How safe is European nuclear power?

[PlanetZog]

No more vunerable than anyother type Japan is an isolated incident that for the best part has been brought under control if it had been another kind of power plant oil or gas for example it could of blown up and caused more deaths, more people die every year due to the coal industry than where ever killed by nuclear power in its history nuclear is safer and quiet frankly most of the globe have no choice but to use it now and in the future..

Nuclear plants and gas/oil/coal plants are all just thermal plants. They basically just heat water to produce steam and drive a turbine. There is absolutely nothing in a gas or oil plant that would explode.

Gas turbine combined cycle plants, like those used in Ireland, just basically just burn the gas in what is just an oversized aircraft engine to generate some electricity, then exhaust is then used to heat a traditional thermal power plant to boil steam.

Again, there is nothing dangerous or particularly explosive in these. A major gas leak would just be a major gas leak.

With a gas plant, they're also usually using network-supplied natural gas, so there are no explosive storage tanks on site. Fuel oils used in power plants simply are not explosive at all and have to be sprayed in a fine mist to ignite. You could nearly use fuel oil to extinguish a fire it's so lacking in flammability under normal circumstances. Coal and biomass are only dangerous if they fall on you in the same way that a pile of bricks is dangerous. They're pretty inert otherwise!

The explosion at Fukushima was caused by the nuclear reactor producing hydrogen either due to super-heating water or, more likely, due to a reaction between the zirconium alloy tubes that contain the fuel pellets (i.e. the fuel rods) and oxygen. Basically, the alloy oxidised rapidly (rusts/burns) producing large quantities of highly explosive hydrogen. This became trapped in the reactor building and something, e.g. a switch or a motor starting, ignited it and it exploded.

Apart from that nasty side effect of the design of these plants, they also contain and produce highly toxic and radioactive materials. Normal power plants do not contain anything particularly dangerous at all. There's nothing more in your local power ESB power plant than you'd find in your own boiler-house at home, other than that they're a much bigger scale.

Gas, oil or any fossil fuel or biomass renewable burning power stations simply are not as dangerous as nuclear if something goes wrong. It's totally misleading to say that they are.

[GreenIsGood]

Gas, oil or any fossil fuel or biomass renewable burning power stations simply are not as dangerous as nuclear if something goes wrong. It's totally misleading to say that they are.

Hydro has by far the worst safety record of any type of power plant.

A dam burst is an explosive event in which a massive amount of energy in released. Banqiao dam failure killed tens of thousands in the 1970s, for example.

Gimme a nuclear plant over a hydro plant in an earthquake zone any day of the week, thank you very much.

Hydro Power? Nein Danke!

[wilting]

Nuclear power is safest way to make electricity, according to study - The Washington Post

[jcdf]

Somebody targeted Irans Nuclear sites with a worm(Stuxnet)
It's being speculated that Israel and/or USA where behind it

Now whats to stop Europe's enemy doing the same to europes sites

U.S. behind Stuxnet worm: computer expert
"Russia's envoy to NATO in January said Stuxnet caused centrifuges producing enriched uranium at the Bushehr plant to spin out of control, which could have sparked a new "Chornobyl tragedy," the 1986 nuclear meltdown in Ukraine.
"The operators saw on their screens that the centrifuges were working normally when in fact they were out of control," Dmitry Rogozin told reporters after meeting with ambassadors from the 28-nation Western alliance.
"It's definitely hard-core sabotage," Langner said of Stuxnet. "It's like in the movies where during a heist the security camera is running pre-recorded video showing nothing is wrong."
A terrifying aspect of Stuxnet, according to Langner, is that it is a generic attack that would work well in factories, power plants, or other operations plentiful in the United States. "It's a cyber weapon of mass destruction," he said. "We'd better start preparing right now.""

The Stuxnet worn was most likely designed by the USA and or Israel to damage Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons.

What is to stop Europe's enemy from doing the same to it? I assume you are talking about Iran! The answer is, beside currently lacking the capability to do so, nothing other than the very severe consequences that will inevitably come from Europe in response.

One way to prepare for such an incident would be to remove the use of programmable computers used for driving automated equipment in critical areas. Stop interconnecting separate machines to each other and to the internet, would be another way.

[Speedfreak]

I feel the primary lesson of Fukashima will be that all of the hysteria about the dangers of nuclear power is entirely overblown.

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all | George Monbiot

[Éireann go Brách]

Nuclear is not dangerous.

If someone were to blow up Intel or Analog devices, official environmental impact studies show that it would render about 30% of Ireland uninhabitable for generations.

That is pure chemical fallout - not a radioactive isotope in sight. Yet we are worried about imaginary nuclear dangers.

Indeed, the biggest environmental fallout from the Japanese Tsunami is the result of massive chemical plants having been destroyed and washed into the soil and ground water. This is far, far more serious than the nuclear problem that the media is focusing on.

