Nuclear plant designs have dramatically changed since Chernobyl to the point that such a disaster is theoretically impossible, even in the worst of incompetence.
Interesting that I heard exactly the same argument when I visited Sellafield in 1987. The visitors were told that such a disaster is theoretically impossible.
Fast-forward to 2005:
Tens of thousands of litres of highly radioactive liquid leaked unnoticed for up to nine months from a ruptured pipe in the controversial Thorp reprocessing plant at Sellafield in what the IoS can reveal was Britain's worst nuclear accident for 13 years.
The leak, detected last month, was the result of a catalogue of human and engineering errors which resulted in a pool of nuclear liquor, half the volume of an Olympic swimming pool, being accidentally discharged. The magnitude of the incident throws the future of the troubled reprocessing plant into doubt this weekend as copies of an internal investigation circulate among senior ministers and officials.
British Nuclear Group, the company that runs the plant, last night admitted that workers failed to respond to "indicators" warning a badly designed pipe had sprung a leak as long ago as last August. The pool of nuclear liquor, 83,000 litres, was eventually discovered on 19 April. The company has ordered a review to check for other potential leaks caused by metal fatigue and an urgent drive against staff "complacency". (Francis Elliot, independent.co.uk)
Nuclear plant designs have dramatically changed since Chernobyl to the point that such a disaster is theoretically impossible, even in the worst of incompetence. Notice that the post-Chernobyl incidents are unfortunate, but relatively minor. Contrast this with the number of people who will die from pollution due to the burning of fossil fuels, and the risks from modern-day nuclear power is dwarfed in comparison.
I believe that solar power has a long way to improve and will eventually. Nuclear power, I believe, is necessary as a bridge technology.
A bridge technology leaves the problem of radioactive waste unsolved. As Brian Greene (stopsellafield) pointed out, all reactors create deadly by-products that must be isolated for centuries. These wastes will have to be moved throughout the nation on trucks and trains, which could themselves have accidents and become terror and proliferation targets. There is no storage site even planned for the wastes that would come from new reactors. The controversial dump under construction at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which may never open, cannot handle even the waste from reactors already in existence.
Rob Edwards (Guardian): "Rising to four floors at the sprawling Sellafield complex on the Cumbrian coast, it is probably one of the biggest technical and economic disasters in the history of the British nuclear industry. For an industry with more than its fair share of mishaps, that is saying something.
The plant was originally meant to process 120 tonnes of MOX fuel a year, but it has yet to manage even three tonnes a year. As the Guardian reported in February, a grand total of only 5.2 tonnes have been produced in the six-year commissioning phase from 2001 to 2007."
I believe solar energy can improve a lot in the next 3 decades, but only with proper financing and being a priority. To believe scientists who say it could be bridging technology totally ignores the fact that you´d need a century to deconstruct this "bridge".
A spokesman for Sellafield Ltd.: “Sellafield isn’t a place that can just be closed down. It is about the removal of plant and equipment from the building, it is about decontaminating and knocking them down, that takes decades.
A lot of work has been done but with a site as complex as Sellafield that will take a long time to do carefully and safely, which is the priority and can’t be compromised on.”
He said it would cost £73bn to decommission the plant over the next 112 years.
Melon, don´t you think it would be wiser to invest these billions into efficiency of solar energy? Also, don´t ignore wind and water energy technologies - they are quite efficient. Believe me, if they were priority, and the money for research and development is invested, our technicians would be quick to find new ways to make them more efficient. they would not need 112 years to come up with a solution, let alone 10,000 years.
Fact:
Don´t believe any spokesman for the nuclear industry. When there´s an accident, the industry will hide it first - every country is afraid of international consequences. When they can´t hide it anymore, they will say it´s a minor accident, not a disaster. When proved it is a disaster, they will try to downplay it in the media until another topic takes the lead.
Don´t believe when the industry - or politicians who take money and gifts from the nuclear industry - say they intend to use nuclear as a bridge. You don´t invest trillions of dollars in a bridge technology, with leftover fissile material that can´t be controlled and continues to be a threat to public safety. As soon as the "bridge technology" is up and running, it will be convenient enough (for our society) to leave it at that - until an accident happens that takes thousands of lives.
Or do you invest in a SUV (without airbags or properly working brakes) as a "bridge" until a bike is efficient enough?
to a low carbon future
