Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Torness shutdown shows nuclear 'unreliability'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

THE SNP has claimed that nuclear power is "unreliable" after it emerged that a reactor at one of Scotland's nuclear power stations has been shut down.
Unit 1, one of two reactors at Torness power station, was manually shut down at midnight on Friday, 11 April.

British Energy said it was a planned shut down to allow repairs to be carried out on the hydrogen cooling system on one of the main gene
rators.

The shutdown has halved output from the power station, which is in East Lothian.

It follows the shutdown of two reactors at Hunterston B power station in Ayrshire, which have been off since early February.

The Scottish National Party said the news highlighted the need for green energy.

Shirley-Anne Somerville, SNP Lothians MSP and a member of the Scottish Parliament's transport, infrastructure and climate change committee, said: "This just proves that nuclear power is unreliable. Once Hunterston and Torness come to the end of their lives it is clear it would be dangerous, costly and ultimately unnecessary to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.

"The SNP will develop Scotland's competitive advantage in clean, green energy."

British Energy said it could not give details of when the reactors at Torness and Hunterston B would re-opened "for commercial reasons".





The full article contains 219 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Matt there,

somewhere 16/04/2008 00:54:09
"British Energy said it could not give details of when the reactors at Torness and Hunterston B would re-opened "for commercial reasons"."

Codswallop!
2

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 16/04/2008 01:41:01
And just where do the SNP think this "clean green enery" is going to come from to replace Scotlands 2 nuclear power stations !
They are clearly suffering from delusions and have been completely taken in by the wind industry spin.
Unfortunately it is us, Joe Public that will bear the cost of their delusions.
3

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 02:59:52
Come in number 2 it's time for your medication.

The Herald:

"Torness nuclear power station in East Lothian has faced an emergency shut-down, possibly for several weeks, due to a leaking coolant pipe."

The Scotsman:

"British Energy said it was a planned shut down to allow repairs to be carried out on the hydrogen cooling system on one of the main generators."

Which do you believe?
4

Richard,

west lothian 16/04/2008 03:01:34

nabodican,
Rural Scotland

Err dumbo,I don't see the lights going out without them, do you?
5

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 16/04/2008 03:10:08
Hello All,

I see, the Nuclear Energy Industry is unreliable because they had to make repairs on equipment?

Using MSP Somerville's 'logic', EVERY Automobile Manufacturer on the planet would have to classified as 'unreliable'. May we expect MSP Somerville to call for the banning of all automobiles as soon as possible in Scotland?

Further, every manufactured product we use on a near daily basis falls into this category: washers and dryers, stoves, ovens, televisions, radios, CD players, stereos, computers, thermostats, heating pads, water heaters, plumbing lines, lighting fixtures, and yes, even the ubiquitous light bulb croaks now and again and must be replaced.

I take it that MSP Somerville and the SNP shall immediately come forward and call for the banning of all of the above products? Surely the SNP, in a move to 'protect' Scots from the vagaries of the 'evil' manufacturers, will raise tariffs on ALL of the above products, thereby forcing more and more people to shift to other ways to meet their needs, thereby 'making' Scots 'more safe'?

The lunacy which MSP Somerville enunciates on behalf of the SNP is truly ludicrous. The poor woman is just another SNP hack without a scintilla of common sense, zero understanding of real world needs/concerns, and takes a cheap shot opportunity to make a few points with the narrow minded Eco-Fascists in Scotland.

I'm a hearty Wind and Solar Power Generation Proponent, we get sun rays for free, and the wind blows for free, so why not incentivize individuals to shift partially or wholly to Wind, Solar, Hydro, etc., so that less and less coal needs to be burned?

I also happen to be for Scottish Independence, but I'll not stand by and let sheer idiocy pass by for the sake of cheap political gain.

Cheers from the Rockies
6

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 16/04/2008 03:23:32
#2Nobody

"And just where do the SNP think this "clean green enery" is going to come from to replace Scotlands 2 nuclear power stations"?

What Nuclear Power Stations? Neither are producing power so they hardly deserve to be called Power Stations.

A more appropriate term is Surface Nuclear Waste Storage Facility.

When British Energy said it could not give details of when the reactors at Torness and Hunterston B would re-opened "for commercial reasons" what they really meant was "we havn't got a clue and we don't want our ignorance to affect the share price."
7

,

16/04/2008 03:36:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 06:09:23
7 - Alan Reid, NZ 16/04/2008 03:36:36 - well said.
9

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 16/04/2008 07:31:20
"THE SNP has claimed that nuclear power is "unreliable"."

And wind energy is reliable because the wind blows all the time!

"it is clear it would be dangerous, costly and ultimately unnecessary to build a new generation of nuclear power stations".

So shutting down a nuclear power station for repairs is dangerous!

10

,

16/04/2008 08:16:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Calum Crubag,

Dùn Eideann 16/04/2008 08:49:33
#10- Not here boyo. Fortunately we'll be spared a 'new' generation of these hugely expensive and dangerous white elephants. If nuke power is so cheap, why does it need huge handouts from the taxpayer?
12

Upbeat,

16/04/2008 08:53:31
When anything undergoes repairs in order for normal activity to continue safely, there has to be an alternative. If repairs are required that restrict generating capacity in Scotland it is not because the system is unreliable, it is because there is inadequate back up.

This is why the policy of only equpping the country with generating capacity to match projected demand is wrong. There has to be a contigency built into any policy. This contigency is more, not less, nuclear powerstations.
13

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 08:53:34
10. What are you talking about? The SNP are against nuclear.
14

donald,

glasgow 16/04/2008 09:47:17
The Min of Tech Minister responsible for Tornness and Hunterston and who shut down the Scottish Pits will be disappointed. I refer to the Anti-Devolutionist in office and Friend of Isreal, the dahling of the Brit "left", that old Viscount, Tony Wedgewood Benn.
15

McX,

16/04/2008 10:04:46
Morning all, two important things about Japan and energy I discovered this morning.

Firstly, I heard on Radio Scotland this morning the Japanese government have temporarily knocked tax off all fuels for the next few months in order to help the consumer and hopefully boost the economy. What chances Darling following suit?

Secondly in the article below, the Japanese government have rejected a bid by London hedge fund 'The Children's Investment Fund' to increase their stake in J-Power - Japan's largest electricity wholesaler - to as much as 20 percent from its current 9.9 percent.

'It was the first rejection of such a proposal under a law that requires government approval before foreign companies can hold stakes of more than 10 percent in companies in sensitive sectors such as utilities, broadcasting and weapons manufacturing.'

Who owns the energy in Scotland?

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/04/16/ap4894984.html
16

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 10:10:31
9 Nell the point is that nuclear is more unreliable than wind. Your argument against wind is that it does not generate 100% of its generating capacity 100% of the time. This is true and we can expect about 30% average output against rated capacity. This however is significantly better than Hunterston at 13% of its rated output last year.

Nuclear is unreliable, economically unviable and in massive carbon deficit when you take into consideration the whole life cycle. BE almost went to the wall and was baled out by the government with the introduction of NETA. This meant that the Scottish power suplliers were no longer obliged to buy a minimum amount of over priced power. No doubt the pro-nuclear will rant about ROCs but it pales into insignificance with the money thrown at nuclear just to keep it going. Nuclear fission just isn't a realistic part of our generation needs.
17

Mcsnagpile,

16/04/2008 10:10:53
This editorial is based on ignorance.
The Hydrogen cooling system is nothing to do with Nuclear Power.
If the newspaper and politicians want to make bald statements they should at least have somebody other than a Classics Grad to comment.

18

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 16/04/2008 10:55:40
No. 16 Saoghal Beag:- Not really a good comparison comparing the expected output of wind turbines against one years output of Hunterston. Especially as Hunterston is 30(ish) years old and near the end of its design life. What is its average output over its full life?
19

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 16/04/2008 11:02:04
Oh yes! The anti nukes are out in force again.

#3 My medication is fine thank you - my question still stands, there is no so called green power generation in Scotland that can replace the nukes

#4 "Dumbo" am I ?
Yes the lights will go out without our nuclear power stations and as they are getting old, it is time to replace them just as you would replace an old car.
Incidentally I have worked in electrical engineering all my life and therefore have a reasonable working knowledge of how electricity is produced "What do you know about it DUMBO"
20

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 11:11:27
18 Nell, ah a wiggle out option. i am just reflecting the argument used against wind by the pro-nuclear contingency. It seems that it is appropriate for pro-nukes to argue against wind on the basis that it requires back up in case of generation drops through reliable coal/gas generation but that that argument is not levelled against nuclear.

Obvioulsy we have to plan for outages from our nuclear stations and cover their potential outages from alternative generation. Given that we have to duplicate their generation capacity and given the cost of building, running and decomissioning these white elephants why on earth should we waste our money and lumber future generations with liabilities?
21

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 11:16:58
Anyone who assumes that because a nuclear power plant needs routine maintenance and on-going repairs, nuclear energy is "unreliable" is stupid in the extreme.

By the same logic, the same person would never get their car serviced. Nor would they replace components on it that wear out or break in use.

Idiots.
22

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 11:23:43
21 - You're such a charmer.
23

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 11:29:29
British Nuclear Group court case - transcript and sentence
Publication Date: 5 Apr 2007

On 16th October 2006, British Nuclear Group, the operator of the massive Sellafield nuclear complex, was in the Crown Court in Carlisle to face sentencing over an accident that led to the shut-down of the THORP spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.

The case, brought by the Health and Safety Executive (North West) centred on the events that led up to 83,000 litres of highly radioactive dissolved spent fuel leaking into the area beneath a tank in the reprocessing facility.

As the case revealed, the leak - which went undetected for eight months - was the result of a succession of operator and technical failures going back to the late 1990s.

The judge sentenced British Nuclear Group to pay £500,000 in fines and costs of almost £70,000. It is the largest ever fine imposed on Bitish Nuclear Group (this was not its first prosecution).

The £2.5bn plant, which was closed in April 2005 for repairs, is not expected to re-open until January 2007 - if then. Estimates of the financial losses - due to the closure - to the government's Nuclear Decommissioned Authority, which owns THORP, stand at between £60m-£400m.

Full Transcript here:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/8065.pdf
24

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 11:32:45
"It was pure luck there wasn't a meltdown," said a former director of Forsmark nuclear power plant after a serious incident at that plant last week. Now Sweden has shut down four of its 10 nuclear plants after faults were discovered. And a generator failure like Sweden's could easily happen in the UK.

The closure of the Swedish plants has removed at a stroke roughly 20 percent of Sweden's electricity supply. Emergency power systems to the Forsmark plant failed for 20 minutes during a power cut. If power was not restored there could have been a major incident within hours.

A former director of the Forsmark plant said, "It was pure luck that there was not a meltdown. Since the electricity supply from the network didn't work as it should have, it could have been a catastrophe."

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/sweden-closes-nuclear-plants-over-safety-fears
25

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 11:34:13
Champagne should be fizzy - not fissionable
Aah, a fine Champagne. A full body. A delicate nose. That indescribable sensation of having your tongue tickled by... tritium?! Yes, low-level radioactive waste has been found leaking into groundwater less than six miles from the famous Champagne vineyards, putting the region's most famous export at risk of contamination.

The leakage occurred at a waste dump site after "the wall of a storage cell fissured" while concrete was being added to a layer of waste. But this isn't an isolated incident. Another dump site in Normandy is leaking levels of radioactivity up to 90 times above European safety limits, contaminating the countryside and threatening dairy production.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/a-bad-month-for-blair
26

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 11:37:15
About Nuclear Reactor Accidents 1


Radiation reactor accidents occur almost exclusively at well-characterized fixed facilities, like nuclear reactors or nuclear power plants, or along prescribed transit routes when radioactive materials are moved.
Typically, facility operators and local officials have formal response plans and practice response operations.
For accidents at fixed facilities, like a nuclear power plant, there is likely to be a window of time before the release of radiation starts, as opposed to an improvised nuclear device (IND) or a nuclear bomb, which may be initiated without any advanced warning.
With nuclear reactor sabotage incidents, there may be less warning time.
Victims can have both exposure and contamination.
Contamination with radioactive iodine has almost exclusively been identified in the aftermath of accidents at nuclear reactors (see Figure 1), although some exposure may occur with other types of radiological events. The need for prophylaxis/treatment with potassium iodide will be determined by officials managing the event, and instructions to potentially exposed populations will be given. Typically the most significant route of radioactive iodine uptake is ingestion, although inhalation may also occur.

http://www.remm.nlm.gov/nuclearaccident.htm
27

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 11:44:57
In contrast to the rosy propaganda and promises, commercial nuclear power from new nuclear plants has become the most expensive form of commonly used baseload electric power in the United States. In part, this was because utilities canceled 121 reactors in the post-1974 period; the money squandered on these canceled plants alone was about $44.4 billion in 1990 dollars,2 or about $50 billion in 1995 dollars. Even larger costs were incurred, in the form of higher electricity costs for instance, because of the very high costs of plants completed in the 1980s. Enjoying virtually every conceivable advantage at its birth -- from high public popularity to lavish government funding to virtually unanimous political support -- the commercial nuclear power industry in the United States is a moribund one, with virtually every one of its early advantages reversed.

http://www.ieer.org/reports/npd.html
28

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 11:48:05
21 Alternative and anyone who had a car that had as manhy unplanned outages as hunterston and torness would be an even bigger fuel. We are not talking about planned maintainence.
29

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 11:49:13
The potential impact on the public from safety or waste management failure and the link to nuclear explosives technology are unique to nuclear energy among energy supply options. These characteristics and the fact that nuclear is more costly, make it impossible today to
make a credible case for the immediate expanded use of nuclear power.2
- The Future of Nuclear Power, MIT (2003)

The rate of accidents at nuclear plants is expected to follow what David Lochbaum has called the “bath- tub curve.”48 Specifically, the accident rate is expected to be higher during the initial shakedown phase when the plant is new. As the equipment is tested and broken in and the operators gain experience, the failure rate is expected to fall until it reaches a relatively steady rate where it remains for a majority of the plant’s operation. Eventually the equipment in the plant begins to age and wear out while the operator’s accumulation of experience has the potential to lead to over-confidence. During this wear-out stage, the accident rate will begin to rise and grow over time until the plant is finally shut down. The average failure rate over the whole lifetime of the plant is the parameter of most interest in determining the risk, and will not be accurately reflected by ignoring the higher values during either the shakedown or wear-out phases.

http://www.ieer.org/reports/insurmountablerisks/summary.pdf

30

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 11:57:14
An Beal Bacht

i also hear that the french built new finnish reactor is struggling to completion despite getting massive backhanders and a very preferential interest rate. Thet can't even afford to build the things let alone run them.

Yes we know about France, pro-nukes, state owned generation with is kept viable by hidden subsidies.
31

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 12:06:41
24 May 2007 Residual Risk

Another type of event that has periodically occurred over the period since 1986 involves secondary pipe failures due to erosion corrosion. The most recent example of this type of event took place at the Mihama nuclear power plant in Japan in 2005 when a pipe failed due to erosion corrosion, resulting in the deaths of five workers and injuries to six more workers. It was later revealed that the pipe wall thickness of the failed pipe had not been checked since the plant went into operation in 1976.

After the Mihama-3 pipe failure, two additional erosion-corrosion-related pipe failures occurred at the South Ukraine nuclear power plant in Ukraine. On 19 May 2005, a high-pressure heater line ruptured at Unit 2; and on 26 August 2005, a condensate pipe ruptured at the same plant.23 The lack of surveillance of this piping appears difficult to justify considering the previous operating experience with secondary pipe failures, which included:

a) A feedwater line break at the Surry Unit 2 plant in December 1986 that resulted in four deaths and two serious injuries.24

b) Discovery in 1987 of significant erosion-corrosion of safety-related feedwater piping at the Trojan nuclear power plant in the United States, resulting in the replacement of the affected piping.25

c) Failure of an extraction line at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 in April 1989 due to erosion-corrosion.26

d) Failure of an extraction line at the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant in the United States due to flow-accelerated corrosion.27

e) Failure of a moisture separator drain line at Millstone Unit 3 in the United States in December 1990, causing failure of adjacent line due to pipe whip damage, resulting from erosion-corrosion.28

f) Failure of feedwater regulating valve bypass lines at the San Onofre Unit 2 plant in the United States in July 1990 due to erosion-corrosion.29

g) Failure of a low-pressure heater drain pipe at Surry Uni
32

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 12:07:46
cont ...

g) Failure of a low-pressure heater drain pipe at Surry Unit 1 in the United States in March 1990 due to erosion-corrosion.30

h) Failure of the main feedwater piping at Loviisa Unit 1 in Finland in May 1990 due to erosion-corrosion.31 On 25 February 1993, a feedwater pipe ruptured at the adjacent Unit 2 reactor.32

i) Failure of a moisture separator re-heater line at Millstone Unit 2 in the United States in November 1991 due to erosion-corrosion. 33

j) Failure of a condensate line at Sequoyah Unit 1 in the United States in
November 1994 due to erosion-corrosion.34

Corrosion affected piping in other systems as well as in secondary steam-related systems. Essential service water systems can be affected by several types of corrosion. On 25 August 2004, a circumferential break occurred in one train of a two-train essential service water system at the Vandellos Unit 2 reactor in Spain. This break left only a single train of equipment supplying essential cooling to safety-related equipment such as the diesel
generators, the residual heat removal system, and others. After repairs, the other train of essential service water was checked and it too had to be repaired.35

http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/181/181995.residual_risk@fr.pdf
33

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 12:09:29
Saoghal Beag, Aye - nuclear is one big toxic sink hole that politicians just love to throw our money down.
34

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 12:11:20
Saoghal Beag,

Have you noticed that it doesn't matter what evidence is presented the pro-nuclear fanatics don't want to know?
35

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 12:14:09
an beal bacht, and to justify the politicians actually try and sell it as carbon neutral/renewable. a complete fallacy but there are so many poor idiots who take blair and broons lies hook line and sinker.

we won't have new nuclear in scotland, unless liebour or the tories get in...
36

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 12:17:02
an beal bacht, it is the terminal nimbies who don't want wind and don't want anything else. they lack vision but they want it all. they think wind is the be all and end all of renewabloe generation, they fail to comprehend the potential of embedded generation within the built environment, they fail to understand the inherently more secure generation from dispersed and varied generation technologies.

perhaps they need sympathy from being dropped on thier heads at birth.
37

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 12:19:23
Saoghal Beag,

A woman I work with takes in kids from Belarus who have been sickened by the fallout from Chernobyl. Their country is contaminated and these kids look awful when they first arrive. After a few months of clean air and soil, good food and medical attention they are sent back to hell. Let's hope that never happens to our kids.
38

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 12:40:32
Beal bacht, according to the pro-nukes there was only a handful of deaths attributable to chernobyl, there is no lasting legacy (the sheep in Wales are fine, the kids in Belarus are fine).

I do think that the serious accidents, though few, are a argument against nuclear, but we have to focus on the fact that it is unreliable, unaffordable and generates a waste with no disposal option. These issues alone should knock it out of anyone's option.
39

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 12:45:16
38 - agreed.
40

Oracle of the North,

16/04/2008 12:56:19
¨nabodican¨ says ¨They are clearly suffering from delusions and have been completely taken in by the wind industry spin.¨

What total nonsense. Wind power in Scotland is likely to be one of the few ways out of the looming energy crisis. I'm not affiliated with wind power companies or any other company, but even I know that the lobby for wind power is nothing to do with spin, and everything to do with providing a safe, clean, replenishable source of power for our grandchildren's generation to use.

If you want to see spin, look at the Labour Government's list of excuses for embarking on a new nuclear power program. Nuclear power is a quick-fix. It is a dangerous short-sighted solution that future generations will despise us for, when they are left a thousand years from now with no safe means to clean up the stockpiles of radioactive materials.
41

Oracle of the North,

16/04/2008 13:01:10
PS regarding Chernobyl:

The no-go zone that has been left in Russia around the former site of the Chernobyl disaster, is wider than the width of Scotland.

This means that if Scotland saw a nuclear meltdown at Torness in East Lothian, like the Chernobyl disaster, everything from Torness right across to Glasgow would be within the no-go zone.

Northern Scotland would effectively be cut off from the rest of the UK, only reachable by sea. Edinburgh and Glasgow would be wiped off the map.

Something to think about.
42

Upbeat,

16/04/2008 13:29:05
A lot of people with nothing better to do with their day here.... ;-)

Producing a list of occasions when problems have occured with any Nuclear plant , particularly citing examples of events that occured more than 20 years ago, is a fruitless pursuit.

Would the people who have posted these references care to produce a list of the events that have occured around their home in the past 20 years. Which of their " white" goods has had to be replaced. Which of their pluimbing , heating , drainage, Telephone, roof wall, floor or garden fence have had to be repaired or replaced ?

With their car , bicycle , moped or motorcycle, which component has failed, which wheel has become out of balance, has a window become cracked while in use, which radiator hose has split, etc etc.

To list the events without acknowledging that there is no such thing as a perfect machine is worthless. This cut and paste activity is no argument against Nuclear powerstations. It is as pointless as saying that a car designed in the 1970's, built in the 1980's is not as good as one built and designed today.

The modern expresion is: Duh ! ;-)
43

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 13:51:29
#42:

Well said.

It is always going to be sensational to paste quotes about there being "corrosion in the cooling pipes of a nuclear reactor".

In reality, how many of these pasters actualy fully understand the implications of what they are pasting in engineering terms? Do they really think that the components of a nuclear power station are built in such a way that a small amount of corrosion would make them dangerous? Of course they are not. They are built with an enormous safety margin.

The accounts of down time that have been pasted in here serve to highlight only that on-going maintenance has been performed on power stations. Perhaps the anti-nuclear brigade might be a bit more confident if no work whatsoever had been carried out on nuclear power stations?

In the real world, all that would signify would be neglect. I feel reassured that work is regularly being carried out on these installations. It is a sign that the numerous safety precautions and monitoring processes actually do work.
44

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 14:29:01
42 - Upbeat, 16/04/2008 13:29:05 compares nuclear reactors to "white goods". Yes the modern expression is duh!

43Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head, Edinburgh 16/04/2008 13:51:29 wonders:


"Do they really think that the components of a nuclear power station are built in such a way that a small amount of corrosion would make them dangerous?"

and:

"In reality, how many of these pasters actualy fully understand the implications of what they are pasting in engineering terms?"

Perhaps the workers at Mihama Nuclrat Power Plant coluld tell us?

"The most recent example of this type of event took place at the Mihama nuclear power plant in Japan in 2005 when a pipe failed due to erosion corrosion, resulting in the deaths of five workers and injuries to six more workers."
45

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 14:38:01
42 and 43 refer to post 34.
46

Oracle of the North,

16/04/2008 15:02:47
re: *Number 42 above by 'Upbeat'

Don't be ridiculous. You can't compare white goods to a nuclear power plant. For a start, if your washing machine goes on the blink, I hardly expect it to trigger an ecological disaster that will render southern Scotland uninhabitable for 50,000 years.

No matter how rancid your socks are.
47

Geomac 1,

Scotland 16/04/2008 16:20:33
Why don't all the green, tree hugging ecomaentalists install a micro wind wurbine to meet their home needs - and then disconnect from the grid!
That way we would see less posts here as you chew your nails waiting for the wind to blow on a calm day!
48

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 16:30:13
47 - Geomac 1, Scotland 16/04/2008 16:20:33 wrote:

"Why don't all the green, tree hugging ecomaentalists install a micro wind wurbine to meet their home needs - and then disconnect from the grid!
That way we would see less posts here as you chew your nails waiting for the wind to blow on a calm day!"

Hey Geo - why don't all you planet destroying friends of the dark side build micro-nuclear generators and stick 'em where the sun don't shine - you don't like solar anyhoo.
49

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 16:53:59
"...the Mihama nuclear power plant in Japan in 2005 when a pipe failed due to erosion corrosion..."

So does it not please you that we are not going to suffer the same fate because the fault has been detected, the reactor shut down and repairs are under way?

You can argue "what ifs" forever. It doesn't change the fact that our nuclear proceedures work and will detect problems before they become major issues.

I'd rather than nuclear reactors were shut down and inspected/repaired on a regular basis than risk suffering the consequences of the kinds of incidents that have made the news.
50

Hugo of Garven,

16/04/2008 16:56:19
"British Energy said it was a planned shut down . . "

How much warning did they give of this planned shut-down?
51

Colin, Glasgow,

16/04/2008 17:01:59
#41 Oracle, you need some perspective on the effects of Chernobyl radiation. The health risk from the radiation in the “no go” zone around Chernobyl was considerably less than the risk from inner city air pollution in London, or for that matter, Inverness.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/49

Added to this the chances of a Chernobyl-like release at a UK nuclear powerstation have been estimated at 1 in 2.4 billion per reactor year, whereas inner-city air pollution is a certainty.


Apart from Chernobyl no accident at any civil nuclear plant has ever resulted in a radiation death. In comparison, air pollution from fossil fuel kills millions per year. If you oppose nuclear, you are perpetuating the over-use of fossil fuel unecessarily .

52

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 17:40:31
Colin do you just make this stuff up?
53

An Beal Bacht,

16/04/2008 18:01:36
Chashma Nuclear Power Plant" closed due to nuclear radiation leakage


30/1/2008 chashma nuclear power plant is closed due to leakage and closed in Pakistan really tragic story government is not confirming the report yet it’s just told the media it’s closed for maintenance purpose but reality and fact is that’s it’s closed due to leakage of radiation all the road going toward chashma nuclear power plant and site is closed . army troops and police is deployed and check post is placed . Why government is not telling how many people are injured due to leakage and environmental disaster and human tragedy. Who will asses the damage bcoz government is reluctant to discuss this matter we want IAE COME forward and due the safety check quickly reliable information about the accident and resulting contamination was not available to affected people for about one week now following the accident.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/forum/2008/01/29/chashma_nuclear_power_plant_closed_due_to_nuclear_radiation_leakage
54

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 18:05:02
An Beal Bacht told you one of them would surface to show that chrenoybl was just a minor and insignificant accident.

Geomac, ok as long as the turbines are in excess of 5kW and that they are greid connected so that excess can be stored through back pump hydro. Those less than 5kW are being mis-sold and mis-placed.

Colin, the fact remains that nuclear is the most unreliable energy source in Scotland. It is not the great panacea, just a very expensive kettle. However there are some substantial gains to be had for certain politicians if they get new build, that's why they have come done in favour of it, not because of economics and in total disregard for the waste problem. Personnally i would rather stand in the waste stream of a wind turbine than down wind of chernobyl today.
55

Sam,

Washington DC 16/04/2008 18:08:06
I called the US Environmental Protection Agency for some facts comparing coal as a fuel with nuclear energy. This is what I found. A 1500 mega watt power plant fueled by coal consumes about 11,000 tons per day or just over 4,000,000 tons of coal per year. The same power plant if fueled by a nuclear reactor uses 632 cubic feet of uranium per year. That is about the volume of a 3m x 3m office cubicle 3m high. One must also ask, how many lives have been lost in the mining and refining of uranium in the last year as compared to lives lost in coal mine accidents? Death in the coal pit is so common as hardly to me news worthy. Death in the nuclear industry is virtually unknown except in creaky socialist countries that no longer exist.
56

glassbenmhor,

16/04/2008 19:16:31
Can anybody understand the pro-nucleates,

At present the national grid is receiving a solar panels worth of juice for the nuclear stations,utter codswallop from the usual suspects.
Brown hasn't a clue upon any matter let alone energy policy,the cost of these new stations DOSE NOT ADD UP,and before anyone remarks I've already had my own battles with the 'Tree hugging Brigade'.
The present station have in no way concluded their bill to the languishing taxpayer,god and Labour are away to start with the 'Second Phase'.
Brown and New Labour are on another secret course not one of practical needs but one of Global Posturing and covering the grossly mismanaged trail of British Nuclear woe.
Never mind I have absolutely no doubt at all that within 10 years Scotland will be Nuclear free weapons,stations et all.
57

glassbenmhor,

16/04/2008 19:21:49
A GREAT BIG VALVE ON 84% PRODUCTION AT ABOUT GRETNA

A GREAT BIG METRE ON THE POWER LINES AT ABOUT GRETNA

AND MAKE THE *ASTARDS PAY!!!!
58

glassbenmhor,

16/04/2008 19:23:41
OH AND I JUST FORGOT

A GREAT BIG SECOND METRE ON THE POWER LINES AT ABOUT BRUSSELS!!!
59

glassbenmhor,

16/04/2008 19:26:38
I'm so tired of the usual Unionist *ullshit on topics that they cannot separate within their heads from politics, just the same old DRIVEL
60

glassbenmhor,

16/04/2008 19:29:00
Brown to give massive grant to London University to out if colour spectrum of the Union Jack will be able to glow in the dark of a Nuclear Winter
61

glassbenmhor,

16/04/2008 19:31:25
41% eh,
41%,well what happened to the 23%,

And guess what,
It wasn't Nuclear Fission!
62

glassbenmhor,

16/04/2008 19:33:27
AYE,
CLEAR-OFF,
AND TAKE YOUR ROTTEN BREACHED SUBMARINES WITH YOU.
63

glassbenmhor,

16/04/2008 19:35:06
NEW LABOUR,

SO EXCITING,

YOU"LL GLOW IN THE DARK!
64

Klaus Dubois,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 19:37:39
Could anyone with a Gaelic handle please go back to stringing their fiddles by the light of a whale oil candle. You need a crash course in engineering & realism.
I fervently hope that big decisions like the future of power generation is kept at Westminster.
I'm certain Salmond would have DEMANDED nuclear power if Westminster had rejected it.
65

glassbenmhor,

16/04/2008 19:46:24
NEW LABOUR,

Simpltons,
Failed Primary Teachers,
Large people,
Large mouths,
Large bank accounts,
Cassocks in the cupboard
10p you never were supposed to work out,
Budget debaters,
The penniless Party for 150K earners,
Keeping the Red Flag flying in an urban cesspit near you,
Importers of Kilts from Pakistan

All in all a tough record to follow,
as the BBC would have it!
66

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 19:50:01
64 klaus, obvioulsy a man who can't see the wood from the trees or is it that you are still swinging from them. pog do bhun fhein.

the reality is that nuclear is unreliable, unaffordable, cummulatively more polluting than direct fossil generation, leaves a finacial and a waste legacy for future generations. Nice bit of engineering though, that's the problem it is an engineering solution to a specific problem and not a holistic rpoblem that looks at any externailites which arise from the solution. I don't care if Salmond says aye or no to nuclear i do not think that it is something we need to lumber future generations with.
67

Sam,

Washington DC 16/04/2008 21:09:37
#66, You are in error at least as far as your comment on nuclear energy polluting and nuclear energy waist. A 1500MW power plant uses 3,200 times more fuel buy weight that a nuclear powered plant of the came size. Compared to the environmental damage done by co2 emmissions, acid rain, slag, and acid run off from mines, nuclear energy is clearly the better alternative. The environmental devistation is separate and aside from the scores of coal miners killed in coal pit accidents every year. See #55 above.
68

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 21:27:03
67 no Sam you are very much in error. Uranium comes from a mine too, and then you have to refine it, these activities are more carbon intensice than mining fossil fuels. Once the uranium is refined and processed it has to then be transported to the power plant, another carbon intensive action since there is a lot more tonnage than the fuel. The energy created during it's time at the power station works in its favour but it is in a concrete tomb, another massive carbon sink. Then the waste has to be transferred to a holding point where it is managed until someone finds a suitable cavern to build, another massive carbon sink. Then there is the vitrification of the waste, then there is the decommisioning of the site.

Nuclear is in enrgy debt by the time you consider the whole life cycle and therefore generates more pollution than it displaces.

Only in the quertas perbus mind setof Gordon Brown and his pals in the nuke industry is this white elephant a solution. Poor fools that believe that clown or the one that went before him.
69

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 22:06:02
should have been quertas parabus.
70

Sam,

Washington DC 16/04/2008 22:29:36
#66, Comparing 4,000,000 tons of coal (and scores of dead miners) versus the supposed carbon emission of a concrete containment dome is absurd. How many trains are required to transport the daily demand of 11,000 tons of coal? How much fuel is needed to transport the coal to the power plant. If you care to make a logical argument, fair enough. But on the raw computations, coal looses against uranium by a wide margin indeed. Something like 50% of France's electric needs are met with nuclear power. Last I heard, the French care as much about their enviroment as do the Scots. Perhaps the green agit-prop actually has this one all wrong. Just ask any coal miner's widow.
71

Ivan 2,

16/04/2008 22:39:25
I posted this comment some time ago on a different site, however since this debate on Nuclear Generated Power is still (and probably always will be for the forseeable future)being debated by Governments and people alike. I wanted to take the opportunity of posting this slightly different comment again on the Scotsmans comment pages.
I am not well versed in the details of what raw materials are needed to achieve nuclear generation, how it is generated in the reactors or how long it takes for the waste material to eventually become safe etc,etc. No doubt their will be lots of reasons to say that I am also wrong with anything that I put forward in any argument against nuclear power. I will however like other posters, put forward my view on what I think about this very important subject. No matter what the previous stated views are on nuclear power or any future views that may be put. One thing that will not bring me round to nuclear power is the fact of “Chernobyl“. I was shocked at what I saw happened to the people in Chernobyl, the deaths and the deformities of the newborn, how it has affected the genetics of these people, how it has and will effect the land and people of Chernobyl for a very long time to come. Even the effect on people from radiation that was carried in the atmosphere to other parts of the land by the wind. What so very, very nearly happened at Long Island. If Long Island had suffered the same fate as Chernobyl. The death and suffering could have been terrible in these highly populated areas affected. Huge areas of the eastern seaboard of the USA would have been rendered uninhabitable for a very long time. To my knowledge there still does not exist, any definite plans to build any more nuclear reactors for energy generation within the USA.
No doubt I will be told that safeguards and the technology that exists, now makes it very unlikely, if not nearly impossible that, any such recurrence of Chern
72

Ivan 2,

16/04/2008 22:40:15
Chernobyl happening again, would be extremely unlikely. The fact remains, it did happen. I don't want my family, present or future to ever be in the position that the unfortunate people of Chernobyl found themselves in. If nothing else, it is our responsibility to really try, indeed, with all the technology that we now possess, to come up with alternative means of generating power that does not have these terrible effects on our society, our land or our environment. This is not only our country and ourselves we have to think about, but it is the country of our future generations to come, that we must also do our very best to try and safeguard against any possibility of being in the position of having to try and deal with the possibility of another horrendous nuclear accident happening again. We can have no influence on what the other countries of our planet do, but we can at least, try and make our own country safe from the dangers of nuclear power. I do not think we would be the first. Who knows, hopefully we would not be the last.
I would never concur with the comments of any political administration within Scotland that Nuclear Power is an absolute must. This is just my own personal opinion on a matter which I think is so very important to the present and future generations of our country. That I again, wanted to post this comment.

73

Colin, Glasgow,

16/04/2008 22:41:16
Saoghal Beag #68, you are on a hiding-to-nothing suggesting that nuclear is a high carbon emitter. Even the Sustainable Development Commission (who are essentially opposed to nuclear) acknowledge that it has low emissions over its lifecycle. Yes, some of the processes use fossil fuel and produce co2, but compared to amount of electricity produced, the emissions per kWh are as low as the best renewables.

Why else does the IPCC endorse nuclear power as an option for tackling climate change?

And it isn't just the UK that is considering nuclear - dozens of countries are planning to use nuclear power to combat climate change. Are you suggesting that they all have their sums wrong?
74

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 16/04/2008 22:41:27
Its both unreliable and ultimatley highly dangerous. If it "breaks down" then its a volatile situation that could go out of control just like Chernobyl.

Lets get more wimd turbines installed in every houslehold asap.
75

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 23:04:23
78 Colin you belive, tooth and nail, everything the IPPC says??

Nope there are a number of recent studies that show that nuclear is verymuch indeficit.

Let other countries make the mistake of more nuclear. You'd think they'd have learned. Finland is laready regretting it's current mistake.

Carbon counting is a political nonsense which i do not necessarily support as it is an over simplification of reality.

However nuclear remains unreliable, uneconomical and unethical and strong indications are that it requires more energy input throughout its lifec cycle than it generates. but romsfeld, bush, blair and brown say it's a good idea.
76

Papa? Nicole! Papa?,

16/04/2008 23:05:51
"If it "breaks down" then its a volatile situation that could go out of control just like Chernobyl."

Chernobyl wasn't a breakdown though, was it...

And as for the micro reactors in my back garden... There are small nuclear reactors designed for street / district use. It would be great to get one for the neighbourhood - the efficiency is apparently excellent, and the transmission losses are obviously negligible, unlike those for wind power.
77

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 23:14:46
papa nicole why are the transimission losses for nuclear negligible and those for local wind generation not?

good luck on canvasing your neighbours to site a small scall nuclear plant at the end of the street. I won't hold my breath.
78

Saoghal Beag,

16/04/2008 23:35:04
73 Colin about the only process in the life cycle of a nuclear plant that is not dependent on fossil fuels is the genreation. Mining metal ore is a dirty, messy, energy intesive operation leaving poluution in its wake. We are already reaching the forseeable end of minable supplies of uranium, unless the amercans start digging up the grand canyon. the cost of the fuel has rocketed, more so than fossil fuels, and still there are fools ready to commit the UK to this folly.

Lack of foresight, lack of vision, lack of ethics and lack of a desire for parity across generations are all aspects of the pro-nukes.
79

Sam,

Washington DC 16/04/2008 23:59:28
How many ways does must one state the fact: Each coal fired 1500MW power plant consumes 11,000 tons of coal each and every day. Every Day. A 1500MW nuclear powered generating plant depletes 632 cubic feet of uranium PER YEAR. Now, which problem seems more managable? Cleaning the air over the UK, cleaning up coal pit acid run off, disposing of the co2 footprint of 4,000,000 tons of coal...or disposing of 632 cubic feet of uranium? Goodness me, could it be nuclear energy as is used in 50% France's energy generation maybe worth consideration after all. But let's hear from the widow and orphans of the dead coal miners. Mayby they have something to say too.
80

An Beal Bacht,

17/04/2008 04:42:20
Chashma nuclear power plant restart


By Khurshid Anwar Khan


MIANWALI, Feb 3: The Chashma Nuclear Power Plant has resumed power generation after eight-day closure on account of annual maintenance and repairs, sources told Dawn on Sunday.

However, the Chashma Hydro Power Project, which was closed a few days ago owing to development of a major fault in its turbines, is yet to start functioning despite hectic efforts.

The nuclear plant contributes 300 megawatts (MW) of electricity to Wapda grid and the resumption of power generation is likely to help Wapda reduce power deficit and overcome loadshedding affecting the whole country.

“The nuclear power plant has started functioning and is working satisfactorily,” an official, who wished not to be named, told Dawn on Sunday.

The 184-MW hydro power project, which was closed a few days ago after a technical fault developed in three of its eight turbines each having capacity to generate 23 MW, is yet to start functioning.

Sources said that only these three turbines were working mainly because of acute shortage of water in Indus River and were producing 69 MW of power but these three turbines too collapsed suddenly after being struck by sediments on Jan 29.

Wapda general-manager (hydral) Athar Masood rushed from Lahore to Chashma and he also called engineers from Tarbela to repair these turbines. The authorities earlier announced restarting the plant from Jan 31 but it could not happen till the filing of this report.

Sources said the general manager himself was supervising the repair work going on round-the-clock.

When Dawn tried to contact the general-manager at his camp office in Chashma, he was not available.

http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/04/nat14.htm

81

An Beal Bacht,

17/04/2008 04:44:27
ISLAMABAD, Oct. 30 Kyodo Pakistan's second nuclear power plant is nearing completion and will go into trial operation in a few months, according to Pakatom, the newsletter of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC).


The 300-megawatt pressurized water reactor plant being constructed with Chinese assistance will become critical in April and start commercial production of electricity in October next year, the newsletter said.

Chinese commissioning personnel have arrived at the plant in Chashma in the Mianwali district, 180 kilometers southwest of Islamabad, and are busy in preparing plans for commissioning of the main system, it said.

Pakistan currently has a 137-megawatt nuclear power plant near Karachi which was commissioned in 1974 and is being refurbished and overhauled because of aging problems.

The Chashma nuclear power plant is the first nuclear power plant exported by China and has a bigger share of equipment made in China than the first indigenous Chinese reactor in operation at Qinshan.

For example, the pressurized vessel for the Qinshan reactor was imported but the one for the Chashma plant has been manufactured by a foundry in Shanghai.

The PAEC chairman was quoted by the newsletter as saying that Pakistani engineers and technicians had taken part in all stages of designing, installation and erection of equipment for the new power plant.

PAEC has already completed Pakistan's first indigenous 50-megawatt reactor at Khushab in central Punjab and is planning a string of other reactors, the newsletter said.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDP/is_/ai_53440334