British nuclear future in crisis

[HMS Conqueror]

@HMS Conqueror
Well, obviously the same events as in Japan won't transpire in Germany. The problem is that we don't sufficiently prepare for this kind of accident, and that it seems to be very hard to put a probability to it.

The Rasmussen-Study (1976) puts the risk of a meltdown at 2/10000 per year per reactor (according to wikipedia, haven't read the extensive source myself (link)

A similar study for german reactors from th end of the 1970s gets the same result, but a change in methodology leads to completely different results in the continuation in 1989; it puts the same risk at roughly 3/1000000.

So basically, it seems to be very hard to judge the actual safety of nuclear reactors. If we work with the higher risk (considering oneself risk-averse), we do get the oft-cited result of one major accident every thirty years. Now this is for 400 reactors world-wide, so the chance that this accident is in Germany is rather low, but if it does happen here, it would bring tremendous costs - both Japan's and the Ukraine's economies will have to deal with the costs for a long time.

And this doesn't take into account the issue of repositories for nuclear waste yet. Yes, there isn't lots of waste in relation to the energy produced, but it does add up. And previous governments didn't ensure safety in the past - I'm talking about Asse II, which leads to high costs the public has to shoulder (2 billion, if I remember correctly).

So, to summarise my position: in theory, nuclear energy could be safe. In practice, people are idiots, and costs will be cut in the wrong places, making it less safe than it ought to be if one considers the big consequences a major accident can have.

This would be a decent argument for fossil fuels over nuclear in an AGW-less world, but the magnitude of that potential loss is so much higher, and the other good solutions to it so much worse, that I think we need to stop worrying so much about the no fatality accidents and minor radiation leaks.

I also think you are being a little unfair to nuclear:

1. The plant design matters, and it changes. At one time there were catastrophic industrial accidents caused by coal dust explosions, explosives handling, and on one occasion even a molasses spill. They were about on par, or greater, in terms of casualties than 'major nuclear accidents', and they no longer happen.

Chernobyl is the only truly large industrial accident that has occurred; that is, that has caused a considerable amount of deaths and destroyed a town. This was only possible because of the bad design. Fukushima was nothing on this scale, and happened only after a far rarer and more extreme cause (combined earthquake and enormous tidal wave vs operator error). And Fukushima plants that had problems were from the 1st generation of commercial reactors.

2. Waste disposal is a red herring. It can all be destroyed by neutron bombardment if anyone cares that much. Storing it in drums until we want to do that is basically as safe as anything, though.

Not necessarily. Swapping incandescents for fluorescents isn't much of a quality of life issue (though I'm sentimental about blackbody radiation; I sometimes indulge in incandescent light bulbs in the winter when the waste heat doesn't do me any net harm anyway). Swapping poorly insulated homes for well insulated homes, or energy-economic refrigerators for uneconomic ones, likewise. Improving the energy-efficiency of industrial processes, likewise.

So no, I don't agree with that: the amount of electricity you consume may correlate with your quality of life, but that doesn't mean the relationship between them is one-to-one.

Changing lightbulbs doesn't impose much cost, but it also doesn't save much CO2. We need serious solutions.

The problem with all these things is they only reduce a bit the energy needed, which currently is supplied mostly by fossils. Ultimately you have to replace the fossils with something that doesn't emit CO, and if you do that it doesn't matter how much you use.

I wouldn't do so. China is funding massive construction of nuclear reactors and at the same time lots of research in the renewables field (solar, wind, storage, hydro).

China is building lots of coal plants...

ofc to third world countries like this even the cost premium of nuclear matters (though there are ancillary benefits to having a few, like being Taken Seriously and producing plutonium; I also suspect their token purchases of foreign reactors are essentially industrial espionage).

[Simon_Jester]

Not necessarily. Swapping incandescents for fluorescents isn't much of a quality of life issue (though I'm sentimental about blackbody radiation; I sometimes indulge in incandescent light bulbs in the winter when the waste heat doesn't do me any net harm anyway). Swapping poorly insulated homes for well insulated homes, or energy-economic refrigerators for uneconomic ones, likewise. Improving the energy-efficiency of industrial processes, likewise.

So no, I don't agree with that: the amount of electricity you consume may correlate with your quality of life, but that doesn't mean the relationship between them is one-to-one.

Changing lightbulbs doesn't impose much cost, but it also doesn't save much CO2. We need serious solutions.

Can you document this? Remember, it's not one energy saving measure, it's the combined effect of many such measures that matters.

