Share
Jason Ford
News editor
Nuclear future: a case for engagement
I’m sure there are a few of you out there who forgo returning home straight after work, preferring instead to head straight to a welcoming pub.
I put myself in this category at least twice a week and every now and again I’ll seek opinions from my acquaintances on issues of national importance that you - engineers - are expected to deliver.
A recent topic of debate revolved around the UK’s energy mix, a discussion that my drinking buddies might as well have entitled: why Britain should eschew nuclear.
All degree-educated and in their thirties, they are firmly of the opinion that nuclear is not a risk worth taking because potentially catastrophic accidents could leave an indelible mark on the world.
Maybe they have a point? After all, Ukraine still lives with the legacy of the Chernobyl accident of 1986 (its confinement is still being built at a cost of £600m and is due for completion in 2016) and the events at Fukushima in March 2011 saw Germany turn its back on nuclear entirely.
It would appear that my acquaintances are not alone.
Three months after the Fukushima incident Ipsos Mori published details of global research that found 62 per cent of those polled opposed the use of nuclear power and that 26 per cent of them had been influenced by events in Japan.
However, back in January 2012 the mood in the UK appeared to have improved in favour of nuclear with the same research company finding 50 per cent of those surveyed saying they supported new nuclear plants replacing those scheduled to be shut down. Similarly, overall favourability towards the nuclear energy industry stood at 40 per cent and unfavourable opinion stood at 19 per cent.
In isolation Fukushima - plus Chernobyl, the partial melt-down at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Windscale fire in 1957 - are enough to turn most rational people anti-nuclear.
However, the world hasn’t stopped storing oil because of Buncefield and people still travel by air and drive cars despite the risk of accidents.
Its also worth noting that Europe, post-Chernobyl, is a different place entirely with engineers from western and eastern Europe plants engaged in reciprocal exchanges.
The World Nuclear Association notes that since 1989 over 50 twinning arrangements between plants in the East and West have been put in place and many other international programmes were initiated. Furthermore, Western aid totalling almost $1bn has been made available for over 700 safety-related projects in former Eastern Bloc countries.
I wouldn’t describe as an evangelist for nuclear but I found myself sticking up for the industry simply because I worked at a nuclear power station in the 1990s.
Entering my time there with the same fears as the dipso dandies of my acquaintance, I soon realised that the chances of ‘potentially catastrophic accidents’ were pretty slim, thanks almost entirely to the dedication of engineers, technicians and clerical staff who worked there.
My barroom buddies were interested to hear that the safety culture was - and likely still is - all pervasive and transparent, with event reporting encouraged and a dedicated office policing modifications being two of many measures taken to ensure safety at all times.
There’ve been occasions when The Engineer has criticised the nuclear industry for failing to engage with the public but it seems like the shoe is now on the other foot with EDF launching a national initiative to improve public accessibility at all eight of its nuclear power stations in the UK.
This might be of interest to one of my ale loving friends who regularly takes his family to Suffolk, home of Sizewell B and proposed C station.
EDF is constructing a temporary visitors centre there with plans to expand it if Sizewell C goes ahead.
For the first time in many years, visitors will be able to pre-book tours of the site, something my nuclear averse friend might like to get involved with. Between 7,500 and 10,000 visitors are expected each year so he might like to join the queue soon.
Similarly, formal public consultation of EDF’s application for Hinkley Point C in Somerset concluded last week and the same process is now in place for Sizewell C.
Planning laws have changed and nuclear new build won’t be held up by public inquiry, but that does not mean that concerns from the public will go unheard.
EDF say that during their formal consultation stages, they ‘directly engaged with around 6,500 consultees, held 34 exhibitions, attended dozens of meetings with local authorities and other groups, and attracted 109,000 unique visitors to its project website.’
As well as local engagement the company is listening to concerns from the wider public and this morning an EDF spokesman told me that a dedicated website has been set up for this very purpose.
