Safety Last

May 28, 2005 9:51 PM

Sellafield nuclear leak unreported for three months- The Cumbria, UK nuclear waste processing facility has been a constant source of worry and pollution since its inception. Security procedures were called "a bit of a joke" by safety technician Ron Hanas, who was fired for blowing the whistle on the accounting loss of over 30 kg of weapons-grade plutonium, noting as an aside that a section of a uranium fuel rod was found in a worker's desk drawer. Higher levels of plutonium are found in children's teeth as they live in closer proximity to the plant. It makes one think about the current energy policy being written behind closed doors, when the industry can't put basic safety systems in place.
posted by AlexReynolds (24 comments total)

All of which is terrible -- but the total environmental costs of coal and oil are also terrible, and coal and oil are not renewable.
posted by orthogonality at 10:13 PM on May 28, 2005

more from the Independent, including this: ...About 3,000 litres of radioactive water leaked on Friday at a Czech nuclear power plant near the border with Austria, it emerged yesterday. ...
posted by amberglow at 10:22 PM on May 28, 2005

All of which is terrible -- but the total environmental costs of coal and oil are also terrible, and coal and oil are not renewable.

While I don't debate that coal and oil are problematic, we don't know how to operate nuclear technology in a safe manner. When things go wrong, nuclear power has greater consequences.

Chernobyl, Sellafield, and TMI seem to be lessons we don't learn, again and again, about what happens when government and industry collude behind a veil of secrecy. A public discussion about this form of energy is not taking place within the US.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:29 PM on May 28, 2005

A public discussion about this form of energy is not taking place within the US.

Claims about "the media isn't covering X", or "there's no debate on Y" are always questionable. I think it all depends on where you're looking. The local news is too enthralled with "cat caught in tree, film at 11" to have useful information, but elsewhere there is active debate.

In this case there is plenty of public debate over nuclear energy.

It's been debated a lot in the context of Peak Oil here on MeFi (any Peak Oil post has a bunch of nuke comments)

The New York Times has been covering the nuke debate extensively recently:

"Nuclear Power: Solution or Problem?" - May 20
"OLD FOES SOFTEN TO NEW REACTORS" - May 15 - The environmental movement becoming nuke-friendly.
"Nuclear Options" - May 15
"The Nuclear Power Option" - May 4
"The Argument Against Nuclear Energy"- May 1
"The Argument for Nuclear Energy" - May 1

If you don't like the NYT here's a sampling of nationwide coverage of US nuclear energy growth.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:43 PM on May 28, 2005

but the total environmental costs of coal and oil are also terrible, and coal and oil are not renewable.

I'm strongly in favor of nuclear energy, but assuming we're talking about fission, nuclear isn't renewable either.
posted by willnot at 12:24 AM on May 29, 2005

All of which is terrible -- but the total environmental costs of coal and oil are also terrible, and coal and oil are not renewable.

Yeah, but most of these malfunctions are preventable. They are not an inevitable consequence of nuclear energy.
posted by ori at 12:39 AM on May 29, 2005

They are not an inevitable consequence of nuclear energy.

Yes, but highly toxic radioactive waste are... and we still do not know what to do with it...
posted by Elim at 2:17 AM on May 29, 2005

If it all goes wrong, I suggest that they just change the name of the reactor. Like they did in 1957.
posted by seanyboy at 2:35 AM on May 29, 2005

loss of over 30 kg of weapons-grade plutonium

Not to be combatitive, but where in that link does it say they lost 30 kg. of Plutonium? Also, was this allegedly all at one time, or the cumulative mass stolen? Because 30kg. is about the sweet spot for your standard implosion-style device.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:12 AM on May 29, 2005

Not lost, lost track of (link). As far as I can tell, it just means their numbers don't add up, not that there's a particular batch missing, or that there's any reason to believe any was taken offsite.

And the "leak" that headlines this post happened within a sealed building, so it's not really a leak at all. This post sucks.
posted by cillit bang at 7:40 AM on May 29, 2005

Well, I don't think that this post sucks.