The problem with all these things is they only reduce a bit the energy needed, which currently is supplied mostly by fossils. Ultimately you have to replace the fossils with something that doesn't emit CO, and if you do that it doesn't matter how much you use.

Actually, it kind of does, because there are second-order environmental effects. The nuclear industry requires uranium mining, radioactive wastes, and (let us be honest) the acceptance of occasional nuclear accidents as part of the price of doing business. That doesn't make it bad to use nuclear power heavily, but if we can get as much done with four reactors and energy conservation as we can do with five reactors without it... better to use four reactors.

Solar is another problematic case- lots of toxic metal mining to make the solar cells.

I wouldn't do so. China is funding massive construction of nuclear reactors and at the same time lots of research in the renewables field (solar, wind, storage, hydro).

China is building lots of coal plants...

ofc to third world countries like this even the cost premium of nuclear matters (though there are ancillary benefits to having a few, like being Taken Seriously and producing plutonium; I also suspect their token purchases of foreign reactors are essentially industrial espionage).

China is already Taken Seriously, what on Earth are you talking about? And why would they purchase reactors for industrial espionage if they don't intend to build plenty of their own?

China is building lots of all kinds of power plants, because their per capita energy consumption is growing rapidly. Nuclear is a major part of their strategy, though not the only one.

[mr friendly guy]

China has also produced a prototype pebble bed reactor and are doing research, reviving the US abandoned ideas for thorium reactors. According to World Nuclear Association China has 14 nuclear power reactors in operation, more than 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.

Back to Mr Conqueror, methinks he is doing a Herman Cain.

[HMS Conqueror]

Not necessarily. Swapping incandescents for fluorescents isn't much of a quality of life issue (though I'm sentimental about blackbody radiation; I sometimes indulge in incandescent light bulbs in the winter when the waste heat doesn't do me any net harm anyway). Swapping poorly insulated homes for well insulated homes, or energy-economic refrigerators for uneconomic ones, likewise. Improving the energy-efficiency of industrial processes, likewise.

So no, I don't agree with that: the amount of electricity you consume may correlate with your quality of life, but that doesn't mean the relationship between them is one-to-one.

Changing lightbulbs doesn't impose much cost, but it also doesn't save much CO2. We need serious solutions.

Can you document this? Remember, it's not one energy saving measure, it's the combined effect of many such measures that matters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... risis.html

According to David MacKay the UK personal energy consumption is equivalent to 125 lightbulbs running constantly. Most people turn on more than one lightbulb but often have none during the day or at night. So you're looking at 1-5% saving depending on usage, and less in places like UK where the waste heat isn't really wasted anyway most of the time.

What we need is a 90% saving. This is impossible through efficiency measures. It's greater than the theoretical maximum efficiency. What we want is rather to switch the whole grid to not emit CO2 at the base generation stage.

The problem with all these things is they only reduce a bit the energy needed, which currently is supplied mostly by fossils. Ultimately you have to replace the fossils with something that doesn't emit CO, and if you do that it doesn't matter how much you use.

Actually, it kind of does, because there are second-order environmental effects. The nuclear industry requires uranium mining, radioactive wastes, and (let us be honest) the acceptance of occasional nuclear accidents as part of the price of doing business. That doesn't make it bad to use nuclear power heavily, but if we can get as much done with four reactors and energy conservation as we can do with five reactors without it... better to use four reactors.

Solar is another problematic case- lots of toxic metal mining to make the solar cells.

Those aren't AGW, which has catastrophic consequences, they're the wishy-washy 'it looks ugly!' 'the trucks are noisy!' 'you're going to release <less than amount that can cause detectable harm> of radiation!' type environmental effects. There's no strong case to compromise the general welfare for sake of those things.

Actual nuclear accidents are in a somewhat different class (though not nearly as different as most people think), but see previous comments on that.

I wouldn't do so. China is funding massive construction of nuclear reactors and at the same time lots of research in the renewables field (solar, wind, storage, hydro).

China is building lots of coal plants...

ofc to third world countries like this even the cost premium of nuclear matters (though there are ancillary benefits to having a few, like being Taken Seriously and producing plutonium; I also suspect their token purchases of foreign reactors are essentially industrial espionage).

China is building lots of all kinds of power plants, because their per capita energy consumption is growing rapidly. Nuclear is a major part of their strategy, though not the only one.

China has also produced a prototype pebble bed reactor and are doing research, reviving the US abandoned ideas for thorium reactors. According to World Nuclear Association China has 14 nuclear power reactors in operation, more than 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.

