The Nuclear Legacy

[Lonan3]

For those who advocate nuclear power as the best answer to our future needs with regard to power supply, the latest findings of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority ought to make interesting reading:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4140636.stm

 

From a local point of view, two things that stand out are:

1) The decommissioning of the Sellafield and Dounreay sites was described as "our number one decommissioning priority" by the NDA.

A leak was discovered in April at the Sellafield, in Cumbria, but it could have occurred as long ago as August 2004.

An investigation in June found "significant deficiencies", and ordered improvements to be introduced by October.

Inadequate historic records mean that the precise contents of Sellafield and Dounreay are unknown.

2) Among issues that the authority is looking at is the need for an alternative for Drigg in Cumbria, which is the only place in the country where low-level nuclear waste can be stored in perpetuity.

Drigg is about 1km from a shoreline that is eroding at the rate of 1 metre a year.

[MasterChief]

Inadequate historic records mean that the precise contents of Sellafield and Dounreay are unknown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe that's where Saddam's WMDs disappeared to???

 

I'm not a particular advocate of Nuclear power, renewable sources are much wiser and greater investment into researching fusion power would be my preference.

[Paul H]

For those who advocate nuclear power as the best answer to our future needs with regard to power supply, the latest findings of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority ought to make interesting reading:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4140636.stm

 

From a local point of view, two things that stand out are:

1) The decommissioning of the Sellafield and Dounreay sites was described as "our number one decommissioning priority" by the NDA.

A leak was discovered in April at the Sellafield, in Cumbria, but it could have occurred as long ago as August 2004.

An investigation in June found "significant deficiencies", and ordered improvements to be introduced by October.

Inadequate historic records mean that the precise contents of Sellafield and Dounreay are unknown.

2) Among issues that the authority is looking at is the need for an alternative for Drigg in Cumbria, which is the only place in the country where low-level nuclear waste can be stored in perpetuity.

Drigg is about 1km from a shoreline that is eroding at the rate of 1 metre a year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have many friends and family who have worked at Sellafield and Drigg over the years and it really is true about the inadequate records. Quite simply they don't know what has been put down there or how much because so much of the early nuclear waste was 'hidden' away and disposed of secretly, there can now be no certain way of finding out all of what has gone on.

 

The eroding shoreline at Drigg is not the only thing that is eroding as the radio active materials are encased in steel and concrete which is now lying deep underground in water.

 

The whole thing is a bit of a mess and not one that has an easy solution.

[Slim]

For those who advocate nuclear power as the best answer to our future needs with regard to power supply

 

I advocate nuclear power as the only answer to our future needs should oil supply begin to fall. I don't do this because I'm a supporter of nuclear power, but because there genuinely isn't another alternative yet.

[Rog]

In looking at nuclear power today we are looking at problems that were created in some cases as long as 60 years ago.

 

Added to that is the extreme secrecy and urgency surrounding nuclear industry in the early years, the lack of understanding about materials and how they behave, and a very cavalier approach to hazardous materials and the environment in general.

 

I remember going on a school trip around the old Douglas gas works years ago. It was fascinating but what was common practice then would never have been even considered let alone allowed now if a facility to extract gas from coal was to be built today.

 

In the same way I spent some time working with oil industry instrumentation on refinery plant nearly 40 years ago. A couple of years ago I visited a modern refinery. There was simply no comparison. between the two.

 

To reject the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity on the basis of the justifiable concerns about plant and material safety associated with technology that in some cases is 60 years old would be wrong.

 

To illustrate the point take materials science. and in particular metal fatigue. Although known as a failure mechanism it was not until 1942 and a train crash in France that metal fatigue was associated with a significant real world event and even then it too the de Havilland Mk1 comet crashes to get material fatigue recognised as a factor that must be taken into consideration during design and the establishment of ‘creep’ labs in most materials science establishments.

 

So it is with fissile materials. Knowledge about them and about what they did and even how they did what they did had been around for many years since In December 1895 when a German physicist, Wilhelm Roentgen, discovered rays that could travel through solid wood or flesh.

 

In 110 years we have seen atomic power move from where knowledge about it first emerged to where it is today. Think how much has happened in aviation since the Wright brothers and a modern jet liner or since Marconi first spanned the Atlantic and today’s hi-definition television, both in roughly the same time period.

 

Now think back in both cases about 60 years, and compare how the technologies have changed compared with today. So it is with atomic power.

[GD4ELI]

I advocate nuclear power as the only answer to our future needs should oil supply begin to fall. I don't do this because I'm a supporter of nuclear power, but because there genuinely isn't another alternative yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I prefer nuclear to oil/gas as there is no CO2. But with luck high oil prices will force change - here's to the 2 quid litre of petrol .

[Lonan3]

Okay, then.... so who's kidding who?

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environme...ticle316607.ece

 

 

Hands up all those who believe it's perfectly safe!

 

Hey, feller... you've got THREE hands up ... oh, I see.... you work there

[manxchatterbox]

So it looks like nuclear is definately making a come back so what are IOM Govt doing about the current release? this is what our Irish cousins are doing:-

 

 

 

Irish government to fight British plans for more nuclear plants

 

19:30 Tuesday July 11th 2006

 

The British Government has confirmed that it is going ahead with the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants.

 

It says as many as six new plants are necessary to secure the energy security of the UK in the face of the declining supplies of oil and gas.

 

The UK Industry Secretary, Alastair Darling said the nuclear reactors will be built by the private sector:

 

Environment Minister Dick Roche said this evening that the Irish government will fight the plans.

 

In reaction to Mr Darling's statement, Minister Roche said, "We made it absolutely clear from the start that we will oppose, in any possible way, a policy that has a direct environmental consequence or threat to Ireland. And this clearly has such a threat."

 

He added, "We will continue in our action on Sellafield and we will certainly use every diplomatic and legal and political avenue open to us".

[LoneWolf]

Gas and Nucleur aren't the only fuels available for large power stations.

Oil reserves are declining apace and using oil more than we do now would only hasten an already serious situation.

Coal is a good option. There is plenty of it and it is currently trading cheaper than any other fossil fuel suitable for power stations. The downside associated with coal is emissions, SOx and NOx, as well as Co2.

Coal stations can be built which produce significantly less emissions than currently is the case but, unfortunately, liberalised energy markets militate against their construction and utilisation as they tend to be more expensive both to build and operate than dirty coal burners. Low cost always wins in the market.

Nevertheless coal shouldnt be discounted in the medium term.

The long term absolutely has to embrace renewable technologies and we may as well accept the fact now that renewables cant compete on cost with fossil fuel power stations. What price our environment?

There are some incentives in place, such as carbon allowances, ROCs and LECs which, in principle, should provide competitive advantage to renewable operators. However, this hasnt proved to be the case and a surprisingly healthy market is trading carbon and ROCs. We even have the ridiculous situation where one of the Uks largest power stations, Drax, is the country's bigest holder of ROCs because it imports wood to burn alongside its usual feedstock of coal.

Clearly the whole system of incentives for renewables needs a rethink.

In summary, I believe we need to embrace renewable technologies and put a tax system in place which would make renewable technologies competitive on the energy markets.

[Ripsaw]

I remember going on a school trip around the old Douglas gas works years ago. It was fascinating but what was common practice then would never have been even considered let alone allowed now if a facility to extract gas from coal was to be built today.

I can not recall if it was in a book or on Frances' Manx Notebook, but I read about a day of excitement in Douglas many years ago about a gas filled balloon being launched in Douglas... Douglas town gas!

 

Onlooking merrily puffing on their cigars, cigerettes and pipes...

 

Renewables have to be looked at as a means of power generation and the mistakes of 30/40 years ago shouldn't rule out Nuclear Power as a future means of generation.

 

One of the biggest factors in the problem remains consumption, and attitudes towards reducing demand. We all have a part to play in this aspect.

[Chinahand]

Lonewolf, can you clarify your thinking re Drax. If its burning wood that's good ... its non historic carbon, and hence won't be adding to the atmosphere's carbon stock, which would be the case if it was burning coal.

 

Obviously at second and third order there are issues about the source of the wood, sustainable sources etc, but I'm pretty certain Drax is burning scottish pine and not mahogony! So its plantation stock, sustainably managed etc. good ... give them an ROC.

[Chinahand]

I thought Mr Proffitt's comments at the Chamber of Commerce were interesting ... I've heard speculations about a tidal generator at the sound. He agreed it was the best way forward for the Island, but bluntly stated he thought the government weren't interested.

 

Demand management would be an issue as the tides vary throughout the day, but once it was in place its marginal cost would be close to zero; so it could compete against nuclear base load at night. A tidal generator would always provide contibution, but whether it would cover its installation and maintenance costs is something I don't know ... any one any ideas ... how efficient is tidal technology?

[Slim]

The theory on biomass burners is that they're carbon neutral, as you're fast growing plants such as sugar cane that aborb the carbon that you emit by burning it. So you get a complete carbon cycle with zero emissions net. With coal (and other fossil fuels) you're releasing carbon thats stored underground that wouldn't normally have been released unless you burned it, thus adding to the carbon in the atmosphere without taking any away.

 

The problem with biomass is cost, the carbon emissions around facilitating the crop and transportation of the crop to the generator, plus the environmental cost of building the plant etc and the fact that you need such massive amounts of biomatter to make energy means that nuclier is more attractive if you look at the short term costs.

 

The long term costs of nuclear are a nightmare of course, but feh.

[LoneWolf]

Lonewolf, can you clarify your thinking re Drax. If its burning wood that's good ... its non historic carbon, and hence won't be adding to the atmosphere's carbon stock, which would be the case if it was burning coal.

Obviously at second and third order there are issues about the source of the wood, sustainable sources etc, but I'm pretty certain Drax is burning scottish pine and not mahogony! So its plantation stock, sustainably managed etc. good ... give them an ROC.

 

Drax is exactly the type of technology which should not be attracting ROCs.

It is primarily a coal plant but is importing ship loads of wood to burn specifically for the ROCs.

This really isnt what was envisaged for renewable obligation.

The general idea recognised renewable technologies were less cost effective to build and operate than conventional fossil fuelled plant. The renewable obligation was intended to assist in making them more competitive. Throwing ROCs at Drax, no matter what it is burning, does nothing to make wind turbines etc more competitive. In fact the opposite is the case.

[Chinahand]

Lonewolf, wind turbines and hydro aren't the only carbon friendly options ... burning plantation wood is another option, and I do think it was "envisaged" at the start that this was an option hence Drax being able to get the ROCs for doing it! Burning wood is expensive compared to coal, but much more friendly in terms of type of carbon released into the atmosphere.

 

Encouraging forestry to develop a power station friendly product: size, moisture consistency etc. needs supporting and developing ... that is exactly what the ROCs Drax is earning are doing, totally justifiably in my mind. Even if this solution wasn't what was "envisaged" doesn't mean its not a good solution. ROC's are a market driven process and this is a good example of a market process reducing prehistoric carbon entering our environment with minimum disruption. I still don't understand your problem ... ROCs aren't there just to encourage wind turbines etc ... they are there to encourage reductions in prehistoric carbon output; how is up to human ingenuity.