This is excellent news. After all, I’m sure EDF and suchlike are in a much better position to engage with the public than a former contract worker who likes the odd bevy after work. As for my acquaintances, it gives them a chance to stop talking as if the world were flat and actually get out there to see what’s happening.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Readers' comments (55)
MIKE EGGLETON OBE | 28 Sep 2012 2:50 pm
After 55years of planning, designing ,operating and decommisioning NUCLEAR STATIONS I am satisfied that original assessments of risk and economics have been verified and the lights kept on in many cases because of our our vision of a nuclear energy base.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
sam | 28 Sep 2012 2:54 pm
I strongly agree. Fatal disasters in the fossil fuel industry barely make news, how many people know of Reynosa gas plant fire, Amuay refinery fire, or Xiaojiawan coal explosion. And that's just in the past few months.
If someone spills their coffee in a nuclear plant its headline news, and people call for all nuclear to be shut down.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Trevor Best | 28 Sep 2012 3:03 pm
How are we going to charge our brand new I5 Phones when the lights go out!! By the time the first new nuclear station is built there will be many more electronic gadgets and play thing essential gizmos available all requiring electricity in some form or another. Wind power is not enough and wave power is not yet producing adequate kilowatts and fossil fuels are depleting at a fast rate so what can we do?? There will be contaminated waste to dispose of and control but will the price be worth it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ed Burrows | 28 Sep 2012 3:05 pm
The US, India and China are looking at thorium as a safer alternative to uranium (and thorium doesn't lend itself to weapon-grade -- plutonium -- by-product). Do a Google search, then get Richard Martin's book 'Super Fuel'. Then start a campaign to get rid of those windmills.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mick | 28 Sep 2012 3:30 pm
Not this old chestnut again , one would think that the engineer had some kind of axe to grind, remember the adage , there's lies, dammed lies and then there's statistics. and it took the japanese three months to tell the truth, and i am sure you i don't need to tell you about statistics .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rosie | 28 Sep 2012 3:52 pm
I agree that nuclear is currently the only viable way to feed our ever increasing electrcity habit. I also think that four major accidents in 55 years is not a bad record, although I'm surprised that Chernobyl containment is still under construction.
I've been thinking about the legacy (the Olympics has much for which to answer!) of nucear power...surely our combined brain power could find a way to extract [peaceful] use from the waste? Even low grade heat can be useful locally.
Can anyone tell me how many magnitude 7.1 earthquakes occur in Germany? Are there other factors that have informed their totally eshewing of nuclear power?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Philip Baker | 28 Sep 2012 4:34 pm
Following the 9/11 incident, the general public access to UK Power stations was curtailed.
Which is a shame, because many of us, in the 70's and 80's enjoyed those visits, and developed our own opinions rather that having to rely the many biased opinions that exist today because of the lack of first hand experiences are curtailed.
The Western Europe, Nuclear experience is excellent when compared to fatal air crashes or death from flue ...
So please, lets stop painting the blackest of pictures on the 4 or 5 extreme failures over the last 60 years, ALL of which could have been prevented, had engineering been put before economics ....
Which today is the greater risk in the solution of everyday problems .........
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alex Kenworthy | 28 Sep 2012 4:39 pm
Before anyone starts throwing around that old argument that Nuclear is expensive may I suggest people read:
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
This clearly demonstrates that Nuclear is the way to go in terms of cost.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robert Freer | 28 Sep 2012 6:06 pm
The simplest way to demonstrate that we need nuclear power stations would be to turn them all off for a day. The country would come to a stand still. The future is nuclear power or candles. I prefer nuclear.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Larry Wiley | 28 Sep 2012 9:05 pm
Why is that the people with the narrowest views are the loudest and most heard on any subject. These kinds of people do not allow for any kind of technology improvements in their mind set. It is human nature for people to only remember their failures and very very few of the their successes. So until those who are in decision making positions learn to listen to the knowledgeable people instead of the loudest voices or are replaced by people who are knowledgeable themselves the world will be dependent on a diminishing supply of fossil and biological fuels.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rajagopalan Venkataraman | 29 Sep 2012 0:55 am
In India we have several nuclear plants working over a decade. The burst of opposition for Kudangulam Nuclear project is based on lack of detailed horizontal communication with the lower strata of the society who are ill informed and offered explanations by non knowledgable ministers and officials. Your article prompts me to do something on your line in India. I am an instrumentation person with 40 years of experience .I plan to initiate immediately
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mike blamey | 29 Sep 2012 10:00 am
It was always the link in the public mind -ably fueled by the meja- between 'bombs' and peaceful uses of nuclear created energy that was the primary stumbling block.