Back to Mr Conqueror, methinks he is doing a Herman Cain.

And its total demand is for like 1,000 power plants.

China is a third rate nuclear power. This is because until recently it has had a third rate economy. This is no longer the case. What we are seeing is just a natural ramping up of capability in line with economic capacity. But there's no big plan to replace Chinese grid with nuclear, and that's because to their view of the world AGW does not matter. Nuclear is a strategic capability that must be maintained and grown on par with the other great powers, nothing more.

[Simon_Jester]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... risis.html

According to David MacKay the UK personal energy consumption is equivalent to 125 lightbulbs running constantly. Most people turn on more than one lightbulb but often have none during the day or at night. So you're looking at 1-5% saving depending on usage, and less in places like UK where the waste heat isn't really wasted anyway most of the time.

What we need is a 90% saving. This is impossible through efficiency measures. It's greater than the theoretical maximum efficiency. What we want is rather to switch the whole grid to not emit CO2 at the base generation stage.

Wait, why do we need a 90% saving?

I'm deeply confused by what you think people are calling for here. The obvious, logical thing has always been to use many different solutions to the energy crisis and let them all meet up somewhere in the middle. Reduce electricity consumption by some saner, more plausible amount (say, 5-10%). Build more nuclear reactors. Build more tidal plants. Reorganize housing patterns to consume less fuel. Build more wind farms. Tile deserts with solar cells. Et cetera.

By trying to compare the costs of closing the ENTIRE energy gap with conservation measures to the costs of building more nuclear reactors, you're deliberately comparing apples and oranges. The point is not and never was to reduce per capita energy consumption by 90%. The point is that far and away the easiest way to mitigate the environmental impact of power consumption is to set things up so that, all else being equal, less power is used.

Actually, it kind of does, because there are second-order environmental effects. The nuclear industry requires uranium mining, radioactive wastes, and (let us be honest) the acceptance of occasional nuclear accidents as part of the price of doing business. That doesn't make it bad to use nuclear power heavily, but if we can get as much done with four reactors and energy conservation as we can do with five reactors without it... better to use four reactors.

Solar is another problematic case- lots of toxic metal mining to make the solar cells.

Those aren't AGW, which has catastrophic consequences, they're the wishy-washy 'it looks ugly!' 'the trucks are noisy!' 'you're going to release <less than amount that can cause detectable harm> of radiation!' type environmental effects. There's no strong case to compromise the general welfare for sake of those things.

Actual nuclear accidents are in a somewhat different class (though not nearly as different as most people think), but see previous comments on that.

Oh bullshit. Heaps of mine tailings are not trivial environmental issues. Nor is, say, the decision to spend a hundred thousand square kilometers of cropland growing biofuels.

The point here is that you need to make rational, flexible comparisons that take more than one variable into account. Prices that don't factor in secondary costs are inaccurate prices.

China is building lots of all kinds of power plants, because their per capita energy consumption is growing rapidly. Nuclear is a major part of their strategy, though not the only one.

China has also produced a prototype pebble bed reactor and are doing research, reviving the US abandoned ideas for thorium reactors. According to World Nuclear Association China has 14 nuclear power reactors in operation, more than 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.

Back to Mr Conqueror, methinks he is doing a Herman Cain.

And its total demand is for like 1,000 power plants.

China is a third rate nuclear power. This is because until recently it has had a third rate economy. This is no longer the case. What we are seeing is just a natural ramping up of capability in line with economic capacity. But there's no big plan to replace Chinese grid with nuclear, and that's because to their view of the world AGW does not matter. Nuclear is a strategic capability that must be maintained and grown on par with the other great powers, nothing more.

China is also seeking to build nuclear plants because they foresee a crunch in fossil fuel supplies. Even if they're willing to take their chances on global warming, it doesn't mean that environmental factors and peak oil and the like "do not matter... to their view."

I think you're operating on a very stereotyped image of China.

I just attended a presentation a few weeks back by a scientist from a Chinese fusion research group; they're actually throwing around considerable sums of money over issues like this. The Chinese government, say what you will about it, is willing and able to spend money building infrastructure that they plan to need in twenty or thirty years' time, even if it isn't needed today. This is something that the West has problems with, and has since the technocratic days of the '50s and '60s.

[HMS Conqueror]

There's no such crunch coming in the lifetime of plants built today.

Like I say it's a strategic investment and insurance policy, same as every other major country which maintains a civil nuclear program (all of them, except now Germany). China isn't doing anything the West isn't doing, it's rather planning to bring itself up to par with the West.