Greenpeace: Arctic 30

[wobs]

Still waiting to find out what going near Fukushima has to do with whether we install new nuclear in the UK.

'Someone' said...

Parts of the area of Fukushima area are unsafe at the moment.

So maybe you can tell us the safety history of all the nuclear power plants currently operating that are of the same design as the one proposed at Hinkley?

What's that I hear you mutter?...There are no current nuclear power plants of that design in operation?

And you must be aware that the first similar one of these due to go into operation is massively over budget, and years behind schedule?

You must also be aware that EDF is swamped with litigation due to it's lack of H&S, cheap labour usage, and financial fraud?

And then of course you are also no doubt aware of the construction 'irregularities' which puts the whole 'spent fuel' storage facilty at risk?

No doubt you will also be aware of the fact that EDF officials were jailed for espionage, particularly of Greenpeace?

You know f*ck all of the risks wobs, and keep spouting the usual automated b*llocks that governments and their corporate masters do...

Give us a reason to believe that a more modern design is going to be less safe than an older design. The truth is that engineering strives to make things better, and that includes safety. Modern reactors already have passive safety mechanisms built, and even UK plants built pre-3MI has been deemed safe including Hinkley B:

The “stress test” is defined as a targeted reassessment of the safety margins of nuclear power plants in the light of the events which occurred at Fukushima: extreme natural events challenging the plant safety functions and leading to a severe accident. The technical scope of the reassessment is concerned with an evaluation of the response of a nuclear power plant when facing a set of specific extreme situations.
An EU Stress Test report has been completed for each station and submitted to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the UK independent nuclear industry regulator: This is the EU Stress Test report for Hinkley Point B.
This report is focused on the adequacy of design basis protection for infrequent external hazards. Infrequent external hazards are assessed as those with a frequency of occurrence of 1 in 10,000 per year. All references to design basis in this report should therefore be interpreted as meaning a hazard with this return frequency unless otherwise stated.
This EU Stress Test Report concludes that there are no significant shortfalls in the safety case for all the UK power stations operated by EDF Energy, and that it is safe to continue their operations. This conclusion is consistent with conclusion IR-1 from the ONR’s Interim Report i.e. “In considering the direct causes of the Fukushima accident we see no reason for curtailing the operation of nuclear power plants or other nuclear facilities in the UK”.
The EU Stress Test Reports also raise ‘considerations’: these are defined as ‘Opportunities to further examine potential enhancements to plant, process or people for beyond design basis scenarios’.

http://www.edfenergy.com/about-us/e...ration/documents/hunterston-b-stress-test.pdf

Don't like a link to EDF? OK, here is another one...
A report by the UK here is interesting:

http://www.nuleaf.org.uk/nuleaf/doc...m_9_UK_Response_to_the_Fukushima_accident.pdf

Dr Weightman’s final report found that:
• There is no reason to curtail the operation of UK operating sites, although operators should continue to follow the founding principle of continuous improvement.
• There are no fundamental weaknesses in the UK nuclear licensing regime or the safety assessment principles that underpin it …
• The final report also confirms Dr Weightman’s advice … that he saw no reason to revise the strategic advice given by the regulators on which the Nuclear National Policy Statement was based, or any need to change present siting strategies for new nuclear power stations in the UK.
• The UK practice of periodic safety reviews of licensed sites provides a robust means of ensuring continuous improvement …
• The events at Fukushima reinforce the need to continue to pursue decommissioning of former nuclear sites with utmost vigour and determination.
• The regulator is satisfied with the responses and plans initiated by the Government and nuclear industry in response to the interim report.”

Given that newer reactors are less complex generally, and benefit from even safer designs, I see no reason why we should be worried.

Its just not your day is it.

Still no evidence from you I see, just assertions (mud slinging).

That other sites are over budget on a project is not suprising with a new design. Such a project will give lessons that can be learnt for the next build, and so on. As I have already shown, future nuclear builds work out cheaper when you stick to a single design for multiple plants (history shows this). I have even given the numbers that can be save for future builds in a previous post. This concept is not without precidence.

This is why the Government decided to not build the Seven Barrage, as it would be a one off build.

 

[wobs]

windscale was build in a rush to help make bombs. built in 1951!

windscale to a modern reactor design is like chalk and cheese. one was made to make bombs the other is for power generation.

Windscale (now Sellafield) has no reactors anymore.

Another reason to say it is like comparing chalk with cheese is that they were research reactors. This is completely different to a commercial reactor.

Other examples of locations of research reactors in the UK that people might find interesting include:
London (Greenwich and Queen Mary College, both shutdown)
Rolls Royce site at Derby
Imperial College near Ascot
Many more listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

 

[ellal]

They are both pressurised water reactors, with the difference that one has the word 'European' added!

And therein lies your ignorance...

 

[ellal]

Given that newer reactors are less complex generally, and benefit from even safer designs, I see no reason why we should be worried.

You couldn't see sh*t...

Mind you I guess all that worthless googling and posting probably gives you a thrill, so maybe the sentence above may be wrong...

I notice that you haven't actually answered a question posed...

And as for a 'first build'...there are currently FOUR under construction.

First 'four builds' take the brunt of the costs, not a one-off perchance...

 

[mehran]

to question the safety is Pure FUD tactic. EDR is a evolution of design of an already safe design. one of the things is add extra passive safety measures.

we build more complex things for less money then nuclear reactors.

 

[JBR]

They are both pressurised water reactors, with the difference that one has the word 'European' added!

And therein lies your ignorance...

So the EDR is not a pressurised water reactor, then?

What sort of coolant does it use? Gas?

(Edit: Please note that I am able to make a comment without the need to use offensive language.)

 

[wobs]

Given that newer reactors are less complex generally, and benefit from even safer designs, I see no reason why we should be worried.

You couldn't see sh*t...

Mind you I guess all that worthless googling and posting probably gives you a thrill, so maybe the sentence above may be wrong...

I notice that you haven't actually answered a question posed...

I have, although you haven't answered anything I have asked, such as how is visiting Fuskushima relevant to any new build in the UK? How many times do I have to ask that question?

And as for a 'first build'...there are currently FOUR under construction.

I didn't say it was the first build in the world, but the UK. And those four projects will provide valuable lessons by the time they get to building in the UK. I should point out that the ones in China are due to be online in 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

First 'four builds' take the brunt of the costs, not a one-off perchance...

First builds have lessons learnt, whic will save money for future builds, and they are happening in other countries. And that's bad for the UK how exactly?

ellal wrote:

JBR wrote:

They are both pressurised water reactors, with the difference that one has the word 'European' added!

And therein lies your ignorance...

"The EPR is a third generation pressurized water reactor (PWR) design. It has been designed and developed mainly by Framatome (now Areva NP), Electricité de France (EDF) in France, and Siemens AG in Germany. This reactor design was called in Europe European Pressurized Reactor, and the internationalized name of this reactor is Evolutionary Power Reactor, but is now simply named EPR by Areva."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor#United_Kingdom

Do you take pleasure in being wrong?

BTW, we're still waiting for any evidence to back up any of your assertions.

 

[wobs]

(Edit: Please note that I am able to make a comment without the need to use offensive language.)

Funny that, so am I!

 

[wobs]

Ah, so you want to pick and choose which type of reactor and the location then....

Well yes, because that is what we can do in the modern world. Choose a modern safe efficient design. Woud you rather fly in a modern jet airliner of a De Havilland Comet?

And still no answer of course as to whether you'd allow kids to eat anything grown in the exclusion zones...you merely quote 'safe distances' which is in itself an admission of health risks...

If by eat anything from the area, you mean spinache grown there, then yes.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Food_samples_show_raised_radiation-1903114.html

An interesting article on fear of radiation:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Radiophobia#International_reaction
"Eating the worst contaminated spinach in large quantities for a year would result in as much exposure as a CT scan. CT scans are routine medical procedure and result in about 10 mSv of exposure, or about three times the yearly natural background. It would be impossible to eat the contaminated batches of spinach for an entire year, because it would spoil."

You are obviously pig ignorant of one important indisputable fact...

Anything man made is at risk of accidents!

Look up risk management.

Still waiting to find out why Fukushima questions are relevant to new nuclear builds in the UK.

 

[wobs]

Mind you I guess all that worthless googling and posting probably gives you a thrill, so maybe the sentence above may be wrong...

Its called evidence, but one also learns a great deal from researching a subject, as do other people who read this thread who choose to look up the refs I put up.

Meanwhile, insults makes one look somewhat different, don't you think?

 

[Nozzle]

They are both pressurised water reactors, with the difference that one has the word 'European' added!

And therein lies your ignorance...

EPR is a brand of PWR, just like SNUPPS. Just as Nike and Rebok both manufacture trainers, Westinghouse and Areva both manufacture nuclear power stations. Westinghouse call their current model AP1000, Areva call theirs EPR. The Russians have a similar design, but they call it VVER - it's Russian for "light water reactor that is pressurised"

PWR = a quantity of steam generators, hot and cold legs to each, 1x coolant pump for each loop, 1x single pressuriser, water is both coolant and moderator (and is "light"), fuel is enriched, control rods in top of vessel, steam to turbine has never been in contact with the fuel (in contrast to a BWR). The format is the same throughout. There is a huge variety of design out there, each with their merits or problems.

It's like the difference between a four stroke petrol engine, two stroke petrol engine, 4 stroke diesel, 2 stroke diesel, 16valve, 8valve, V8, straight 6 or flat 4. All convert energy from dino juice into heat, torque and noise.

Nozzle

 

[JBR]

(Edit: Please note that I am able to make a comment without the need to use offensive language.)

Funny that, so am I!

Yes you are. Shame Ella isn't!

 

[ellal]

Seems I've stirred up a nest of ignorant wasps..

So many posts and yet f*ck all content - no surprise there

Softus would be proud of you all...

 

[mehran]

its very easy to be alarmist and mistrusting

much harder to look at the facts and come to a reliable conclusions which may go against ideology.

nuclear is safe. the worst accident in years years has killed no one and in all likelihood will never do.

the safety bar on nuclear is so high and getting higher that to question its safety misnomer.

 

[ellal]

(Edit: Please note that I am able to make a comment without the need to use offensive language.)

I'm sorry

I was unaware that 'ignorance' was an an offensive word...

Next time I shall use 'lack of education' instead...