Only this week I heard Sir David King on Radio 4 talking about the issue of climate change and the nuclear option. In my view it's a very serious issue and we need to confront it now.

That said the externalities involved in nuclear power are simply staggering. Nevertheless British Energy received a multi-million pound bail out. The current generation of Magnox stations are coming to the end of their useful life and will need expensive decommissioning.

Elim makes an excellent point above that we still have no idea about what to do with high level waste although minds smarter than mine are thinking about things like geological subduction.

The bottom line? Climate change needs to be addressed. We've historically been bad at safety in nuclear facilities. That needs to change but such a change coupled with safer designs such as the pebble-bed configuration mean that safe running of a new generation of nuclear power plants may be possible.
posted by dmt at 8:23 AM on May 29, 2005

AlexReynolds:

Nuclear power is an excellent option now, and it's getting more attractive all the time. You say we "don't know how to operate nuclear power in a safe manner", but that's just not the case anymore.


The original method of extracting energy from uranium is to, basically, rig up a fundamentally unstable reaction and then prevent it from blowing up. It's not quite like a bomb, but it's set up in such a way that if something goes wrong, the pile will go critical. It's sort of like running in a near-disaster state all the time... eventually, the law of averages will get you.

But those designs are forty years old. We know a lot more about how to do it now. There are newer designs that appear to be quite safe, and the waste produced from them becomes equivalent to coal ash within 300-500 years, depending on the technology used. It can be done safely.

Environmentalists in particular tend to hate nuclear power. This is quite ignorant of them, because nuclear power just isn't that bad for most species. Humans are uniquely susceptible to radioactivity in the animal world.

If you look at Bikini Atoll, the site of many nuclear tests, you won't find the wasteland you might expect; instead, it's a thriving tropical paradise. It's not safe for humans to visit for more than a short time, but the other plants and animals just aren't bothered that much. They're in BETTER shape than they would be otherwise, because humans can't use that area... radioactivity is a much smaller problem to them than humans would be. Environmentalists should be all in favor of nuclear power, because we are the ones who pay for accidents. Old Mother Nature is barely inconvenienced by radioactivity levels that kill us in short order.

It CAN be done safely and well, and in fact we desperately need it. The unthinking hatred of the environmental lobby has prevented the development of nuclear power here, and has made us dependent on oil. Nearly all of them, in my experience, subscribe to the 'no blood for oil!' idea... but then actively prevent technology that would let us get off our oil jag.

We really need to start converting our economy now. We shouldn't be waiting, we should be pressing ahead with this techology. If you know any environmentalists, ask them to really think about their objections to nuclear power..... remind them that most species can survive very high levels of background radiation. Just because it kills us doesn't mean it kills everything else too... quite the opposite, in fact.

If you want unspoiled nature, free from human interference, then you should be pushing nuclear power as hard as you can. It has almost no environmental impact when it's running correctly, and if there IS an accident, the only species that is really hurt is humanity itself.
posted by Malor at 8:32 AM on May 29, 2005

But those designs are forty years old. We know a lot more about how to do it now. There are newer designs that appear to be quite safe, and the waste produced from them becomes equivalent to coal ash within 300-500 years, depending on the technology used. It can be done safely.

I think the key word is "appear". Unfortunately, we seem to be good at finding ways to make accidents happen. A number of really bad accidents have happened over the last five decades. The accidents seem to worsen to the degree that government and industry work together in secret. Oops!

Our leadership is currently proposing the construction of nuclear energy, based on policy decisions reached behind closed doors, in collusion with big business.

When big business decides that profits outweigh safety — and it invariably will — and government has decided to support this decision instead of its citizens, where does that leave the rest of us?

I find it no small coincidence that GE and other nuclear plant manufacturers have stepped up their advertising after Bush's "announcement", for example.

