWE are German and their interest will vanish - and
> would be seen as hypocritical - now that Germany has decided on a
> nuclear phase-out. That
>
> leaves only EdF, but they are bankrupt, not least because of all the
> problems with the EPR plant in Flamanville. So this would not be
> bankable !
>
> I agree there are some in the UK who share this delusion. One example
> is:
>
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/about-us/economics-social-resear> ch /2127-electricity-generation-cost-model-2011.pdf
>
> Page 28 shows construction periods for First-Of-A-Kind as 5, 5, and 8
> years and for Nth-Of-A-Kind as 5, 6 and 8 years.
>
> Yet actual measured data for the earlier N4 plants is given here:
>
http://engensa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/French-nuclear-nega> ti
> ve-learning-by-doing.pdf
> Fig 3 shows that the first took 12.5 years and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th
> averaged 10 years.
>
> And this was in France, where they still have some heavy manufacturing.
> If it was even attempted in the UK, it would be further delayed by
> waiting for almost everything to be made overseas. Since the UK - like
> the USA - is also bankrupt, with it's currency becoming ever weaker,
> the cost would also rise.
>
> Also, this is before the on-costs in the light of Fukushima have been
> added !
>
> I am sure that this is obvious to everyone outside Westminster and
> Whitehall !
>
> Anyone in the real world who did not realise this would already be
> bankrupt !
>
> But the ultimate 'job-stopper' is still the Consequences !
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gordon
--
+ 44 (0) 755 265 9166
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978