There will be large increases in resulting cancers and still births in the effected region, which will be undoubtedly be incorrectly blamed on the nuclear accident.

Chemical plants and their threat and saftey is a topic for another thread IMO

[Éireann go Brách]

The Stuxnet worn was most likely designed by the USA and or Israel to damage Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons.

What is to stop Europe's enemy from doing the same to it? I assume you are talking about Iran! The answer is, beside currently lacking the capability to do so, nothing other than the very severe consequences that will inevitably come from Europe in response.

One way to prepare for such an incident would be to remove the use of programmable computers used for driving automated equipment in critical areas. Stop interconnecting separate machines to each other and to the internet, would be another way.

It's not beyond the possibilty that someone can write a virus that causes a plant to meltdown and to hide its origin.
Iran, North korea, a non-state actor, mentally ill employee etc.


However planted stuxnet did it thru a UPC connection not the net
So they had a spy inside or else where able to contaminate UPC devices in Iran

The fact remains someone using a virus attacked and damaged a nuclear plant in Iran a shocking incident. It can be done and is a serious threat to these sites.

==========================


I often wonder how easy it would be if a enginneer in these plants
went loco or was radlicised to sabotage the plant and cause a meltdown.

[jcdf]

It's not beyond the possibilty that someone can write a virus that causes a plant to meltdown and to hide its origin.
Iran, North korea, a non-state actor, mentally ill employee etc.


However planted stuxnet did it thru a UPC connection not the net
So they had a spy inside or else where able to contaminate UPC devices in Iran

The fact remains someone using a virus attacked and damaged a nuclear plant in Iran a shocking incident. It can be done and is a serious threat to these sites.

==========================


I often wonder how easy it would be if a enginneer in these plants
went loco or was radlicised to sabotage the plant and cause a meltdown.

If the saboteurs have somebody working in the plant then adding additional security to the equipment becomes pointless. The technicians have to be able to interface with the equipment to do their job. If somebody with the resources and determination to destroy something wants to do so then they will inevitably find a way. That should not stop us from pursuing beneficial activities out of fear of potential calamities. Successful civilisations accept risks for possible rewards.

[SirCharles]

Nothing can withstand the worst-case scenerio. If the the worst-case scenerio happened, radioactive isotopes would be the least of your worries.

And what would be the first of your worries then?

A few points :
None of the Fukishima Daiichi reactors are in meltdown!
None of the staff will die prematurely from radiation poisoning!
This is far from being another Chernobyl.
Nuclear energy is dangerous. So is flying on holiday. Playing rugby. Rock-climbing and having unprotected sex with someone you have just met in a nightclub.

Oh. Another prediction - or let's say, "call" - from Dr. Cry Guy. Remember this?

I am going to make a call on this and I hope I am right
There will not be a meltdown in any of these plants.
At least not in the "China Syndrome" sense.
Environmental damage will turn out to be quite limited in my opinion,
and in any case far less than that caused by the burning oil refinery.
These three plants will largely be written off and the world will move on.
Expect a renewed interest in thorium fuelled plants [particularly the LFTR model] because they work at normal atmospheric pressures and do not need all these high pressure pumps and coolant injection equipment.
They have still got some wrinkles to be ironed out but their problems with corrosion are probably more manageable and acceptable to the public than those that haunt pressurised water reactors.

And how proud you are...

Yup!
I'm quite proud of that call really.
A lot nearer to the truth than some of the more hysterical loons, [yourself included], have been predicting.

All to be seen here => http://www.politics.ie/environment/1...ond-plant.html

The Stuxnet worn was most likely designed by the USA and or Israel to damage Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons.

What is to stop Europe's enemy from doing the same to it? I assume you are talking about Iran! The answer is, beside currently lacking the capability to do so, nothing other than the very severe consequences that will inevitably come from Europe in response.

One way to prepare for such an incident would be to remove the use of programmable computers used for driving automated equipment in critical areas. Stop interconnecting separate machines to each other and to the internet, would be another way.

... and crack the atoms with a stone ...

I feel the primary lesson of Fukashima will be that all of the hysteria about the dangers of nuclear power is entirely overblown.

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all | George Monbiot

My answer to that

[SirCharles]

Nuclear Power is just a subsidy racket, that some people latch on to because "dem hippies don't like it so I'll back it". Its a big business ticket in receipt of big tax payer funds. Scam.

You got it in one. Let's listen to Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Price winning economist. Remarkable, the very last sentence in this interview.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOiCTWdYuQ]YouTube - Democracy Now, 7 April 2011, interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Price Winning Economist, about nuclear power[/ame]

Nuclear is many times as expensive as wind plus PHES (Pumped Hydro Electrical Storage) *

=> also With Nuclear Power, "No Acts of God Can Be Permitted"