I'm all for unspoiled nature. I don't believe that the evidence shows an unspoiled nature can happen with nuclear technology. Indeed, there is a body of evidence that suggests the opposite, that we are incapable of designing a failsafe nuclear facility, and even more to the point, that this technology does not forgive cost-cutting design and procedural errors.

Further, if we are going to move to increasing our reliance on nuclear energy, then we should have a public discussion about it. Holding meetings in smoke-filled backrooms, and withholding transcripts from the public, should not inspire confidence in our representatives
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:58 AM on May 29, 2005

Because 30 kg is about the sweet spot for your standard implosion-style device.

Actually, 30 kg is enough for 7 or 90 fission-type nuclear devices, depending on isotope.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:05 AM on May 29, 2005

Ten countries possess about 96% of global uranium reserves. With their 2 million tonnes, all 440 world-wide operated nuclear power plants can be supplied for several decades - this is based on Nuclear's current 18% of electricity generation.

Increase that percentage significantly and you'll be lucky to see the reserves last for more than one or two decades of production - and you still have to deal with the waste for a few thousand years.
posted by Lanark at 9:20 AM on May 29, 2005

When things go wrong, nuclear power has greater consequences.
Wrong. The consequences from burning fossil fuels when things go right (5,900 +/- 2,100 deaths each year in Canada) are hundreds of times more costly than the worst nuclear accidents to date.

Previous discussion on the matter.

The leak at the Thorp facility spilled into a sealed compartment designed to contain such a spill. No deaths are likely to result from any of the linked incidents. Lets keep our fear-mongering in check.
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:21 AM on May 29, 2005

there's talk of putting nuclear waste into the soon-to-be closed military bases--an appalling idea.
posted by amberglow at 10:24 AM on May 29, 2005

If you want unspoiled nature, free from human interference, then you should be pushing nuclear power as hard as you can.

Or, if your definition of 'unspoiled' includes 'not poisoned by radioactive waste,' you could push for Solar Power. Or Wind Power, or Hydro, or Geothermal, or Biomass. Or all of the above.

"Oh, he must be one of those unthinking hate-filled no-blood-for-oil environmentalist types," I can hear you thinking. To which I reply: do you enjoy breathing air? Do you occasionally drink water? Then you, too should be an 'environmentalist.'

If you don't buy the argument that you are part of an environment, then consider the position of the energy consumer: what's wrong with tapping into that big blazing ball of free energy that's hanging right over our heads?
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 10:31 AM on May 29, 2005

amberglow: there's talk of putting nuclear waste into the soon-to-be closed military bases--an appalling idea.

Care to elaborate? Why is storing nuclear waste at an abandoned military base worse than anywhere else?
posted by event at 10:41 AM on May 29, 2005

because many of the bases being shut down are in very populated areas--surrounded by towns and neighborhoods. (especially the northeastern ones)
posted by amberglow at 10:45 AM on May 29, 2005

With their 2 million tonnes, all 440 world-wide operated nuclear power plants can be supplied for several decades...

If true, there's no point in going nuclear; it's a short-temr dead-ender.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:17 AM on May 29, 2005

Actually, 30 kg is enough for 7 or 90 fission-type nuclear devices

30 kg of plutonium isn't going to get you seven working bombs. With an extremely efficient design, you might get three. I'm assuming whomever steals it won't have a lot of atomic weapon system engineers to develop it, and would instead go for the "tried and true" basic implosion device. Even this isn't exactly easy: if one of your charges isn't timed properly, you'll wind up with a few kilograms of very deadly poison thrown into the air, but no big boom.

Anyway, glad to read this wasn't the case.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:43 PM on May 29, 2005

With their 2 million tonnes, all 440 world-wide operated nuclear power plants can be supplied for several decades...

Similar to the safety issue, that's based on the 440 existing plants. Not better, new plants.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:00 PM on May 29, 2005

It's true that nuclear plants are getting more efficient every year, but we also use more energy every year - I'm guessing those two will cancel each other out.
posted by Lanark at 6:06 AM on May 30, 2005