Ringwraith Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 With the demise of BNFL comes the clean up of Sellafield. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7733487.stm However, with proposed new nuclear power stations being earmakred for existing sites the last line of the news report makes interesting reading. "I want to make sure that Sellafield sites and the workforce are in a position to seize whatever potential opportunities these decisions may bring, collectively and as individuals." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 "We are committed to reducing site hazards cost-effectively, through clean-up and decommissioning, while maximizing commercial value." ... So if something goes wrong the private operator will only carry the can up to a point, with the government stepping in to bear the bulk of the burden should there be a major disaster I'd worry that maximization of commercial value might mean treating some risks of a major disaster as 'acceptable'. i.e. it is not cost-effective to bear possibly enormous cost of mitigating against all possibility of catastrophic disaster. Decision trees and so on might show economic only to take precautions up to a point - then take the gamble on the rest. Maximizing commercial value is about doing the maths. This may mean cost-effective precautions only. Fight Club: Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents? Narrator: You wouldn't believe. Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for? Narrator: A major one. ("we are committed to reducing automotive safety hazards cost-effectively, through product recalls, while maximizing commercial value.") Narrator: A study of the cost-effective clean-up and decommissioning of Sellafield by my consulting company looked at the risks of catastrophic disaster. Business woman on plane: Is there much of a risk of that? Narrator: You wouldn't believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 "I want to make sure that Sellafield sites and the workforce are in a position to seize whatever potential opportunities these decisions may bring, collectively and as individuals." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 With the demise of BNFL comes the clean up of Sellafield. "I want to make sure that Sellafield sites and the workforce are in a position to seize whatever potential opportunities these decisions may bring, collectively and as individuals." There's probably enough work clearing that site up for the next millenium or so, thing is - who's going to pay for it??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Let's not forget that 'Sellafield' is actually a euphemism for 'Windscale' - site, in 1957, of the the world's worst reactor accident until the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Let's also not forget that, on the same site, on April 19, 2005 83,000 litres of radioactive waste was discovered to have leaked in the Thorp reprocessing plant from a cracked pipe into a huge stainless steel-lined concrete sump chamber built to contain leaks. Between 1950 and 2000 there have been 21 serious incidents or accidents involving some off-site radiological releases that merited a rating on the International Nuclear Event Scale, one at level 5, five at level 4 and fifteen at level 3. Additionally during the 1950s and 1960s there were protracted periods of known, deliberate, discharges to the atmosphere of plutonium and irradiated uranium oxide particulates. Do I think it should be shut down? I can see the bloody thing from my back window on a clear day - you bet I'd like to see it become an ignominious part of history! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 Do I think it should be shut down? I can see the bloody thing from my back window on a clear day - you bet I'd like to see it become an ignominious part of history! That's the point, I don't think it will be shut down. They will just shovel the crap to one side and build new plants on the existing site, the UK government have already stated that their new nuclear plants will be operated on existing sites. Will safety be better or worse now that the site is being run by foreign companies well away from any pollution that might result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Albert where did you get that pic of my sister? Can they ever "clean" the site up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.