Three Mile Island was the result of a mis-fit of 'ordinary' and 'instrument quality compressed air couplings: as the man siad 'One cannot legislate against stupidity'?
All this 'grief' will continue until the lights start to go out.
Best
M
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Galathumpian | 29 Sep 2012 10:09 am
"
Not this old chestnut again , one would think that the engineer had some kind of axe to grind"
Hear, hear. The article and most of the comments are simply PR. The statement that it is the only way forward is ridiculous. What about coal?
Most of the accidents in the coal mining industry occur in China which can not be regarded as typical.
In spite of all the improvements in safety and increasingin PR by interested parties, the risks remain.
Just because wave energy has not yet been developed is no reason to reject it. There is enough available to satisfy demands.
I was a member of a Nuclear Club some time ago so am fully aware of the power of vested interest.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29 Sep 2012 10:16 am
Sadly the World will not fully wake up to the need for nuclear power until the lihghts start to go out. Anyone who supports the reduction of CO2 must support nuclear. A wind power station is as expensive to build per Kw as a similar sized nuclear station and cannot provide a guaranteed supply of power. The money being poured into wind power should be fully redirected now to the construction of nuclear stations.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave | 29 Sep 2012 5:45 pm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html.
The subsequent western hysterical overreaction was to be expected. We really do need to get at the juveniles in Parliament and now in Government and get them to modify their weltshaung before the lights go out for ever.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 Oct 2012 11:51 am
Just one noteable comment copied from http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/:
Time to get real = construction costs + production costs + decommissioning + long-term waste storage costs (for how many 1000s of years) – lets stop this nonsense now, we cannot discount this into the future for our children to inherit.
Saying sorry just doesn’t cut it.
Totally agreed!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 1 Oct 2012 2:51 pm
I visited Sizewell 'B' many years ago and was impressed by the QA procedures in place. Notably, it's never had an 'event' that I know of (and I've still got most of my hair!). The visitor room was, if I recall, directly above the reactor and the counters showed many times less radiation in there than from naturally occurring Cornish granite!
Simple considerations show that the UK must have Nuclear if it is to remain a viable country. There is not enough useable energy in wind (Indeed, all current and future wind farms should be scrapped as 'unfit for purpose'). Tidal, which should be pursued instead of wind, Coal and other fossil and renewable type fuels should be utilised in a unified energy policy until either energy usage reduces to levels manageable by 'renewables', or Fusion finally comes of age.
Whichever mix is used, the aim should be for the soonest implementation of 100% of UK power needs produced in the UK from UK produced fuels.
This should not be subject to the simplistic and changeable short termism of politicians (am I being too polite here?) but via an independent panel of Engineers set up as e,g. 'UK Energy Trust'. Such engineers to be seconded from industry on a maximum and fixed 3-year contract employing specialists as required.
As for the Nuclear gainsayers, 20 odd miles away the French use nuclear to sell us about 20% of our consumption of electricity at peak demand! I wonder if Germany does the same. Irony or Hypocrisy... you decide.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Fulcher | 1 Oct 2012 7:52 pm
Well, Ed Burrows, you are in a minority there, ref Thorium. I'm afraid that it most certainly does lend itself to bomb making in a big way, having U233 as one of its end products. Plus it needs such as Plutonium to convert it into a fissile material, which would otherwise be used in a fast breeder for instance, so you cannot have it both ways. Plus, it seems, the two are best kept a long way apart.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian Storey | 2 Oct 2012 2:29 pm
I visited Sellafield as a student and was impressed with the overall cleanliness, efficiency and attitude of the plant and its operators. I have always supported nuclear power and that has not changed - it needs to be in the mix with all other options
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris Finn (retd Fuel tecnnologist) | 2 Oct 2012 6:07 pm
I could say a lot, but most has been said above.
Remember that at Fukushima there were NO fatalities of a nuclear kind, while COUNTLESS THOUSANDS were killed by the tsunami.
The reactor was eventually shut down safely, though this was made harder by the unexpected loss of auxiliary power generators.
Lessons have been learned from this.
The UK does not suffer from tsunamis, and our reactors are further from the sea or higher up.
The massive death toll (and 'life-changing injury' count) in the coal industry would probably surprise many non-technical readers.
I'm strongly with the nuclear supporters - 'candle-light' dinners are for wedding anniversaries, not for every night . . .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment